Nikon 24 - 70 mm 2.8 lens

[steve_turner7]

<p>I currently have a 24mm 2.8 D prime lens and a 50mm 1.8 prime lens and was thinking of trading them both in and getting the 24 - 70mm lens instead. I went on the Ken Rockwell site where he has reviewed this lens to find that these lenses are only expected to last approximately 10 years. My current lenses are nearly 20 years old and in perfect working order. Am I making a rash decision trading my current lenses in if what Ken Rockwell says is true? My reason for changing the lenses is purely one of convenience. Thank you in advance for any advice offered.</p>

<p>Steve</p>

[ShunCheung]

<blockquote>

<p>if what Ken Rockwell says is true?</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br />That web site is full of false information.</p>

<p>Keep in mind that the 24-70mm/f2.8 AF-S is a rather heavy and large lens. Size-wise, it is going to be larger than the 24mm/f2.8 AF-D and 50mm/f1.8, regardless of which version, combined. The 24-70mm/f2.8 also costs about 3 to 4 times as much as the combined cost of the 24 and 50mm lenses. Optically, the zoom is likely better than the 24mm/f2.8 AF-S, whose optics were designed way back in the 1970's.</p>

<p>Whether paying that kind of price and carrying such weight is convenient or not is up to you to decide.</p>

[john_curlett]

<p>Also consider the Tamron 24-70mm f/2.8 which is cheaper than the Nikon and includes image stabilization. DXO rates the Tamron slightly higher (like one point) in all categories than the Nikon. I have one and am very pleased with it. As Shun said, they are large heavy lenses. but I think are worth it.<br>

John</p>

[Two23]

<p>I wouldn't worry about Rockwell--he's not an engineer or anything. He doesn't know. The 24-70mm doesn't have VR so it's not all that fragile either. There's no reason to think the lens couldn't go 20 years without a CLA. If you are just shooting landscapes etc. you might not see much difference though. If you are shooting events and other things where compositions come and go quickly the zoom will make a difference. The newer coatings on the lens are more flare resistant too. If you don't need f2.8 you might look at the 24-120mm f4 VR too. If you are a casual photographer just looking for a standard zoom to use you might look at the new 24-85mm. The Tamron mentioned above would be a great choice, and are relatively cheap on ebay. At any rate, while I sometimes read what Rockwell says, I keep in mind that he's really just a regular guy with his opinion. There's a lot better info on Roger Cicala's "Lens Rental" blog for exactlly this kind of thing:<br /> http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2013/01/24-70mm-f2-8-lens-teardown-comparison</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

[elliot1]

<p>You may find this of interest with regard to KR's comments which it appears with regard to this matter, he may have gotten a bit carried away with:</p>

<p>http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/26490235</p>

<p>Are you shooting often in low light?</p>

[Two23]

<p>From dpreview:</p>

<p><<I called Nikon tech and they were quite helpful. "10" in a recycling logo stands for a particular type of plastic, just as any other number does. It means that, when you do recycle it, you need to recycle it with "10" type plastics.>></p>

<p>ROFL!!!! I guess that sums it up!</p>

<p>More from Roger Cicala:<br>

http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2013/08/lensrentals-repair-data-2012-2013</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

[Ed_Ingold]

<p>With extensive use, the plastic focusing/zoom cam can wear out or break. I've had two replaced so far, within 10 years, in a 28-70/2.8 and a 70-200/2.8. My D3 shutter only has 90,000 images, with (potentially) 160,000 to go. Significantly, cameras and lenses of this quality can be restored to like-new condition for far less than their replacement cost. It is not uncommon, in industry, that repair costs are double to triple that of depreciation. As long as that equipment gives you the results you need, it makes sense to repair.</p>

<p>One reason it wore out "early" is that I use the 28-70/2.8 for about 85% of my shooting. That was true throughout the DX years and well into FX. If I get a mirrorless camera, like a Sony A7, it will become a lens with an attached camera.</p>

<p>The OP should keep his prime lenses. Their value on trade-in is insulting. Even if you got full replacement value for them, it is a drop in the bucket agains the cost of a new (or used) 24-70/2.8.</p>

[john_curlett]

<p>I find Ken a good source of information but you have to filter out a lot of things that are strictly his opinions.<br>

</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I wouldn't worry about Rockwell--he's not an engineer or anything</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Regarding this comment:</p>

 

 

 

<h4><a title="Find others with this title" name="title" href="https://www.linkedin.com/vsearch/p?title=District+Sales+Manager&trk=prof-exp-title"></a>District Sales Manager</h4>

<h5><a href="https://www.linkedin.com/company/3241?trk=prof-exp-company-name">Tektronix</a></h5>

