Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 Di VC G2 Lens

[bgelfand]

I don't mind the zoom ring being large enough to find - I'm used to holding lens by their zoom rings. At least on mine, it's not so easy to move that it shifts unintentionally, unlike the focus ring, which is very light. YMMV; the 35-70 under discussion is a push-pull zoom, after all!

 

My impression from reviews was that the G2 24-70 is optically identical to the original - I've never even seen it myself. If it's much better, I'll pay more attention to it - I wouldn't turn down slight improvements, especially in areas like bokeh. The upgradability of the G2 is good to know, especially with the FTZ under consideration - but it also might mean mk1 versions have just got cheaper!

 

The VC works, don't get me wrong. I don't usually think about it, but at least on the mk1 the VC is comparable to other lenses of its vintage. The 200-500 and 70-200FL are dramatically better than, say, the 70-200 VR2 in holding the image steady; it's not as good as them, although the mk2 version might have improved things a bit. It's a couple of stops, not the many stops you get from the big glass. It doesn't matter nearly so much with a shorter lens, although if you're trying to hand-hold at somewhere in the 1/20-1/60s range, you might run into shutter shock anyway.

 

DxO reckon the Tamron generally outperforms the 24-70 Nikkor - and that's the older one, which they rate slightly better than the newer VR one. It's weaker at the 70mm end than the 24, and the non-VR Nikkor is better at 70mm (though the VR one isn't); I don't mind since my 70-200 covers that nicely anyway. This doesn't mean it's bad at 70mm, just that the corners at f/2.8 aren't quite up to the rest of the performance.

 

I've never used the 35-70, and I struggled a bit to find a review because it's discontinued; Hypnoken has a comparison with the mk1 24-70 (in a bulk "pro normal zoom" comparison), and the frame corners do look especially weak at wide apertures - though I'm sure it's fine in the middle. And the Tamron is strongest at 24mm where you can't reach with the 35-70. If you were even considering replacing it, I assume you felt it had issues; I'd be astonished if the Tamron isn't at least better, but with an open question of whether it's better enough to justify $1100 - at least the mk1 was fairly cheap when I bought it. Finding a used mk1 might tip the money balance your way, especially if you think getting a dedicated pro middle zoom for mirrorless would be worthwhile because it's the kind of design that benefits from it (the retrofocal/telephoto transition being awkward on a dSLR) - people have said nice things about Canon's mirrorless pro zoom, other than it being big.

 

I think we're walking a line here between trying to say "this is a really good lens for a mid-range pro zoom" and "but like every other mid-range pro zoom, it's not perfect". I'm not really a huge fan of the middle range, certainly not to the extent that I'm willing to pay £2000 for a Nikkor to do the job badly, but for me this hit the acceptable size/acceptable performance/acceptable price balance. The same argument has made me buy the 50mm f/1.8 AF-S and the 50mm Sigma Art, but avoid the 50mm f/1.4 AF-S, for example.

 

I do agree that 70mm is a funny place for a zoom to stop. Well, it's a reasonable place in that it's the "hand over" to a 70-200, which a pro obviously has permanently welded to the other body they have with them. But if you want a walk-around lens, it's a bit short for portraiture or candids; arguably the 24-85mm is more useful as a "do everything" (unsurprisingly for something sold as a kit lens), and performs well if you don't mind treating it as f/5.6 - but obviously you don't have f/2.8 if you need it. The 24-120 f/4 is more flexible, but seemed visibly softer to me, and not much smaller, which is why I traded mine in and kept the Tamron - I found myself carrying the Tamron more, and it's not so huge a crop to match the field of view of the 24-120, especially with the latter being a little weak at the long end. None of these will help if you want enough reach for wildlife, but the 28-300 has its own compromises.

 

The problem with digitally correcting vignetting is that it effectively boosts the ISO in the corners of the frame, so you'll get noise (or less dynamic range). But the alternatives have at least some vignetting as well. Worth bearing in mind for stitching, but I don't lose sleep over this otherwise.

 

I'd go for it, but it absolutely matters how much you're bothered by the limitations of the 35-70 and how much the money means to you!

 

Thank you, Andrew. This answers most of my questions. I posted before I saw this quoted post of yours.

[rodeo_joe1]

I'll make some bald statements based on my use of the G1 version.

 

The lens diagrams published by Tamron are identical for both versions.

