How much better is a modern 24-70mm zoom than an older f/2.8 normal zoom?

[Mary Doo]

I think I see the eBay listings Mary referred to, but they are auction listings, each with over 4 days to go. Those prices won't hold.

Oops, didn't examine it carefully enough. ;) Hwvr, a few Buy-it-Now G version are there.

[chulster]

To add to the voices... I've hired a mk1 24-70 Nikkor for a wedding. It was a bit inconveniently big (and I've had a 14-24 almost as long as I've shot Nikon). I'd certainly hesitate to carry it around. The 24-70 VR is even bigger.

 

For a long time I avoided a mid-range zoom - I had a 28-200 that I often used at either end, although it didn't hold up on a D8x0, and I have an old 28-80 that only really gets used for video. When the Brexit vote tanked the exchange rate, I bought a 24-120 f/4 and the Tamron 24-70 VC (G1) before the prices went up. The Tamron is almost as small as the 24-120 and, to my mind, clearly better in addition to being a stop faster. I've since got rid of the 24-120, but the 24-70 gets quite a lot of use (enough that I have some 82mm filters almost exclusively for it). The G2 would at least have the dock. I've not resorted to tuning the AF, although I do drop a stop or two when I can anyway. (I tend to try not to go as low as f/8 because of diffraction and possible sensor dust, though.)

 

If the bulk of the Nikkor makes you hesitate, the Tamron is a lot less unwieldy, arguably better optically depending on where you look (although I'd take a slight improvement if offered - the G2 has the same optics, and I although the Sigma may be a little better, it's not by much) and a lot less money. I'm happy with mine. I believe the consensus is that the 28-70 zooms were visibly worse (lens technology moved on).

 

Thanks, Andrew. As you did, I have my reasons for not having acquired a 24-70mm up to now, and they are not only about cost, although that is perhaps the primary one. Bulk, weight, and the (to me) non-ideal zoom range are others. For my typical uses, 24 to 70 mm is both wider than I usually need and shorter than I'd like. The first part of that is why I don't mind a 28-70mm or even a 35-70mm as my normal zoom—especially when you factor in the size and weight benefits of the shorter ranges.

 

Here is a link to my post in 2018 when I asked the same question about this lens - and the three pages of helpful replies that I received.

 

In that thread, there was a link to a review of the Tamron G2 that I found quite useful. It raised in me concerns about the lens's softness at 70mm wide open and its fairly bad peripheral astigmatism...but even more about focus shift. Focus shift is, hands-down, the one lens flaw that I hate the most, when it is severe enough to overcome the increase in DoF of going from, e.g., f/2.8 to f/4. The focus shift shown in the review is of that nature. It would be nice if the TAP-In Console let me enter different AFFT values at different apertures, but it does not.

[david_r._edan]

Sorry for the stupid question. I'm hoping a few people will take a crack at it despite its lameness.

 

 

We already had this discussion here awhile back (bgelfand gave you the link to it). You can read what I said there about the vignetting (and everything else).

 

Here's what the new Tammy 24-70 G2 looks like compared to the old 28-75:

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

 

• Hover the mouse cursor over the sample to see the older lens. Adjust the focal lengths and apertures to see what you need.

 

Couldn't find the 35-70 Nikkor in the database but here are the vignetting samples in the G2 (in case you missed it in the old post):

 

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

 

Same thing, you can browse through the different focal lengths and apertures. Enjoy.

Edited May 24, 2020 by david_r._edan

[chulster]

We already had this discussion here awhile back (bgelfand gave you the link to it). You can read what I said there about the vignetting (and everything else).

 

Here's what the new Tammy 24-70 G2 looks like compared to the old 28-75:

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

 

• Hover the mouse cursor over the sample to see the older lens. Adjust the focal lengths and apertures to see what you need.

 

Couldn't find the 35-70 Nikkor in the database but here are the vignetting samples in the G2 (in case you missed it in the old post):

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

 

Same thing, you can browse through the different focal lengths and apertures. Enjoy.

 

Thanks, David. I had already read the whole review. But you've given me an opening to talk about something that reading the review made me realize.

 

I haven't been completely honest in this thread. In the original post, I implied that I'm comparing a hypothetical 24-70mm with the Nikkor 35-70mm and Tamron 28-75mm lenses I have used. But that's not the whole truth.

 

I currently own a Tamron 35-150mm f/2.8-4. After reading the Digital Picture review of the Tamron 24-70mm, it dawned on me that the fact that I have this other lens (the 35-150mm) is the main reason I'm not entirely excited about the 24-70mm. I'm afraid it won't be as good as the lens I have.

