24-70mm f2.8 alternative

[wedding_photographer5]

<p>Looking for a smaller, lighter and cheaper alternative, yet one that is equally bright and reasonably sharp.</p>

<p>What about 24mm f2.8 + 35-70mm f2.8.<br /> They can be bought for a bargain. Plus the 35-70 isn't such a beast for walkarounds.</p>

<p>Anyone experience with this combo? Can the push-pull AF track moving subjects?</p>

<p>The other option I think of is just two primes: 24mm + 50mm.</p>

<p> </p>

[michael_bradtke]

<p>Check out the Sigma 24-70 f/2.8. Less money then the Nikon and slightly smaller. Might be what you are looking for</p>

[wedding_photographer5]

<blockquote>

<p>Check out the Sigma 24-70 f/2.8. </p>

</blockquote>

<p>I'd rather have a Nikon. </p>

<p> </p>

[Ed_Ingold]

<p>The 35-70/2.8 is dated, but still a good lens for not much money.</p>

<p>There are a few caveats. The zoom is push-pull, which some people don't like. This tends to pump air in and out of parts of the lens, introducing dust. The lens itself is prone to hazing on internal elements, possibly due to lubricant migration. The filter ring rotates with focus, which means you can't use a polarizing filter or rectangular lens shade.</p>

<p>The 28-70/2.8 AFS is a much better lens, which can be found used at a reasonable price. I've had mine since 2003, back to the shop once for a new cam and focusing motor.</p>

[chuck]

<p>Unfortunate, <em>Equally bright </em>and <em>Nikon</em> already limit you to but 3 zoom alternatives:<br /> the 35-70f/2.8 (smaller and lighter), the 28-70f/2.8 (Big and heavy), and the 24-70f/2.8 VR (Bigger and heavier).<br /> So there is not much more that can be said about zooms.<br>

About primes. Do you really want to be changing lenses within that standard zoom range in a wedding shoot? </p>

[hapien]

<p>I once made statistical graph of the most used focal lengths of the normal zoom in a event situation. I ended up with fairly equal leveled five peaked mountains. IIRC median was 54mm fx equivalent and average 51mm fx equivalent. </p>

[Javier Gutierre]

<p>What body are you using ?</p>

[Ed_Ingold]

<p>Peaks (modes) and medians don't help much for making choices from statistics. A median value, for example, means half the time you use something shorter, the other half the time something longer. Useful? No!. It's better to cite percentiles or group statistics for selected ranges, like 24-70, or a given lens. LightRoom uses metadata to summarize these statistics for you.</p>

[wedding_photographer5]

<blockquote>

<p>What body are you using ?</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>D700</p>

<p>Bottom question is: will I miss 35mm?<br>

> If not, a 24 & 50 combo will do.<br>

> If I will, the 35-70 is probably than a set of primes. 28-70 and 24-70 are out of the question. </p>

<p> </p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<p>24/2.8 + 35-70/2.8 is 935g<br>

24-70/2.8 is 900g - so much for the "lighter" alternative.</p>

 

[craig_shearman1]

<p>Before I had a 24-70, I carried a 24, 28, 35, 50 and 85. IMHO, the 24-70 <em>is</em> smaller and lighter. :)</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>the tamron 28-75 is sharp, light and cheap, but you lose the 24mm. </p>

[evilsivan]

<p>I don't think you can beat the Nikon. But its sooo heavy and pricey. A friend of mine gave me a Tamron 2407- f2.8 and it was way lighter than the nikon and reasonably sharp and contrasty, though not as quick to focus and not as sharp and contrasty. For my money, I'll pay for the Nikon and lug it around. Just can't be beat.</p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>A newer Tamron or Sigma 24/28-70 will destroy that old 35-70 from Nikon.</p>

<p>If you gotta have Nikon, get the 24-70, don't do the two lens thing, especially for weddings.</p>

[hans_janssen1]

<p>Nikkor AFs 24 85 VR I have the old one and I use that as standard when I don't realy need the f2.8. The new one is better than the old one and I'm always surprised by the sharpness of the pictures.</p>