 

There is just a 'normal' amount of vignetting that I'd expect to see in a zoom of this type. No 'lost' corners at any aperture or zoom setting. Vignetting is, IMO, acceptable wide open, and not an issue at f/4 and smaller.

 

The lens is weakest (softest) at 70mm, but still delivers perfectly good results there. You have to pixel peep quite hard to see the drop in sharpness.

 

The lens has excellent contrast, which in my view gives pictures from it plenty of 'pop'.

 

At the short end the extreme corners show some colour fringing, which could easily be corrected in software. It's actually better in that respect at 24mm than a lot of primes I've used though.

 

The (now supposedly improved) VC lets me hand-hold fairly reliably at 1/15th second and 70mm. Something I could never do unaided without wasting many attempts.

 

The front element is fairly flat and hardly bulges toward the lens cap at all. In any case, I have a Sigma DG UV filter fitted, which doesn't appear to affect sharpness at all, nor to cause any vignetting.

 

In short, I find the lens perfectly satisfactory. I can't compare it to the 24-70 Nikkor image-wise, because every single one I picked up and tried, new, in bricks & mortar camera shops had a rough or stiff zoom feel, and in one case actually seized at the 50mm setting. Shame on Nikon for letting them out of the factory in that condition! That was a few years back, but they certainly didn't feel like a reliable and professional tool. And people have the nerve to slate Tamron's lenses for feeling plasticky? Well at least the Tamron zoom ring doesn't feel like it's full of grit, and so far mine hasn't seized up or gone sloppy on me!

[bgelfand]

I'll make some bald statements based on my use of the G1 version.

 

The lens diagrams published by Tamron are identical for both versions.

 

There is just a 'normal' amount of vignetting that I'd expect to see in a zoom of this type. No 'lost' corners at any aperture or zoom setting. Vignetting is, IMO, acceptable wide open, and not an issue at f/4 and smaller.

 

The lens is weakest (softest) at 70mm, but still delivers perfectly good results there. You have to pixel peep quite hard to see the drop in sharpness.

 

The lens has excellent contrast, which in my view gives pictures from it plenty of 'pop'.

 

At the short end the extreme corners show some colour fringing, which could easily be corrected in software. It's actually better in that respect at 24mm than a lot of primes I've used though.

 

The (now supposedly improved) VC lets me hand-hold fairly reliably at 1/15th second and 70mm. Something I could never do unaided without wasting many attempts.

 

The front element is fairly flat and hardly bulges toward the lens cap at all. In any case, I have a Sigma DG UV filter fitted, which doesn't appear to affect sharpness at all, nor to cause any vignetting.

 

In short, I find the lens perfectly satisfactory. I can't compare it to the 24-70 Nikkor image-wise, because every single one I picked up and tried, new, in bricks & mortar camera shops had a rough or stiff zoom feel, and in one case actually seized at the 50mm setting. Shame on Nikon for letting them out of the factory in that condition! That was a few years back, but they certainly didn't feel like a reliable and professional tool. And people have the nerve to slate Tamron's lenses for feeling plasticky? Well at least the Tamron zoom ring doesn't feel like it's full of grit, and so far mine hasn't seized up or gone sloppy on me!

 

Thank you Rodeo_joe. Your, and Andrew's, recent posts gives me a very good idea of what to expect from the lens.

[bgelfand]

BTW :) here's one I did earlier:

1/40 85mm

Samhuinn 2018 by Ken, on Flickr

I looked at your other photos on Flickr taken with the Tamron both on the D7200 and the D600. The Tamron is definitely a step up from my Nikon 35-70.

 

By the way you have some outstanding images there. I wish I had your talent.

[david_r._edan]

I do not "hate" the lens, though I do wish there was something better. I would like the 24-70 much more if it provided more coverage, with everything else remaining the same.

 

I said that the VR was "OK", which by no means is "worthless". In my particular case, the D800's shutter packs a wallop, which is a contributing factor that I never really considered and something that should have been obvious to me. You are very likely to be satisfied with what the VR on this lens does for you, if you don't expect any 'miracles' from it, that is.

 

If I felt an urge to upgrade in this particular time frame, given everything, I would probably pull the trigger on that 24-70 G2 plus the console deal.

However, if I felt that I could wait, I would see where the Z line was heading first (new Z-mount lenses from 3rd parties, actual data on image quality, stuff like that).