February 1995 – February 2004 (9 years 1 month)Hollywood, California

<p >Helped design sections of most of the major television network broadcast centers as well as motion picture and television post production facilities. I was Hollywood's go-to guy for measuring picture quality.</p>

 

 

 

 

<h4><a title="Find others with this title" name="title" href="https://www.linkedin.com/vsearch/p?title=Senior+Applications+Engineer&trk=prof-exp-title"></a>Senior Applications Engineer</h4>

<h5><a href="https://www.linkedin.com/company/3745?trk=prof-exp-company-name">TRW LSI Products Inc.</a></h5>

January 1988 – January 1992 (4 years 1 month)La Jolla, California

<p >Designed HDTV, digital imaging and audio DSP and ADC and DAC conversion hardware and integrated circuits and systems.</p>

 

 

 

 

<h4><a title="Find others with this title" name="title" href="https://www.linkedin.com/vsearch/p?title=Chief+Engineer&trk=prof-exp-title"></a>Chief Engineer</h4>

<h5><a title="Find others who have worked at this company" name="company" href="https://www.linkedin.com/vsearch/p?company=WPOB&trk=prof-exp-company-name"></a>WPOB</h5>

September 1977 – November 1988 (11 years 3 months)Plainview, Long Island, New York

<p >88.5 FM and KHC-94 microwave ITFS TV</p>

 

 

 

 

<h4><a title="Find others with this title" name="title" href="https://www.linkedin.com/vsearch/p?title=Engineer&trk=prof-exp-title"></a>Engineer</h4>

<h5><a title="Find others who have worked at this company" name="company" href="https://www.linkedin.com/vsearch/p?company=Litton+Guidance+and+Control+Systems+Division&trk=prof-exp-company-name"></a>Litton Guidance and Control Systems Division</h5>

November 1985 – January 1988 (2 years 3 months)Woodland Hills, California

<p >Designed ring-laser gyros for use on everything from commercial jetliners to Tomohawk cruise missiles and fighter jet ejection seats.</p>

 

 

[User_4754088]

<p>The 24-70 f2.8 is a great lens as far as image quality and speed of focus. Been using one for photojournalism for about five years now. </p>

<p>It does have one flaw though, the zoom function wears out and needs service, and the service is not cheap. Mine was still under the 5 year extended warranty the last time it needed work, but the next time the cost will be solely mine. The best way to describe the issue is that the zoom function gets "crunchy". It no longer zooms smoothly. </p>

<p>Otherwise, great lens.</p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>I believe virtually everything Ken Rockwell says. Which means that almost every camera ever made is the "best ever" and I have changed my mind 10 times in 10 years about everything.</p>

<p>His site is reasonably cheap entertainment, and some of what he says is actually true and/or useful... ah... but which of his articles are and which are not... that is the question.</p>

 

[jose_angel]

<p>Things last or not depending on the use and the user (amongst other factors).</p>

<p>I have read many comments about this lens. Particularly, this lens has a heavy front zooming barrel, designed to work <em>inside</em> the hood. Some people like to leave the hood permanently attached (so it will protect the front barrel), others boast of never using the hood, and worst of it, leave the camera, lens attached, upside down resting on the front barrel... You can guess which user will enjoy zoom smoothness for a longer time (BTW, I try to remember that KR belong to the second group).</p>

<p>Both 24 and 50mm primes are very convenient lenses, the 24mm very small in comparison to any other 24mm, prime or zoom, and the 50 is a extremely sharp and compact option... if you look for a 24-70, I`d say just buy it and keep the primes. This is what I did, and I`m very happy with them. Any pro zoom, although essential for "serious" assignments, is quite umcomfortable to use and carry. For casual shooting I prefer to use the primes.</p>

[jose_angel]

<p>Forgot to mention that mine is about seven years old, very used in the first years, now not so much, in perfect condition, with a smooth focusing action, and very sharp. Hood is attached since the first day.</p>

[steve_turner7]

<p>Thanks everyone for your insightful comments. I have plenty of information to think about. I am only a casual photographer and I was thinking only from the perspective of not having to carry all my lenses around with me when wandering around. Case in point - I visited Rhonda in Southern Spain this summer and left my kit in the car and realised quite soon on that I had the wrong lens attached to the camera and had to go back and change it for the 24mm lens. Thanks once again for your valuable advice. It is much appreciated.</p>

<p>Steve T</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>unless you shoot events regularly, you dont need the 24-70/2.8. it's optically pretty great, and has fast AF speed, but far too heavy for a walkaround lens, especially on a full-frame body, and may be overkill for less-demanding applications. it's also super pricey. in any event, i cant imagine that a 24+50 prime kit would be too heavy to carry two lenses, especially if you have the 50/1.8 D. it is more convenient to carry a zoom; for a one-lens solution, i would check out the nikon 24-120/4 or the sigma 24-105/4. the older nikon 28-105 might also work for you.</p>

[dan_south]

Ten years? Based on what level of usage? Every day or occasional?

