Nikon 24-70 f2.8G

[nikofile]

<p>I know this lens gets a lot of ink on web forums, but during my research it appears many people still have questions about its usefulness. I am a new owner of the lens, and I bought it primarily for weddings. I used it for the first time last weekend, and it left me wondering why I did not buy it years ago. I like to shoot with prime lenses, but leading up to weddings I did some trial outings with primes in an effort to see how effective I could be. I know there are many who are more adept at using multiple prime lenses, but I'm not awful. I tried two cameras, D600 with a Sigma 35mm, and a D800E with an 85mm f1.8G. I did not do well.</p>

<p>So I got a new plan. I already owned the 70-200mm VR1, a great lens, so I decided to get a 24-70. Wasn't sure which brand to get, but the Tamron was too close in price to the Nikon (refurbished), and I have never heard a working photographer complain about the Nikon. So I got one. I put the 70-200 on my D600 for my nephew, a very good photographer, and I put the 24-70 on my D800E. I have to say that I am very proud of how my stuff performed.</p>

<p>450 images with the 24-70, 250 images with the 70-200, two images not sharp from the 24-70, and one image not sharp from the 70-200. All three of these were pilot error, not the equipment. The D600 was slightly erratic with AWB. The D800E just nails every aspect of every photo.</p>

<p>This Nikon 24-70 married to the D800E is too good to be believed. Everything is INSTANT about this kit. No missed shots, except when I got hungry. Some photos I just knew I missed because I thought I fired the shutter before completely pressing AF-ON. Did not miss a single one of those. Amazingly fast.</p>

<p>And the D600... I can't say enough good things about it. The AF system performed beautifully (I was concerned about that). Image quality is fantastic. When you process everything you will notice that the D800E photos zip right by because no processing is needed. The D600 needs processing on some images, but the smaller files speed things up a bit. The E files definitely have a little more "pop" than anything else I've used, but the D600 is no slouch.</p>

<p>So, if you have to work with this stuff, before you even choose which FX body to buy, get the Nikon 24-70 and be done with it. VR? We don't need no stinking VR. Don't worry about the size. You just don't notice. I am really old, so old I have to go to the fitness center to keep my legs in shape for this, but I never noticed the size or weight, D800E, 24-70 lens, SB900 flash, Yongnuo wireless trigger. Just not a problem. Extremely well balanced arrangement.</p>

[Albins images]

<p>For always-in-the-bag and for casual street photography it is too big. And it performs really lousy at close-ups and fully stopped down. And for the rest, this lens is lovely! I like mine a lot too. Congratulations with your purchase - enjoy.</p>

[nikofile]

<blockquote>

<p>For always-in-the-bag and for casual street photography it is too big. And it performs really lousy at close-ups and fully stopped down.</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

True, it isn't for street photography. I haven't stopped down more than f8 with it, and I don't foresee f22 ever appearing on the LCD info screen, so I can't speak to that. I think it is a very good closeup lens. I would not use it on a tripod. I have prime lenses for that, but for a quick portrait of the bride at f2.8 from 5 or 6 feet it is very, very good. It is a working lens for sure. If you plan to shoot events I cannot imagine a more useful lens. I have taken a lot of photos over the years, but except for sports, which calls for something longer, I have never really shot under pressure. A very large wedding is pressure. A 24-70mm is a relief valve.</p>

[Rick Waller]

<p>You are preaching to the already converted!</p>

[nikofile]

<blockquote>

<p>You are preaching to the already converted!</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Well thanks. I just spewed my coffee on the monitor. Yeah, I figured that, but you would be surprised how many people are still asking for advice and recommendations on this lens with event photography the goal. Just thought to add my view.</p>

[Rick Waller]

<p>Totally understand. And totally agree. I am always amazed by those who insist on pixel peeping or shooting brick walls in order to nit pick the qualities of a lens. Or those who explain that their 85mm or 50mm or 28mm primes are so far superior to the lowly zoom and that "real" photographers would never stoop so low as to use a zoom.</p>

<p>What you (and many others including me) have discovered is that while in a bench test with super sensitive measuring equipment, primes <strong><em>may</em> </strong>outperform the 24-70/2.8 or the 70-200/2.8, in the real world, when the shot counts, there is no substitute for the convenience of those super high quality zooms. You do not photograph brick walls; you photograph weddings.</p>

<p>It is a no brainer.</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>I'm one of those who has been vocal that I feel no particular need to own a 24-70; I don't spend that much time within this focal range except when I want more speed or subject separation than a 24-70 can offer me. I also believe that it's optically a bit behind the Canon version (so are the 70-200 f/2.8 and 200-400 f/4), and in light of some repairability questions I wouldn't be surprised to see it updated.<br />