I don't buy my lenses very often and when I do, they have to last me many, many years. The whole industry is in a weird spot right now and the future is kinda fuzzy, so I ain't buying diddly until it starts to make sense. I purchased my 24-70 almost a year ago, still thinking that I'd be using it on a D850, well, that ain't happening. If I knew then what I know about the Z7 now, I doubt I'd be in this discussion.

 

Anyway, to me it doesn't look like that's your story, so by all means - go for it.

 

Tamron have pushed out a whole bunch of decent and interesting lenses in the past few years and they keep rolling 'em out. That console may be of use to you beyond the 24-70 G2, so getting one is a no-brainer. You are very likely to need it for the 24-70, if you care about your focus. It will also let you choose what the VR actually does.

 

*Keep in mind that the 24-70 G2 won't really work on your F100.

[bgelfand]

I do not "hate" the lens, though I do wish there was something better. I would like the 24-70 much more if it provided more coverage, with everything else remaining the same.

 

I said that the VR was "OK", which by no means is "worthless". In my particular case, the D800's shutter packs a wallop, which is a contributing factor that I never really considered and something that should have been obvious to me. You are very likely to be satisfied with what the VR on this lens does for you, if you don't expect any 'miracles' from it, that is.

 

If I felt an urge to upgrade in this particular time frame, given everything, I would probably pull the trigger on that 24-70 G2 plus the console deal.

However, if I felt that I could wait, I would see where the Z line was heading first (new Z-mount lenses from 3rd parties, actual data on image quality, stuff like that).

I don't buy my lenses very often and when I do, they have to last me many, many years. The whole industry is in a weird spot right now and the future is kinda fuzzy, so I ain't buying diddly until it starts to make sense. I purchased my 24-70 almost a year ago, still thinking that I'd be using it on a D850, well, that ain't happening. If I knew then what I know about the Z7 now, I doubt I'd be in this discussion.

 

Anyway, to me it doesn't look like that's your story, so by all means - go for it.

 

Tamron have pushed out a whole bunch of decent and interesting lenses in the past few years and they keep rolling 'em out. That console may be of use to you beyond the 24-70 G2, so getting one is a no-brainer. You are very likely to need it for the 24-70, if you care about your focus. It will also let you choose what the VR actually does.

 

*Keep in mind that the 24-70 G2 won't really work on your F100.

 

First, David, thank you very much for your candid appraisal of the Tamron lens; I do appreciate hearing both positive and negative opinions. It helps me make an informed decision.

 

After seeing Ken Dunton's images on Flickr taken with his D600, and reading the posts from Rodeo_joe and Andrew Garrard about their experiences with D810 and D850, I feel that the Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 will be an upgrade when used on my D750.

 

Yes, I am well aware that the Tamron G2, unlike the pre-G2 Tamron 70-200 that I have, will not work on my F100. But I have the Nikon 35-70 f/2.8D that does work on it and works well.

 

Once again, thank you for you opinion and advice.

[kendunton]

Very kind :)

I'm still learning...

 

I'd have to say it helps to have exceptional subjects. It's been a hard learning curve over the last two months preparing for the Samhuinn Festival (which is how long I have had the G2). This was totally outwith my experience.

One niggle I have had - due to working in near darkness - I taped up the switches on the lens with black electrical tape to prevent moving them.

BTW, it works on my F4.

[Andrew Garrard]

Ken: Nice photo. (Took me a moment to work out how you'd got "85mm", but I see that was a D7200 and Flickr quotes equivalent focal length.) That roughly shows what I'd expect, and why I'd have had a mild interest if the optics had been updated: the foreground's sharp and the background is nicely blurred, but there's a hint of "condom bokeh" (out-of-focus highlights are a bit brighter towards the edges than the centre) which I'd hope not to get from the best lenses for subject separation. Still, since this isn't a lens whose primary focus is going to be for portraits (and bgelfand's got a 70-200 if it comes down to it) I wouldn't lose too much sleep over that.

 

Re. Ken's experience with the F4: electronic aperture lenses should be locked at full aperture on pre-D3 vintage cameras. That's a lot more useful than, say, a G lens on an F4 (which is locked at minimum aperture unless you trust auto exposure to pick an aperture), but it does rule out the "stop down a bit for sharpness" advice - though you may not tell with most film photography. The Nikkor 24-70 VR is also E aperture.

