D300 and 24-70 F2.8 ruminations

[wmk]

<p>A few months ago I bought a Nikon 24-70 F2.8 to use with my D200 and then a few months later I bought a lightly used D300 as my main camera (and relegated the D200 to backup duty). Here are my random impressions.<br /><br />Nikon 24-70 F2.8 Lens<br /><br />This lens is big, it's heavy and its the photographic equivalent of a bazooka . I ended up getting battery grips for the D200 and D300 to balance the bodies when using it. I agonized over getting this of the 17-55 f2.8 DX but went with the 24-70 because I see an FX camera in my future (maybe the D700 successor). I occasionally miss the 18-24 range, but I have a Tokina 12-24 and still have the 18-70 kit lens that came with my D70 ages ago. This lens is sharp, sharp, sharp and fast focusing. I shot a belly dancing festival in poor lighting with this lens and the D300 and never missed a step. Some examples of the len's sharpness.<br /><br />One of our cats<br />http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5087/5286469635_26146a24c6_b.jpg<br /><br />100% crop of image above with no sharpening other than camera default<br />http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/12168153-lg.jpg<br /><br />I do have a couple of AF primes (35 f1.8 and 50 f1.8) and I cannot tell whether they are sharper than this lens.<br /><br />So overall, extremely happy with this lens, wish it was lighter though. I still go hiking with the 18-70 rather than this for landscapes because at very small apertures (useful for landscape), I don't see any appreciable difference between this lens and the 18-70 Nikon kit lens. This lens excels in event, sports (if you are close) and people photography, which was my intended use for it.<br /><br /><br />D300<br /><br />I got this for the better high iso performance over the D200. I didn't realize how much better/faster the AF was. The extra focusing points (especially the 15 with cross type sensors) make a huge difference. I like the fact that it handles a lot like the D200. I rarely use the Live View. With the D200, anything over ISO 800 was pretty noisy. With the D300, I can use ISO 1600 and even ISO 2500 when needed.<br>

I haven't had to use the lens auto-focus fine tune for any of my lenses, though I swear the 24-70 is sharper on the D300 than it was on the D200 (I suspect the D200 had a very minor amount of back-focus that was only visible with lenses of F2.8 or larger.<br>

<br /><br />iso 2500 test image<br /><br />http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1107/5115565833_b762cd2887_b.jpg<br /><br />Bike Race Photo (D300 + 24-70 F2.8)<br />http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4149/5027774697_09dda8a487_b.jpg</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>william, thanks for sharing! i like random ruminations on gear...</p>

<p>i think 24-70 makes a lot more sense than 17-55 for a lot of people. on DX, you do need something else to cover the wide range, but it's just a better overall lens and can justify its exorbitant price, whereas the 17-55 is probably about $400 more than it should be, considering that it has strong 3rd-party competition and no VR. just in case Nikon's reading this, i don't think any DX-only lens should be more than $1000, and the size of the 17-55 kind of undermines the purpose of the smaller APS-C bodies. Did it really have to be so big? i realize Nikon didnt have any FX bodies when it came out, but c'mon now, it's like three times the size of the tamron 17-50, which is just as good optically.</p>

<p>the 24-70 is indeed a bazooka, but it's also a lens i fully expect to get years, maybe even decades, of use from and no worries about upgrading to FX (which i already did). so far, haven't used it on my DX bodies, but i used to shoot concerts with a tamron 28-75 on DX, which i found to be a good range for that application, although it's not wide enough for walkarounds. on a D3s, the 24-70's focus speed is unbelievably quick, basically instantaneous. the tamron is good optically, but softer at 2.8 and a LOT slower in terms of AF. so it really outshines the competition, whereas the 17-55 has a more marginal price/performance ratio.</p>

<p> </p>

[tpernal]

<p>Sorry to change the subject a bit... I also have a 24-70 2.8 and a D300. I had the 17-55 which is amazing within its range, but for shooting people shots, it does not have enough reach.<br>