 

The design of the current Nikon 24-70 f/2.8 G is less than ten years old, so there's no way to determine whether they'll

start dropping dead after a decade of shooting.

 

This is one of Nikon's professional lenses. It's more rugged than your 24mm f/2.8 D. The lens is built to last, but if you

abuse it or if you use it heavily or expose it to a lot of moisture, it's bound to wear out eventually.

 

I love my 24-70. I use it all the time. I tested the 24-120 f/4 as a potential alternative, but it wasn't nearly as sharp as the

24-70. Just keep in mind that it's larger and heavier than your primes.

[ShunCheung]

<p>If you are going to use this lens for travel photography, or just about anything other than indoor events, the 24-85mm/f3.5-4.5 AF-S VR is a much better choice than the heavy 24-70mm/f2.8. I have an image of them side by side. Notice the size difference?</p>

<CENTER>

<IMG SRC="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/16156860-md.jpg">

</CENTER>

<p>I think having two rather small lenses in the 24mm/f2.8 AF-D and 50mm/f1.8 AF-D or AF-S is more "convenient" than a huge f2.8 zoom.</p>

[Uhooru]

<p>Don't worry about KR's opinions about the 24-70. Two things to focus on it is that it is probably the most popular event lens out there for Nikon, and is sort of the benchmark for that zoom. The other thing to know is that it is a big heavy mother. So if that's an issue you should know that before you buy it, but its a great lens with excellent results.</p>

[rodeo_joe1]

<p>There were numerous reports on the web a couple of years ago about 24-70 AF Zoom-Nikkors where the zoom mechanism had become sloppy, stiff, or entirely seized. Just Google "24-70 zoom ring problem" and all roads lead to Nikon. There seemed to be an issue with improper lubrication during manufacture. These reports appear to have been largely stifled somehow, but I witnessed the problem myself when I attempted to buy one of these lenses. 3 different samples were shown to me at 3 different retailers. All had a bad "feel" to the zoom ring - gritty or excessively sloppy - and one demo sample at Calumet, that I was expected to buy, actually seized up at around the 50mm setting.</p>

<p>Needless to say that lens was struck off my shopping list and I've since been quite happy with a Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 SP zoom. It's small, lightweight and has excellent IQ. The 24mm gap is filled by either a little Sigma 24mm f/2.8 AF prime or by my 14-24mm AF-S Zoom Nikkor. I would expect Tamron's newer 24-70 VC version to be optically even better than the 28-75, and hopefully without zoom-ring seizure. I did get my hands on one to try, and the IQ seemed very good during a too-brief test. Build-quality also felt good, but the increased bulk made me stick with the old 28-75mm lens in the end.</p>

[dan_brown4]

<p>A few years back a I bought the predecessor to the 24-70, which was the 28-70/2.8AF-S. I realized very quickly that the bulk outweighed the convenience, and sold it. Also, note that while the 24-70 is a very good zoom lens, it's not as good as your 50/1.8.</p>

<p>The 28-70/3.5-4.5D-AF lens from the N90 and F100 era is an excellent lens, very compact, and can be had for a song.</p>

<p>Here's a picture of the little 28-70 on a Df:<br>

<img src="http://www.dlaab.com/photo/Df/Df_28_70.JPG" alt="" /></p>

<p> </p>

[rjm photo]

Steve - the 24-70mm AFS-G lens is a

fabulous tool. I use mine on a D700 as

well as F5. Works extremely well with

digital or film. I have many AFD, AIS ,

AI and non- AI lenses to use that are

covered by this zoom but the latest

design and coatings ( Nano)

technologies for the glass give this

lens, image quality that is far beyond

the rest. It is a pleasure to use when

conditions are not favorable to

changing lenses and, the undeniable

weight of the lens allows for very low

shutter speeds especially when ISO is

limited with film. I'll keep mine.

[mayuo_tsuriageru]

<blockquote>

<p>I currently have a 24mm 2.8 D prime lens and a 50mm 1.8 prime lens and was thinking of trading them both in and getting the 24 - 70mm lens instead.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Why would you want to do that?</p>

<p>I did just the opposite: traded the zoom for two price and am happier now.</p>

<p>The primes are more convenient and IQ is similar at equal settings. The primes may be old buut they're function properly. </p>

<p> </p>