<br />

<i>But</i>. If I were a professional event photographer or journalist, and I needed enough aperture to get images across an unknown range in vaguely dim conditions (so a 24-120 f/4 won't do) and I didn't expect to have time to switch lenses between shots... I'd have a 24-70. No doubt.<br />

<br />

I still don't believe it's for everyone, and I certainly don't believe it's perfect, but it's a fine piece of glass with a very useful set of capabilities. There's a reason pros have been using it, and I don't think they're wrong just because I don't think it's for me.<br />

<br />

For what it's worth, all the pro zooms are compromised. The 14-24 has problems being filtered, mine at least seems to show significant field curvature, and at 21mm the Zeiss prime has the edge. The 24-70 can't shoot in the dark or separate background like a 24mm f/1.4, 35 f/1.4, 50-58 f/1.4 set. The 70-200 is good, but the 85mm f/1.4 (or f/1.8), 135mm Zeiss, 150mm Sigma and 200mm f/2 VR are better. The 200-400 can't match a 300 f/2.8 or 400 f/2.8. Slow zooms can cover this range with a lot less money and a lot less lens swapping. But f/2.8 (or f/4 for the big zoom) is enough for <i>some</i> subject separation and </i>some</i> low light shooting, and any of these zooms - and particularly any pair of them - cover enough ground to deal with a lot of surprises. And that means you can get a shot, where the "right" kit won't, because it wasn't with you.</p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<blockquote>

<p>I feel no particular need to own a 24-70</p>

</blockquote>

<p>+1 - learned that the expensive way when I realized that on DX the 17-55 did not nearly get the amount of use I had expected it would when I purchased it.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>If I were a professional event photographer</p>

</blockquote>

<p>that's about the only occasion where I would consider the 24-70 to be essential. Why a landscape photographer would haul a 24-70 into the field I don't know - maybe because "it's the best lens in that focal length range"?</p>

 

[goldbergbarry]

<blockquote>

<p>+1 - learned that the expensive way when I realized that on DX the 17-55 did not nearly get the amount of use I had expected it would when I purchased it</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

I have the 17-55 f/2.8 on a DX (D7100) and love it as well. I guess this proves that everyone has different needs.</p>

[pics]

<p>I own the 24-70 and think it is a very good lens indeed. It's a staple for professionals because of it's build quality and the more than acceptable results across the entire zoom range. Like many high quality "pro-grade" lenses, it is engineered to give high quality results at maximum aperture. Stop any lens down past f/8 and the images all look the same. It is also built very well and I consider the heft and all metal design to be a benefit. Of course at any given focal length there exists a prime lens somewhere that is faster and sharper but that defeats the point of having a zoom. Any faster and sharper than it already is and you can figure the cost would skyrocket along with the already considerable weight. All in all it's a great lens for what it is designed for.</p>

[nikofile]

<blockquote>

<p>Any faster and sharper than it already is and you can figure the cost would skyrocket along with the already considerable weight.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yeah, I think the Canon boys could verify that. From what I read, many of them opt for the old version because they feel it is a very good lens and the price difference is huge. </p>

[bob_bill]

<p>It's a workhorse for me. Nice bokeh. Kinda fast, but 2 stops slower than the 1.4's. No, maybe not a thoroughbred race horse like the primes, but for events, I always have it on one body. You probably are better off not pulling the Budweiser wagon with a thoroughbred. In pj I rank getting the shot ahead of artistic qualities of it. That's the body with a flash as well. The other body changes from 50 1.4, 85 1.4, 135 2.0 if plausible and 70-200, another bread and butter lens, just not as useful for me at events for me as the 24-70. I described it as a workhorse but I have to be careful the total of them don't turn me into a pack animal. </p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>I use the 24-70 for portraiture, events, but also for landscapes and travel. It allows the capture of landscapes with a natural perspective that will make the viewer feel in the scene but not with as exaggerated proportions as in the 14-24 range (nor with as much depth of field issues and atmospheric degradation with long distances as in many cases happens in the 70-200 range). I do have other lenses in the range but the 24-70 is often used because it is easy to use and the results are good; it is a lens I trust.</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>The manufacturers leapfrog each other. When the 24-70 came out, it was competing with Canon's original version, which is... not very good, optically. At least from the tests I've seen. The 24-70 Nikkor was a clear step ahead, both compared with its predecessor and with the competition. The same was true with the 70-200 VR2. Canon have since updated both lenses and, from what I've seen, taken the optical lead. The differences are certainly small, but I'm sure Nikon would like to regain bragging rights on their most visible pro lenses. There were clear aberrations in the 24-70 sample images when the D800 was launched.<br />

<br />

I've heard (and I don't remember whether it was on LensRentals or ByThom) that there are a few issues with the design of the 24-70. The exposed extending front makes it a bit prone to impact damage. The back can shear off, although I gather that's deliberate and actually makes repair easier. I believe there were issues in maintenance due to the internal design - though since I've never owned (or shot with) one of these, I'm only reporting what I believe I've read on the internet (so it <i>must</i> be right).<br />