[dmanthree]

<p>A recent test by DXO showed that the newer Nikon, the VR version isn't as good as the old one, or as good as the Tamron. If those results are legit, it's very disappointing, especially given the cost, and size and weight of that moose of a lens.</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

I will comment on that since I had both Nikkors briefly at the same time. The new lens has improved mechanics, the hood

is more firmly mounted and the zoom feels even across the range and there is no grinding sound while zooming. The G

version had uneven resistance in the zoom mechanism that could get worse over time. Optically I found the E version

delivers cleaner, perhaps slightly more vivid images than the G. The bokeh is slightly improved and the color fringing that

affected images from the old lens when shooting inside against e.g. church windows seems to be absent. My main

complaint regarding the G version's optics was that the images shot at the wide end had strong field curvature which

meant the lens was a poor choice for group shots. With the 24/1.4 AF-S there is no such problem; a large group could be

photographed at f/4 in two rows and the sharpness is even from end to end. With the 24-70 G, if focusing on the center

the outer half of the people would be blurred at f/4 due to the field curvature. The 24-70E seems to solve this problem and

the field curvature is much reduced. The 70mm end gives a mixed result with the G version being sharper at close-up

distances and the E version at longer distances at f/2.8. I did not directly compare the other focal lengths side by side and

was satisfied with the real world performance of the E version, and sold the G version quickly. Because of the cleanness

of the images from the new lens and its more reassuring mechanical feel I didn't think I would use the G version again. I

highly recommend it but the older lens has no doubt a more attractive price so it is not a clear cut decision. Another thing

that I like about the E version is that it seems to require no fine tuning at any focal length on my D810 whereas the G

version required very different fine tune settings for optimal results at different focal lengths with this camera body. In

practice I used a constant fine tune setting that was in the middle between the extremes and while this was satisfactory,

the focus consistency of the new lens is simply amazing. However, this may depend on the body and lens. The AF is also

of the E version is also extremely fast which makes it great for action and e.g. approaching subjects.

 

I rarely find any correlation between real world image quality and DXO lens test scores, by the way. This is especially the

case for wide angles. With teles their testing seems to produce accurate results. I will be first to admit that lens quality

and image quality has subjective aspects and ultimately the photographer must decide what works and what doesn't, for

their style of photography. Of recent Nikkors, the 24-70 E is a favorite of mine but e.g. the 200-500 which seems to get a

lot of raving complements, I find difficult to use because of its relatively stiff zoom mechanism and long turn that is

required, making it difficult to use for approaching subjects. However, I will have to admit the image quality of that lens is

consistently guite good. I suspect that many people's opinions are heavily weighted by the price instead of just looking at

the ergonomics, ease of use and results. Thus the 24-70 E gets some negative reviews because of its cost. In my view

lens design is all about balance of different advantages and disadvantages and a lens that is better in all aspects than the

24-70G yet has VR was never going to happen.

[rconey]

<p>At least for landscapes the 24-85 f3.5-4.5 ED VR mentioned above is nice and much lighter than the 24-70 f2.8G. For that reason I don't carry the 24-70 around much any more. I also have been surprised by the 28-105 f3.5-4.5. It reminds me why I have kept it. An older lens but the color rendition and sharpness are nice. I am using it as my walk around lens on the D800 right now. For planned landscapes I bring an additional wider lens. </p>

[rconey]

<p>Oh, the "Behind the Rocks" image below (if it stays there) was shot with the Nikon 35-70 f2.8 that I used back in my film days for a backpacking lens. I don't own that any more. The zoom range was restrictive, and I find that 35 mm is right in the middle of my usual range of use so I had to change lenses a lot.</p>

[Javier Gutierre]