 

I think of the 24-70VC as a lens that's very good at f/4-to-f/5.6, and I can use it at f/2.8 if I need to, knowing the edges will suffer a little. Similarly I treated my 70-200 VRII as an f/4 lens that could stretch to f/2.8; it's not until the FL that I treated my 70-200 as a lens that's safe to use at f/2.8 unless I need depth of field (and even then I have to get the focus plane right). I treat my 14-24 as an f/7.1 lens to control the field curvature most of the time. All of them will produce a perfectly acceptable image at f/2.8, but they certainly improve as you stop down a bit, if you need sharp corners more than you need subject isolation or shutter speed. Since I often found myself shooting landscapes with it, stopping the 24-70 down wasn't really an issue.

 

For what it's worth, Tamron claim their VC is as good or better than any of the competition with equivalent lenses.

 

bgelfand: I think you'll be happy with it, and I put my money where my mouth is by having the previous version. I'm just aware that you're spending $1,100 partly on my say so, so I wanted to qualify my enthusiasm with a bit of realism. I've been bitten in the past by "this lens is perfect" claims - notably in my very early days of moving to Nikon by Ken Rockwell's effusive 135mm DC review. I hope you'll report back, though! (And I hope you buy from somewhere that'll allow you to return the lens if you don't like it!)

 

Good luck. :-)

[kendunton]

Most of the time, certainly over the last 2 months, I'm using it at about f10 :)

 

Samhuinn 2018 by Ken, on Flickr

[bgelfand]

bgelfand: I think you'll be happy with it, and I put my money where my mouth is by having the previous version. I'm just aware that you're spending $1,100 partly on my say so, so I wanted to qualify my enthusiasm with a bit of realism. I've been bitten in the past by "this lens is perfect" claims - notably in my very early days of moving to Nikon by Ken Rockwell's effusive 135mm DC review. I hope you'll report back, though! (And I hope you buy from somewhere that'll allow you to return the lens if you don't like it!)

 

Andrew, thank you for all your help; I appreciate it.

 

Of course if every picture I take with the new lens is not a prize winner, I shall blame you, Rodeo-joe, and Ken. <HUGE GRIN>:D As you see, I have "low expectations" ;)

 

For the type of pictures I take (you can see examples in my portfolio on photo.net), this lens will be overkill.

 

I shall probably purchase the lens from BH - I use BH, Adorama, and KEH (for used equipment). But I doubt I shall have to return the lens (unless it arrives broken or damaged). It looks like a definite step up from the 35-70 f/2.8D.

 

Yes, I will post back after I have the lens. I may take some time. The weather in Northern California has changed to rain (we need it badly) and my wife just informed me she refuses to be a target (er, I mean subject) for any photos. I am interested to see how the Tamron compares to my Nikon 50mm f/1.4D when set a 50mm.

 

Once again, my thanks to you, Rodeo_joe, Ken, and David for the information I needed to make an informed decision. Happy Holidays to you all.

[Carl Stone]

Andrew, thank you for all your help; I appreciate it.

 

 

The weather in Northern California has changed to rain (we need it badly) and my wife just informed me she refuses to be a target (er, I mean subject) for any photos..

 

So, just where in Norcal are you? I just talked to one of my sons in Stockton that was glad to see the rain deal with the smoke. Plus me told me a story about selling a anew car to a guy from Paradise that barely escaped after losing his home and pickup to the fire.

 

I don't know how that Tamron, which I have not tried, compares to my Sigma 17-50, save to say that I like the Sigma. Best of luck to you in your pursuit, and here's wishing you a happy holiday season.

[david_r._edan]

I am interested to see how the Tamron compares to my Nikon 50mm f/1.4D when set a 50mm.

 

 

Here's your 50/1.4D Nikkor @ f/5.6:

 

Nikon 50mm f/1.4D AF Nikkor Lens Image Quality

 

Hover your mouse over the picture to see the Tamron at the same setting. *The overlaid sample was captured with a Canon body but it should give you a good idea of what to expect in terms of resolving power. You can compare the Tamron to your other lenses this way, at all the different settings.

Edited November 24, 2018 by david_r._edan

[david_r._edan]

As long as I'm at it, here's the vignetting for the 24-70 G2 Tamron at 24mm and f/2.8 compared to self at 24mm and f/8

 

Tamron 24-70mm f/2.8 Di VC USD G2 Lens Vignetting

 

You know the drill by now, just hover the mouse over the picture but before you do look at those corners and numbers. Yep, that's over 3 stops of light loss there.