<br />

This leads me to think that Nikon should have a 24-70 fairly high on their "to replace" list. Which doesn't make it a bad lens now, but I'm a little wary of singing its praises too much.</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p><em>but I'm a little wary of singing its praises too much.</em></p>

<p>Of course. I believe we should only make statements about equipment that you have a fair amount of personal experience using or otherwise state very clearly where the information is coming from.</p>

[craig_shearman1]

<p>Roy, welcome to the club.<br /><br />Almost every time someone asks "what lenses" i answer "24-70 2.8 and 70-200 2.8."<br /><br />That's my standard outfit (plus a 12-24) for everything, not just weddings. Everybody has there own needs but for me it covers 90 percent of what I ever need to shoot. I also have faster primes and longer glass, but those two are what I use on an everyday basis.<br /><br />Part of my reasoning is that I come from a newspaper background, and the 24-70/70-200 combo, or a variation very close to it, is what just about every news photographer here in Washington, D.C., carries whether they're on Capitol Hill, at the White House or anywhere in between. News photographers are a good example to follow because they need to be ready for just about anything on a moment's notice but also need to travel light. Those two lenses, a teleconverter and a couple of shoemount flashes can cover you for just about everything from a press conference to a plane crash. Throw a couple of umbrellas and lighstands in the trunk and you're set for portraits or weddings.<br /><br />Some people ask "do you really need" something as "fast" as 2.8? As someone who grew up in the day when the standard lens was a 50mm f/2 and you only settled for that if you couldn't afford the 1.4, I don't consider 2.8 fast. But it's the best compromise between carrying two or three zooms and the dozen primes that I used to haul around.</p>

[luke_kaven]

<p>For events, the 24-70 is a must. The optics are superb. The coatings are great and it paints nicely. The mechanicals are superb. It has only two problems, shared by all midrange zooms: (i) the distortion at the wide and long end are somewhat unpleasant, and (ii) it has sharp eyeball-slicing bokeh.</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Ilkka: Quite, and I must be somewhat apologetic. I did try to find the articles I've read which discuss the potential maintenance/fragility issues in the 24-70, but I failed to do so. They're obviously not severe, otherwise there would have been very public reports of the problem. However, there <a href="http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/40578473">are</a> threads about some issues. I do believe I recently read something about the fact that the lens extends on focus meaning that it's more exposed to getting thumped than some designs (and recommending not reversing the hood to protect it in storage), but I now can't find where.<br />

<br />

I'm reliant on <a href="http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2013/01/a-24-70mm-system-comparison#more-12030">comparative reviews</a> to indicate that it's possible to build a 24-70 with better image quality than the Nikkor. As for the quality of the 24-70 itself, I think one of the images that worried me was <a href="http://chsvimg.nikon.com/lineup/dslr/d800/img/sample02/img_02_l.jpg">this</a> D800e sample - something weird is going on with the foreground, which is mostly sharp but sometimes soft. Photozone mention a sombrero-style field curvature, which might be the explanation. (I might originally have remembered the trees looking weird too, but I think I'm now convinced they were just blowing in the wind.) It's certainly not a soft photo, but then it's at f/8, so it shouldn't be.<br />

<br />

Aside: The D800 is an <a href="http://www.nikonusa.com/en/Nikon-Products/Product/Digital-SLR-Cameras/25480/D800.html">HD-DSLR</a>? Wow. I could have sworn it had more than two megapixels.<br />

<br />

Anyway. I'm not dissing the 24-70, just reporting that not everything I've heard or seen about it is perfect.</p>

 

<blockquote>Almost every time someone asks "what lenses" i answer "24-70 2.8 and 70-200 2.8."</blockquote>

 

<p>I can't argue with the optics, but that's a very large and expensive answer!</p>

 

<blockquote>Some people ask "do you really need" something as "fast" as 2.8? As someone who grew up in the day when the standard lens was a 50mm f/2 and you only settled for that if you couldn't afford the 1.4, I don't consider 2.8 fast. But it's the best compromise between carrying two or three zooms and the dozen primes that I used to haul around.</blockquote>

 

<p>Agreed - it's a compromise. I shot mostly primes (and a convenience super-zoom) before resorting to my 70-200 (via a couple of abortive 80-200s). You can't lose the background with an f/2.8 zoom like you can with a big prime. But sometimes, it's better to have a bit of background control and be able to get the framing for the shot at an instant's notice. If the perfect moment happens when you're off changing lenses, it doesn't matter how good your image would have been.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>the 24-70 is practically a no-brainer as an event lens, except if you are shooting in extreme low-light conditions or have to be concerned about weight. coupled with a responsive, pro body, its one of the most intuitive lenses i have ever used.</p>