 

The 35-150mm is really a very impressive lens, worthy of consideration by many. I think most people dismiss it out of hand because it only starts at 35mm. But if you are willing to carry a lightweight 17/18-35mm along with it, the 35-150mm has a lot to offer. I think it's at least as sharp as the Tamron 24-70mm. It's about 100g lighter and not quite as fat (although longer). It doesn't suffer from focus shift (although that might only matter to me). It's significantly cheaper. And for many situations, the fact that it goes to 150mm means you may not need to carry a 70-200mm.

 

Considering that I rarely use the focal lengths below 35mm, I think I've been trying too hard to convince myself that I need a more standard normal zoom like the Tamron 24-70mm. (Besides, I also have the Tamron 17-35mm, so I'm covered for the wider angles.) Maybe it's all just GAS.

[Mary Doo]

...Considering that I rarely use the focal lengths below 35mm, I think I've been trying too hard to convince myself that I need a more standard normal zoom like the Tamron 24-70mm. (Besides, I also have the Tamron 17-35mm, so I'm covered for the wider angles.) Maybe it's all just GAS.

Sounds like you don't need one. ;) We are in the Nikon equipment forum, OCD is common. Myself included, severity is a matter of degree. :D

[Andrew Garrard]

Sounds like you want the Sigma 24-35 f/2 then. :-)

[mike_halliwell]

Sigma 24-35 f/2 then. :)

It's a very nice lens if you don't mind the heft.

It really is as good as 3 primes in one lens.

Zoom range is bigger in real life than the numbers suggest too.

[rodeo_joe1]

"How much better is a modern 24-70mm zoom than an older f/2.8 normal zoom?"

- Loads!

 

If we're talking about 3rd party offerings, or about pre-digital zooms versus anything designed in the last 20 years.

Edited May 24, 2020 by rodeo_joe|1

[chulster]

Sounds like you want the Sigma 24-35 f/2 then. :)

 

If i had wads of cash, maybe! Fortunately, my GAS is self-limiting.

[JDMvW]

Depends on the dates and stage of evolution of the lenses more than anything else, I think.

 

The early zoom lenses were a lot like a singing dog. No one expected them to sing well, it was just the miracle of convenience that made you put up with lenses like the early Nikkor 43-86mm (see LINK). Notwithstanding many optical compromises, I think it was one of Nikon's best sellers of all times.

 

However, in the last decade or so, advances in lens design have sometimes produced zoom lenses that rival single focal length lenses.

 

So the only answer is "It depends" -- you have to look up tests of the specific lenses you're considering.

Edited May 24, 2020 by JDMvW

[chulster]

So the only answer is "It depends" -- you have to look up tests of the specific lenses you're considering.

 

I want to compare the AF Nikkor 35-70mm f/2.8 to any of the latest 24-70s. Part of the difficulty lies in my not being able to find compatible test measurements.

[JDMvW]

Part of the difficulty lies in my not being able to find compatible test measurements.

 

That's always the rub, as they say. One place that has some older tests (at lower resolution, etc, though) is Welcome to OpticalLimits!. You'll have to look it up yourself, but get as complete a 'name/title' for each lens as you can, since there are lots of similar sounding lenses.

[ben_hutcherson]

The only older one I have experience with is the Vivitar Series 1 35-70 f/2.8 Varifocal. I've not owned one in Nikon mount(they still sell for more than what I'd care to pay for a lens I wouldn't really use). This was considered an excellent lens for what it was, although its obvious deficiency, and a big deal on an MF lens, is that it doesn't even pretend to hold focus as the focal length is changed(hence why they don't call it a "zoom" lens). Presumably, in 70s optical designs, throwing out that criteria freed the designers to make a better lens than if they'd attempted to make a true f/2.8 zoom lens.

 

Using it on ISO 400 print film, wide open it was about as good as the common primes of the same focal length when both were used wide open. The big caveat in that is that most of your common primes in that range(35mm, 45-55mm, 85mm) were 1-2 stops faster. Of course, using a 100 speed slide film would still show some separation between the two(barring f/1.4 primes, which it generally bested) but by the time you stopped any contemporary prime down to f/2.8 it would best the Varifocal.

 

From playing with the older 24-70mm f/2.8 AF-S(not the current E VR) I'd say runs away from older design primes when open.