 

And here's what you get when you throw on a UV filter:

 

Tamron 24-70mm f/2.8 Di VC USD G2 Lens Vignetting

 

I love Bryan.

Edited November 24, 2018 by david_r._edan

[rodeo_joe1]

As long as I'm at it, here's the vignetting for the 24-70 G2 Tamron at 24mm and f/2.8 compared to self at 24mm and f/8

 

Tamron 24-70mm f/2.8 Di VC USD G2 Lens Vignetting

 

You know the drill by now, just hover the mouse over the picture but before you do look at those corners and numbers. Yep, that's over 3 stops of light loss there.

 

And here's what you get when you throw on a UV filter:

 

Tamron 24-70mm f/2.8 Di VC USD G2 Lens Vignetting

 

I love Bryan.

 

- I've always found those clinical vignetting diagrams to bear no relationship to results from a lens in real life. Besides, a degree of vignetting can actually improve a picture by directing the viewers attention to the centre of the image.

 

3 stops falloff? I seriously doubt those figures. You have to remember that the camera's microlens array has a big influence on vignetting. So results may well vary from sensor to sensor too.

 

Results got on a Canon (spit!) won't necessarily be the same as those from a Nikon.

Edited November 24, 2018 by rodeo_joe|1

[david_r._edan]

- I've always found those clinical vignetting diagrams to bear no relationship to results from a lens in real life. Besides, a degree of vignetting can actually improve a picture by directing the viewers attention to the centre of the image.

 

3 stops falloff? I seriously doubt those figures. You have to remember that the camera's microlens array has a big influence on vignetting. So results may well vary from sensor to sensor too.

 

Results got on a Canon (spit!) won't necessarily be the same as those from a Nikon.

 

Dude, you're talking to a guy who captures custom flat-fields for stitching his panoramas. Vignetting is, like, my no. 1 enemy in the entire process.

But I guess, that it's like I said before, some people like the vignetting. Others can simply add as much of it as they want in post, IF they want it.

And seriously, "Canon"? Like that sample would show +/- 0 stops across the entire frame if it was a Nikon, which has its sensor made by elves out of pixie dust.

 

"I think some people are up themselves..." some fella once said... To each is own, I said.

[bgelfand]

As long as I'm at it, here's the vignetting for the 24-70 G2 Tamron at 24mm and f/2.8 compared to self at 24mm and f/8

 

Tamron 24-70mm f/2.8 Di VC USD G2 Lens Vignetting

 

You know the drill by now, just hover the mouse over the picture but before you do look at those corners and numbers. Yep, that's over 3 stops of light loss there.

 

And here's what you get when you throw on a UV filter:

 

Tamron 24-70mm f/2.8 Di VC USD G2 Lens Vignetting

 

I love Bryan.

 

Thank you very much for the links. The reviews of the lenses are extensive.

[david_r._edan]

Thank you very much for the links. The reviews of the lenses are extensive.

 

You're welcome. There's nothing on your 35-70 though. I was kinda wondering about it myself but it's just way too old.

[rodeo_joe1]

Strangely, the Lenstip review of the gen 1 version shows a lower degree of vignetting, by nearly a stop. Still using a Canon FF sensor though.

 

No, I don't think there's any magic pixie dust in Nikon's Sony-built sensors, but a different microlens geometry is highly likely.

 

There may even be an effect from the inclusion of an AA filter in my D800. It's not like film, dude, where you could shove, say, FP4 in any old camera and get virtually the same results. Lens and microlens interaction can be distinctly different between sensor types.

Edited November 24, 2018 by rodeo_joe|1

[david_r._edan]

Strangely, the Lenstip review of the gen 1 version shows a lower degree of vignetting, by nearly a stop. Still using a Canon FF sensor though.

 

No, I don't think there's any magic pixie dust in Nikon's Sony-built sensors, but a different microlens geometry is highly likely.

 

There may even be an effect from the inclusion of an AA filter in my D800. It's not like film, dude, where you could shove, say, FP4 in any old camera and get virtually the same results. Lens and microlens interaction can be distinctly different between sensor types.

 

I have the D800 myself and to me those corners at 24/2.8 look atrocious, maybe even more so than that icky sample from a Canon, possibly because I get to see that sh*t in 36MP, full-res.