I have the Nikon f4 12-24 which I sold a Sigma 10-20 to purchase, and I'm glad I did. I don't think I'll go 3rd party anymore.<br>

My question is about concert photography. Since cameras are not allowed in almost every venue am I to assume the posters that refer to concert photography have a) photo access, or b) hide their cameras under a large hat???</p>

[wmk]

<p>Eric,<br>

Good points. I actually ordered the 17-55 and then returned it and got the 24-70. At the time, the difference between the 2 was less than $150. The 17-55 actually seemed wider than the 24-70 (though the 24-70 is longer and definitely heavier).<br>

Tom,<br>

I'd say definitely concerts that have photo access or a friend's concert. There is no way you could hide a D200/D300 and 24-70 or 70-200 under a hat, even if said hat belonged to Gandalf.</p>

 

[nsfbr]

<p>William, your EXIF data says that the bike race photo was shot with the D200.</p>

<p>In any case, I like the shot and am envious of the lens - I've debated buying that lens for nearly as long as I've owned my D300. </p>

[wmk]

<p>Hi Joel,</p>

<p>Doh!, Thanks for catching that. Yes. I was testing the 24-70 and hadn't yet gotten the D300.<br>

The lens was great on the D200, it positively shines on the D300. This is my first pro-level zoom lens and the focus speed and sharpness is astounding.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p><em>Since cameras are not allowed in almost every venue am I to assume the posters that refer to concert photography have a) photo access, or b) hide their cameras under a large hat???</em></p>

<p>no hats. but sometimes you'd be surprised at how easy access is to arrange. throw the promoter or venue some shots, or blog about them. once you're good, you're good in the future.</p>

<div></div>

[hans_janssen]

<p>Buy a used Tamron 28-75 2.8 for hiking, nearly as good as the 24-70 and a lot lighter and smaller, when you take one with a screwdriver AF it is nearly AFs fast on a D300.</p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<p>Personally, I would not want a 24-xx lens for DX - the break at 24mm didn't work well for me and is the main reason, I now have a 11-16/2.8 and a 17-55/2.8. I am tempted though to exchange the 17-55 for a 16-35/4 VR - the long end is too short in either case and the gap to 85 isn't significantly larger for the latter - I am either towards the shorter end (below 35) or need something longer than 55 anyway.</p>

[bikealps]

<p>William -- great bike racing shots! and I wanted to pitch in my $0.02 on the 24-70. I just got one 2 weeks ago.<br />A few thoughts:</p>

<ul>

<li>size</li>

<li>build quality</li>

<li>image quality</li>

<li>usability</li>

<li>focal length with DX</li>

<li>price</li>

</ul>

<p><strong>Size</strong><br />Before I bought it, I made a spreadsheet comparing its size and weight to other lenses I have and use. It's smaller than the 70-200 f2.8 VR2 and larger than the 12-24 f4. I'm not claiming it is bigger than the spec, but it sure feels and looks bigger than I expected. That, plus that gargantuan hood. The hood is actually bigger than the 70-200 VR2 hood!!! This thing is a beast!<br /><br /><strong>Build Quality</strong><br />Unquestionably pro quality. Only thing I don't like is that the lens extends at 24mm and 70mm unlike my 70-200 which is IF. This reminds me of the less expensive 18-55 kit lens, but really isn't a problem.<br /><br /><strong>Image Quality</strong><br />I am not a pixel peeper and I have not yet given it any challenging shots where I can evaluate image quality. It seems quite sharp. Many of my shots in the past two weeks are available light at 800-3200 ISO so not all are razor sharp. It does seems good, though.<br /><br />VIrtually all the images I have taken have very nice bokeh. A few have distracting spots in the backgrounds from bright lights, but I don't think any other lens would have done better. I do not have an A vs. B comparison, but it seems at least as good as other lenses I have tried (50 f1.8, 28 f2.8, 18-105 kit) and probably much better.<br /><br /><strong>Usability</strong><br />As people have commented, this is big and heavy. It is an absolute joy to use. Having a fast lens that is also a zoom makes it so much easier to work, especially in tricky situations and with people where you must work fast. It is a joy to use.<br /><br />Probably the biggest issue with usability is people's reaction to this lens. It screams "pro" which isn't always what you want. If you are outdoors, you are not so close to a subject and your alternative lenses are still fairly big so the 70-200 f2.8 isn't that big a deal. Indoors, when you shove the 24-70 f2.8 bazooka up someone's nose, they definitely notice it and stiffen up. The alternative lenses are small (50 f1.8 or 28 f2.8) or moderate in size (105 kit) and are much better for keeping people at ease. I think it still makes sense to keep a fast, small prime in the kit.<br /><br />VR sure would be nice for some of those low-light shots I tried. The kit lens (which I no longer have) has VR. I think this lens deserves to have VR.<br /><br />Like everybody says, it focuses fast. Having read all the praise, I expected it would be much faster than the bigger 70-200. I believe it is not faster, but about the same speed as the 70-200. Also, it doesn't hunt. It just focuses nicely and very quickly.<br /><br /><strong>Focal Length with DX</strong><br />Many have commented that 24-70 is too long for a mid-range zoom on DX. If I were shooting weddings and had two cameras strapped to my neck, I would certainly prefer a 24-70 on FX or 17-55 on DX. Three reasons the 24-70 works for me:</p>

