24-70

[fhmillard]

<p>is the 24-70 really that good, or just a status symbol?</p>

[rodeo_joe1]

<p>Professional photographers don't buy lenses as status symbols Frank - well, not too many of them do.</p>

[rconey]

<p>It's really that good. I wish it wasn't because it is so heavy. I keep trying to find a a replacement for backpacking and such but it covers 80% of the landscape range I shoot and it is that good. It lives on my camera.</p>

[robert_bouknight1]

<p>I "resisted" getting one (well, I got the 28-70 version) for a long time, thought I would not use it due to weight/size. When I am concentrating on photography, I have found that the weight/size does not bother me and I do use the lens a lot. The 28-70/2.8 is very good, and I am sure that the 24-70 is better.</p>

<p>I needed f2.8 (or faster) for indoor sports. As a general purpose lens, the 24-120VR latest version is very good, also, and might be an alternate as would the 24-85VR. For whatever reason, I find myself using the 28-70/2.8 frequently while my 24-85(non-VR, but a good lens) stays at home.</p>

[elliot1]

<p>It is your best choice if you need to shoot in that zoom range in low light.</p>

[dxin]

<p>Not good enough, I need VR.</p>

 

[paul_b.1]

<p>It is very good indeed ! Extremely sharp even at F2,8 , strong contrast, saturated colors, fast autofocus , and now , with in camera distorsion correction, it's almost perfect (no more barrel distortions). My flawless workhorse for 6 years now !</p>

[jose_angel]

<p>Image wise I like it better than the 24/2.8AFD, 28/2.8AFD, 35/2AFD, Sigma 28-70DX, 24-85G, 24-120/4G... construction quality wise I think it`s amongst the best Nikkors I have used, in the same group I include the 14-24G, 17-55G, 28-70, and the 70-200VRII, amongst others.<br /> The hood and the shape of the lens`body I think are the best amongst all my lenses. The AF is also amongst the fastest.<br /> So I think it`s a very good lens. And of course, it`s also a "status symbol" for those who need status symbols. Rolex watches are fine mechanical pieces and status symbols as well... usually this came together for some.<br /> The main drawback to me is that is a big lens, and the zoom range is somewhat limited... so if I want a lighter weight to carry or a longer zoom range I have to leave it at home. Thanks God it`s not VR; I suspect with VR it could be even bigger.</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

The 24-70 Nikkor is an extremely useful lens, probably the only lens I would rebuy immediately if lost or broken. For any

other lens, I can find a substitute, but not for this one.

 

VR is ok for the purposes of obtaining an acceptable small print or screen / web display but in this era of high resolution

cameras, in my experience its use quite often damages the image's sharpness more than it does good. In the next

version of the 24-70/2.8 I would like to see improved build quality, higher optical quality (especially at 24mm-30mm there

should be less field curvature making the lens more suitable for group shots at events) and if possible a more compact

bulld (something that Canon succeeded in achieving in their 24-70/2.8 II). VR introduces more optical elements (->

increased length and weight), a potential failure point, and does not make optical design any easier. With 6-10 MP

cameras and small print sizes, it seemed like a very useful technology but nowadays with 24-36MP cameras I find its

precision far from sufficient and as a result I rarely turn it on. There are situations where it genuinely helps but I've found

that using faster shutter speeds is usually far preferable to using slower speeds and activating VR, that is, if sharpness is

the goal. Even quite recently I've made the mistake of selling a faster non-VR lens and getting a one stop slower VR lens to serve its function and found the latter quite substantially lacking in situations where there is any kind of a living/moving subject. Of course I was aware of the tradeoffs, but it still struck me how difficult it is to obtain good image quality in photography of moving subjects with a slow lens. VR for me just rarely is the answer. I can understand that if one wants the combination of smaller aperture (more depth of field) and slower speed and must hand hold then VR does help, but the kind of aesthetic where the subject is a bit blurry due to movement and surround is sharp due to large depth of field, does not work for me. I prefer my main subject sharp and surround soft so that the eye is drawn to the details and emotion of the main subject without distraction.

[alan_williams6]

<p>Being able to use the 24-70 f/2.8 was among the reasons for going to FX. I was rather disappointed with the 17-55 f/2.8 on DX (maybe I had a bad sample - but at those sort of prices there shouldn't be bad samples!)</p>

[User_4754088]

<p>For PJ work, I use it constantly. Sometimes it's the only lens I will use on a job. Sometimes coupled with an 80-200, but I don't leave the house without the 24-70. Paid for itself many times over in the last few years. Shoot it wide open all the time.</p>

 

[Dieter Schaefer]

<blockquote>

<p>is the 24-70 really that good</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Don't know and don't care - not a lens I am interested in at all.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>yes.</p>

[rick_m.]

<p>Absolutely. I also use it for PJ work. I never leave home without it. Every photojournalist needs at least two lenses. The 24-70 F/2.8 and the 70-200 AFs VR F/2.8. With those two lenses you can do 99% of your work. (And you need a vest and a hat you can wear backwards;)</p>

[Uhooru]

<p>For events and weddings it is my main work-horse lens. Yes, great lens.</p>

[Ian Taylor]

<p>I have mine on a gold chain, I wear it to the country club.</p>

[Ed_Ingold]

<p>The optical quality of even an older model, the 28-70, surpasses most prime lenses in that range. They are more susceptible to flare and ghosting than some simpler lenses. The downside is they are as big as a miner's lunch pail, and attract a lot of attention when you're trying to be inconspicuous.</p>

[luke_kaven]

<p>For optical clarity, it's a very high grade lens. Great sharpness, contrast. Excellent draw, and very good in the shadows. Mechanically it's superb.<br>

<br />Like any other mid-range zoom, it has terrible, harsh bokeh. It has a bit of distortion. If you are working fast, with no time to change lenses, there's nothing better. If you need the aesthetics of a good prime, meaning great bokeh, then you need a prime in this range of focal-lengths. I think that would be true of any zoom in this range. </p>

[kevin_beretta]

<p>It's really that good. It's like a good pair of shoes. The moment you try them, you know and nothing else will feel the same. The 24-70 lines on my camera most of the time. If there is only one lens I could pick, it would be that one.</p>

[Albins images]

..There's one area where it falls to pieces optically, and that is close ups.

Obviously it wasn't made to be good in that range. Though I found many lenses to perform well, even with extension

rings. Don't try them on the 24-70. It is just very very bad.

 

 

And maybe apart from the corners over the whole zoom range, and it's large size, I do love the lens for it's overall quality.

[dan_south]

<p>1. The 24-70 f/2.8G AF-S produces images that are sharp edge to edge on my highly demanding D800E. </p>

<p>2. It's much sharper than the 24-120 f/4 that I tested.</p>

<p>3. I believe that the 70-200 f/2.8 VRII is very slightly sharper, but you would have to look at two frames side by side to see ANY difference at all. And in that case, you would have to look very hard.</p>

<p>All in all it's a great lens!</p><div></div>

[kevin_beretta]

<p>I agree. The 70-200 is the sharper of the two. The "worst" lens I have seems to be the 50 1.4G.</p>