[Rick Waller]

<p>"except if you are shooting in extreme low-light conditions"</p>

<p>And if you do find yourself in an extreme low light condition, are you going to shoot a group using your 50mm @ 1.4? I totally understand the periodic need for a very fast lens, but I seldom shoot a group shot (or even a couple) wide open. I might use my 85/1.4 to shoot the ring, or the shoes or the corsage with the intention of a very narrow dof, but if the light is problematic while shooting an event, I never found opening up to be a practical solution. Espescially with today's camera's that handle hi -iso so well. Lighting a problem? Bump the iso is my sloution, not opening up. With my D3 and D3S, I found that my default iso setting at an event is 400 and I have no fear at all going up to 1600. Have gone higher, if circumstances left me no option.</p>

[tom_elessar]

<blockquote>

<p>What you (and many others including me) have discovered is that while in a bench test with super sensitive measuring equipment, primes <strong><em>may</em> </strong>outperform the 24-70/2.8 or the 70-200/2.8, in the real world</p>

</blockquote>

<p>For those of us constrained by finances, primes often offer more bang-per-buck than zooms. </p>

<h5>Anyone who thinks all primes outperform all zooms by all metrics these days <a href="https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/09/canon-24-70-f2-8-ii-resolution-tests">is wrong</a>. </h5>

[Andrew Garrard]

<blockquote>Anyone who thinks all primes outperform all zooms by all metrics these days is wrong.</blockquote>

 

<p>Tom - I think we were convinced of that when the 14-24 was launched! Besides, the 70-200VR2 shows up the age of the 180 f/2.8 quite effectively. As you say, the slower primes are cheaper, and they're also smaller - and the faster ones can do things that the zooms can't - and some of them <i>are</i> slightly sharper, if sharper is what you want. For all I asserted that the 24-70's image quality was imperfect, I don't think it's anything like an issue in real world use.<br />

<br />

Eric - I've shot in situations where f/2.8 hasn't been enough for ISO 6400, above which a D800 (and certainly D700) starts to get a bit iffy. But I agree, shooting wide open on a prime to handle low light is a last resort. I do have some shots of wedding speeches that were lit at best by the iPhone on which the speech was written, and at worst by candlelinght, for which my 200 f/2 came into its own, but if I'd been the official shooter I'd have used a flash gun (I don't like to, as a guest), but getting any reasonable amount of scene into focus at a wide aperture is usually a problem (as is nailing focus). Creative DoF is another matter.</p>

[kgavin]

<p>Good to see the 24-70 works well for you. For events it can't be beat along with a 70-200. I've rented a 35 f/1.4 in the past and I've considered purchasing one, but it would be a pure artist play and equipment grab. It's quality is superb, but I found myself going back to the 24-70 when I rented it. They are very different lenses although some tend to change one for the other for non-event work.</p>

<p>I use the 24-70 for travel as well, along with a 50 f/1.4 (for nighttime walking around) and the 105 macro (in the event I want to start taking portraits of people). I find those three lens and an SB-900 make for a great travel setup for me.</p>

[dan_meyers1]

<p>Does the 24-70mm make sense for a studio shooter over a set of primes?</p>

[BernardMiller]

<blockquote>

<p>Does the 24-70mm make sense for a studio shooter over a set of primes?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I would offer a qualified yes. I use the 24-70 constantly in the studio. For full-length, mid-length and head & upper body portraits (on a small sensor; I still use a D300), it's great, and very versatile. If you're shooting full-frame, you won't be able to get as tight, and you'll need something longer pretty quickly.</p>

<p>(I bought one to "upgrade" my old, battered 35-70/2.8--I put upgrade in quotes, because that lens, despite its tendency to flare and its limited zoom range, is actually very sharp and capable indeed, and just as handy in the studio. But because I also use my 24-70 to shoot pro boxing--it's brilliant for that!--and lots of other event-type stuff as well, and needed the extra width and better flare resistance, it made sense for me. And now in general, probably 85% of the photos I shoot are with the 24-70.)</p>

<p>If you're shooting with a full-frame sensor, you might find it more than a bit limiting in the studio. And, you could probably find a 50/1.8, 85/1.8, and an older 80-200/2.8 AFS (that version is <em>crazy</em> sharp, which is why I've never "upgraded" to a 70-200) and/or 105/2.5 AIS for potentially less money combined than you'd pay for a second-hand 24-70. That would give you an ideal set of lenses for studio use, with in most cases higher quality (and certainly more range, at least in terms of the focal lengths commonly employed in the studio) than the 24-70 would offer.</p>

<p>So, my ultimate advice: if you're shooting with a small sensor, definitely think about the 24-70 as a studio lens. If you're shooting full-frame, no--especially not at the price.</p>

<p> </p>