Nikon 24-70mm - how much different to other zooms?

[nsfbr]

<p>Paul B: "low DOF at F2,8"</p>

<p>Huh?</p>

[ty_mickan]

<p>i would say that the difference between this lens and what you currently have would be negligable. if you really want quality, then primes are the answer.</p>

[james_meketa]

<p>I agree completely with <a href="/photodb/user?user_id=499258">Jose Angel</a>. I own lots of Nikon lenses, and the 24-70 is one of the few that I would never trade. It is a fantastic, pro-grade walk around and PJ lens. Its sharpness and contrast are matched only by the 70-200, and then only when the tele is mounted on a DX body.</p>

[walterh]

<p>I am with Joel, what exactly do you not like about the DOF at f2.8?<br>

You are not saying that other lenses have different DOF at the same aperture and focal length?<br>

But if you compare DOF at a usable f2.8 from this pro lens with a DOF at f8 you need to use with a consumer lens you are aware that one can actually use f8 with a pro zoom as well :-)<br>

So where is the "con" ?</p>

<p> </p>

[mark liddell]

<p>I really need a lens in this range for weddings but the price tag is beyond horrific for the 24-70 and even the 28-70 is crazy money. If I'm spending close to this much I would want to be able to do my own tests with a number of copies.<br>

For the wedding guys, how much do you use the wide end and it what situations? I'm not a wide angle fan at the best of times so I'll save the money and go for a 35-70 and keep my 28mm ais lens in case I get caught short in a big group shot.</p>

[paul_b.1]

Ups..., I mean : very shallow DOF at F8 and above..., but of course, compared with my previous Canon 24-70/2,8. It's just a limitation that you must be aware of, sometimes , but in most cases an advantage.

 

Mark, I use the wide end quite offen, in small places, in lage churches (when I want to illustrate the ambient) or when I want to take interesting perspective pictures :<div></div>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>I think the 24-70 is better than any of the other zooms that I've used from Nikon (maybe 15 of them including five other f/2.8 zooms). In some situations it's better than any of the primes I've used (this includes many Nikkor and Zeiss primes). At a few settings it's a bit worse than the best prime. It's nearly impossible to get it to ghost. Colours are vivid, images are clean. Focuses fast, allows manual focus override. It is wide enough that on FX I almost never need a wider angle. At the tele end I would prefer something longer but realize that this is Nikon's widest range f/2.8 constant standard zoom and all wide-to-tele zoom Nikkors that go to 105 or beyond are pretty soft at that setting. So it's pretty much the state of the art in zooms of its type. It's expensive, heavy, and big. What did you expect, a free lunch?</p>

<p>For weddings I think the range is great though a 28-105 would be better for me. I think 24mm can give a nice sense of being very close to the people and showing the couple walking through the guests etc. However, I often need lenses faster than f/2.8 and also the 105mm focal length. At well lit weddings the 24-70 could be the only lens needed. I also often use it for landscapes and I've come to think that it's performance is very good there also. The images are clean of artifacts such as CA and the FX image area is very evenly rendered. There are a few primes that are better in some situations such as in very low light obviously the 50/1.4 AF-S is. Sometimes you need a PC lens, other times macro. The 24-70 can't fill these functions. However, if you need a zoom from wide to short tele and at least sometimes need a moderately fast aperture, the 24-70 is as good as they get and quite a bit better than most.</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>Adding to my previous post. I'm not really happy with the 24-70 for portraits (i.e. wedding formals). I am not sure what is wrong - perhaps I am just used to the 50/1.8 and 85/1.4 that give a crisper image in these situations, or it could just be something about the "look" of the image. I know this is a very unscientific commentary ... but it is a good idea to have a 50, and 85 or 105 for portraits and use the 24-70 for the wide end and also when shooting rapidly changing situations. In landscapes I think the 24-70's best area is also the wide end (just be sure to have a foreground interest to focus on so that you can avoid focusing to infinity) whereas at the long end I think e.g. a 50mm f/1.8 gives a bit contrastier image (but still the 24-70 is more than adequate; these are really fine points). Discussing "issues" with the 24-70 is quite a popular activity on the net - I think if the price were more moderate people would not bring these up. By comparison, the f/3.5-4.5 and slower zooms are way worse in overall performance and especially lack the ability to give a sharp, CA free image at f/2.8 (well, of course) and f/4 which the 24-70 has little difficulty in especially at the wide end.</p>

[paul_b.1]

Beeing an "old school" photographer, I allways have a second camera with me (D300), equipped with an 85mm . The 125mm give me another perspective and different looking pictures . But most inportant, a very light setup , wich give me high quality portraits.

[ssnkssnk_ssnk]

<p>I have used Nikon 24-85 f/2.8-4, Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 and now Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8<br>

I have also used Canon 5D + 24-70 f/2.8L, Canon 5D with 24-105 f/4L</p>

<p>The combination Nikon D700 + Nikon 24-70 f/2.8 blows all other lenses away with its focus accuracy, sharpness, contrast, colors. In other words, it is the best lens I have ever used in that zoom range.<br>

It is expensive because of a reason. You get what you pay for.</p>

[matt_smith24]

<p>"You likely will not see much if any improvement in IQ over your current lenses."'<br>

With all due respect, you've obviously not tried the 24-70 f/2.8 or had a bad copy if you did. This lens on my D3 or D700 absolutely blows away any other Nikon zoom and most primes I've ever used. The sharpness is superlative - in a class of it's own, only matched by the Nikon 17-24 on FX and 70-200 on DX. A truely stunning lens.</p>

[pierre_claquin1]

<p>How does the lens compare optically with the 28-70/2.8? Does it justify a change?</p>