<ol>

<li>I do more headshots and appreciate the longer reach of 24-70 on DX.</li>

<li>The 24-70 plus a 12-24 and 70-200 make a nice three-lens kit.</li>

<li>I'm ok swapping lenses to go wide.</li>

</ol>

<p>I'm planning to upgrade to FX sometime next year anyway.<br /><br /><strong>Price</strong><br />At $1700, I believe this lens is overpriced. OK, ok, I still bought it, but let's compare it to the 70-200 f2.8 VR2:</p>

<ol>

<li>$2300 for 70-200 vs. $1700 for 24-70</li>

<li>70-200 has VR, 24-70 does not -- for $1700 I think Nikon owes us VR</li>

<li>70-200 has a big wide front element, filling the 77mm diameter of the lens -- 24-70 is quite a bit smaller</li>

<li>70-200 is quite long, 24-70 is not as long</li>

<li>lens cost should be proportional to amount of glass, roughly length * diameter^2 -- if you believe this, 24-70 should be at best 1/2 the price of 70-200</li>

</ol>

<p>All said, the 70-200 VR2 is hugely more expensive than the 80-200 f2.8, about 2x. Clearly Nikon sells the 70-200 VR2 at very nice gross margins. Likewise, the 24-70 must bring in very high gross margins. It's also probably high volume for pro lense, and probably looks very nice on Nikon's internal financial reviews.<br>

<br />It is an indispensible tool and from what I've read it is much better than the alternatives. Therefore, Nikon can charge a king's ransom for this beast. I had a lot of reservations about the price of this beast, but in the end I paid it. If Nikon preserves my investment as well as the did for all the glass I bought in 1993, I'll be happy to still be using this 18 years from now.</p>

<p>Allan</p>

[wmk]

<p>Hi <a href="../photodb/user?user_id=5860108">Allan Armstrong</a>,<br>

Thanks, that was very illuminating, especially the comparison to the 14-24 and 70-200. I definitely agree that it screams Pro!' and some people tense up. For low key people photos I use the 35 f1.8dx or 50 f1.8.</p>

<p><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=3670956">Eric Arnold</a><br>

Yes, definitely if you've arranged with the promoter/band/venue beforehand. But there is no way you could sneak that combo in. Nice pic b.t.w.</p>

<p><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=323291">Dieter Schaefer</a><br>

I guess it boils down to shooting preferences. I actually initially bought the 17-55 but returned it also because the 55 felt to short to me and I had nothing to cover the 55-70 gap.<br>

<a href="../photodb/user?user_id=2357169">Hans Janssen</a><br>

For hiking, I've found the kit 18-70 lens works well for me, its not a fast lens but for static subjects it works well and its plenty sharp from f10 -f13</p>