 

I wish they would come up with a "microlens" that just made it GO AWAY. (translation: It is what it is, dude...)

[bgelfand]

The Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 G2 arrived at about 4 PM.

 

So far I have taken only three images with it in a darkened living room. I shot at f/7.1 in aperture priority with auto-ISO at 70mm, 50mm, and 24mm. The camera set the ISO to 12800 and the shutter speeds at 1/4 second at 70mm, 1/3 second at 50mm, and 1/3 second at 24mm. I see considerable noise at ISO 12800, but looking at the images 1:1 in Lightroom, I am not seeing much, if any, motion blur at any of the settings. I see the most of what may be motion blur at 50mm.

 

Tomorrow it is suppose to rain all day, so I will not get a chance to move outside and shoot in better light, I will have to wait until Sunday or Monday.

 

The one big surprise was how big this lens is - big in circumference. This is one fat lens. I have a bit of a problem fitting my D750 with the lens mounted in my Tamrac 606 case.

 

All in all, I think I will like this lens. So far it is well worth the $1,100 I paid for it.

[glen_h]

I suspect that this is out of my price range, but it is interesting to see an expensive, large aperture, lens that has enough vignetting that you don't want to use it wide open.

 

My actual latest lens is a used Nikon 24-120mm f3.5-f5.6 D AF, that is, the older version of the 24-120,

which I use on a D700. I suppose I should watch for vignetting, as I often enough use it at 24mm.

[bgelfand]

I should have been clearer in my previous post. This was just my first impression. As I wrote, I received the lens at 4 PM and I had time to shoot only three (3) frames with it; just enough to be sure it worked and I did not have to send it back to B&H.

 

I was trying to test the Vibration Reduction (Vibration Control) of the lens when I shot at f/7.1. As far as I can tell it worked (first reason to test on a new lens), and I am getting about 4 to 5 stops of vibration reduction. Tamron claims 5-stops.

 

The lens also stops down, focuses, and zooms smoothly - the other basic functions I was testing.

 

For testing vignetting, I shall shoot wide opened. I am not too worried about vignetting since Lightroom 6 (stand-alone version) has a lens correction profile for the lens.

 

As for "out of price range" look at the $2400 (well $2396.95 to be accurate <grin>) of the Nikon equivalent. The Tamron is down right inexpensive by comparison. Is the Tamron "as good as" the Nikon? On my D750 perhaps. On a D850, probably not. In any case, it is much better than my old Nikon 35-70 f/2.8D (which now lives in the camera bag with my F100). Shun, you were absolutely correct about the 35-70 f/2.8D on the D750.

[ShunCheung]

I have never used the 35-70mm f2.8 on my D750. My lens developed the common (for that lens) internal fogged up problem around 2001, about 11 years since I bought it. The 35mm wide end is too limiting, but that was the technological limitation from the 1980’s. I replaced it with the 28-70mm f2.8 AF-S. Now I use the 24-70mm Nikkor. I have no experience with the Tamron.

 

The Nikkor E version is just too big and expensive. However, I like the Z mount version so far, but tha lens is no good on the DSLRs. :rolleyes:

[heimbrandt]

A friend bought the 24-70G2 about a year ago. We both tested it against the Nikkor 24-70G and the Nikkor 24-70E VR and my 24-120/4VR.

 

The Tamron was noticeably better than the 24-70G and equal to the results from the 24-70E VR from wide open to about f11 (we did not stop the lenses down more). We used his D810 and Lightroom on a MacBook Pro for viewing.

 

We concluded that the 24-70E VR was great, but not really optically better than the Tamron G2 and thus not worth the extra money. He bought the Tamron and has been very pleased with it even after he got the D850. However, he has bought a 24-120/4VR as well as a walkabout lens as he discovered that he did feel that 70mm is on the shorter end for his use as a walkabout lens. I do not know which lens he uses the most, but the short long end of 70mm is also the reason I have passed on getting any 24-70/2.8 lens. (I would either use the 24-120 or the 16-35 and the 70-200, but that is me.)

[Andrew Garrard]

(I would either use the 24-120 or the 16-35 and the 70-200, but that is me.)

 

70mm is certainly a little short (arguably unless you're also carrying a 70-200). My issue with the 24-120 f/4 is that I found it a little soft, and it's not significantly smaller. At some point I should look again at the 24-85VR; for now, I'll take the aperture and accept mild chubbiness.