<p>I have been reading and following along because, well, I like these kinds of reads. So let me ask a question. I asked about the body earlier, because having owned a D700 at one time. So the first thing that comes to mind is how much better the ISO performance and DR range is in my D750 and in my D800E. Truth be told, even my D7200 is far better than the D700 I had. So in my mind, If I was a wedding photographer, I would go after a modern body like a D750 or even a D610. This will in my mind and opinion open up a new world with more lens options. Like Robert mentioned, the 24-85 f3.5-4.5 ED VR gets nothing but high praise by those who own it. Personally, I do not own it ''yet''. But for the money $500.00 bucks and with the performance of a modern FX body (D610, D750) it seems to me like a better way to go. The 2-3 stop better ISO performance will more than make up the lens difference. Am I wrong here? I know the DOF will not be as shallow with this lens, but in truth I do not know. Just questions that came to my head. <br>

<br>

http://www.nikonusa.com/en/nikon-products/product/camera-lenses/af-s-nikkor-24-85mm-f%252f3.5-4.5g-ed-vr.html<br>

<br>

</p>

[wedding_photographer5]

<blockquote>

<p>Truth be told, even my D7200 is far better than the D700 I had. So in my mind, If I was a wedding photographer, I would go after a modern body like a D750 or even a D610.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>In what way is a different body an <em>alternative to a 24-70mm lens </em>- as the title of this thread says ?</p>

<p><a href="http://huwelijksfotograaf.wix.com/lumicino">Here's my site</a>, everything you see there is made with that 'ancient' d700.<br /> I'm not sure in what way a different body would improve my pictures. Do they seem underexposed or noisy to you, since you're suggesting a higher ISO body?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Like Robert mentioned, the 24-85 f3.5-4.5 ED VR gets nothing but high praise by those who own it.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I'm sure they do, but I bet they'd be equally well off with a compact camera. <br /> I guess a faster lens with somewhat smaller coverage would suit me better.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The 2-3 stop better ISO performance will more than make up the lens difference.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>How exactly will it make up for shallow depth of field?</p>

<p>if you take a look at the pictures on the link I posted... most have shallow depth. The site would look very different with a f5.6 lens on a small frame camera.</p>

<p> </p>

[rodeo_joe1]

Tamron's 28~75mm SP f/2.8 lens is very small and

light for a midrange zoom. IQ and flare resistance

are very good.

[rconey]

<p>Nice web site and images BTW. If you want smaller, lighter, cheaper I think you will make some compromises avoiding the 24-70 f2.8. The 24-85 f3.5-4.5 VR on a full frame camera is better than a compact camera (I have several). The only way to narrow the depth of field at f3.5-4.5 (not 5.6) is to get closer. If equally bright (f stop wise) is the key criterion then a few primes is probably the way to go. The 35-70 f2.8 is a nice lens- I sort of regret having parted with it, but the 24-70 f2.8 eliminated the lens changes around 35 mm. Is 35 mm wide enough for you most of the time? One way to look at it is that lenses last a long time, while camera bodies change more often. Maybe that can rationalize getting a good, used 24-70 copy. I wish you luck finding your perfect answer.</p>

[thomasherren]

<p>When I had the D700 (now it's a D750), I bought a used 35 - 70mm f/2.8 and a 24mm f/2.8. The zoom had a very good optical quality, pictures were sometimes flat with a soft haze. This could be easily corrected in RAW-processing. I did not like the push-pull mechanism as I felt it quite hard and not sensitive enough for small corrections of focal length. I sold it for about the same price as I had bought it before I got the D750. So I cannot rate it on the new body. I now have a 24 - 70mm f/2.8 which has equal sharpness at the most but much more disortion. The 35 - 70mm is virtually free of distortion, but a bit prone to flares.<br>

The 24mm is optically okay on the D750. I take it when I want it light, in combination with a 35mm DX (yes, it works on FX with slight limitations), a 50mm f/1.8 and a 70 - 200mm f/4</p>

[wedding_photographer5]

<p>Thanks for the contributions.</p>

<p>I just sold the 28-70mm f2.8. Not because of optical shortcomings but because of encumbrance. I ended up carrying a 50mm instead but need something wider too.</p>

<p>Anyone been using the new 24mm 1.8 g on FX ?</p>

<p> </p>