 

I wish I'd played with some of the intervening designs. The old screwdriver Nikon 28-70s are fairly affordable, but I've resisted since I like my 24-120 f/4 VR so well and I don't know how much use I'd get out of it.

[chulster]

That's always the rub, as they say. One place that has some older tests (at lower resolution, etc, though) is Welcome to OpticalLimits!. You'll have to look it up yourself, but get as complete a 'name/title' for each lens as you can, since there are lots of similar sounding lenses.

 

That's the second site I checked (after The Digital Picture). It's possible only Ken Rockwell has reviews of both lenses, but he doesn't publish hard performance numbers. Even if he did, it would be more than one could expect for him—or any site, really—to keep the tests exactly the same over decades!

[chulster]

The old screwdriver Nikon 28-70s are fairly affordable

 

I'm pretty sure you're not talking about the AF 28-70mm f/3.5-4.5D. The 28-70mm f/2.8 is AF-S. This doesn't detract from what you're saying in the least; I just like being pedantic!

[chulster]

I finally found some measurements for these two lenses that are roughly comparable (with all kinds of caveats). These are Nikon's and Tamron's own MTF charts for the 35-70mm and the 24-70mm G2, respectively:

 

 

At the image centers, the difference is stark: the new lens blows away the old. On the other hand, the improvement at the edges is more muted (except for the S10 line at the wide end). The Tamron does have a shallower curve out to about 15mm image height, which is good.

 

"How much better is a modern 24-70mm zoom than an older f/2.8 normal zoom?"

Loads!

 

If we're talking about 3rd party offerings, or about pre-digital zooms versus anything designed in the last 20 years.

 

Joe, if you're saying there's a qualitative difference between the latest 24-70s and pre-digital f/2.8 normal zooms, these charts would seem to confirm that—certainly at or near the image center.

 

Hmm!

Edited May 24, 2020 by chulster

[chulster]

I'll also note that OpticalLimits has measurements for both the old Tamron 28-75mm and the Tamron 24-70mm, albeit these are tests of the Canon-mount versions. The newer lens is clearly sharper across the board.

[Andrew Garrard]

Yes. There seem to be mixed review on whether the Sigma is better. I certainly see the benefit in dropping to f/4 or so on the Tamron, but I like having f/2.8 when I need it - I'm more likely to need f/2.8 to be sharp in the centre (or close to it depending on composition), whereas for landscape where I want sharp edges, I'll stop down. I generally prefer that it's sharp at the wider end - at the longer end I've got the 70-200 and prime options which are sharper anyway. At the wider end, if it weren't for this, I'd be using the 14-24 - and I almost always shoot that around f/6.3-7.1 just to rein in the field curvature, at least for landscapes. (Sadly the 19mm T/S is vying with the 500mm PF and a third of a 400mm f/2.8 for "lenses I'd have if I had a spare £3500".)

 

Unlike the recent 70-200 lenses, I don't think there's any such thing as a "really good across the whole frame at a wide aperture" mid-range zoom - it's famously hard to make something behave nicely as it goes from retrofocal to telephoto. All of the 24-70 options have taken advantage of more modern optical design (I'm sure the computer involvement has improved since the 28-70 and definitely 35-70), although of course the extra wide-angle flexibility counters that a little. Most of the time, they're all fine. None of them is match for the 50mm Sigma Art, let alone the 40mm.

 

Historically, lens design tends to come in waves (he says with a relatively limited photographic background compared with many on the forum): there was a time when everybody's 70-300mm suddenly got much better, a time when Zeiss and Sigma suddenly stepped up the 55/50mm game, a time when the 70-200 game moved on (with the 70-200FL and the Tamron G2, and I assume now with the Sigma), and they were all a big step ahead of the previous generation. Nikon and Canon were busy leapfrogging each other for the 24-70 crown, and they have improved (mostly - the non-VR vs VR 24-70 is debatable, and Nikon publicly said they chose a non-VR 24-70 first because of concerns about image quality). I'm still waiting for the "as good as a prime" 24-70 lens to appear. With mirrorless (and the ability to correct the wide angle end nearer to the sensor), we'll probably never see it in F-mount: Nikon would rather people went to Z mount to solve the problem than try to fix it with one hand tied behind their backs.

[chulster]

Unlike the recent 70-200 lenses, I don't think there's any such thing as a "really good across the whole frame at a wide aperture" mid-range zoom - it's famously hard to make something behave nicely as it goes from retrofocal to telephoto.

 

I'd say this is a really important point for setting expectations in a 24-70mm.

[Andrew Garrard]

I'd say this is a really important point for setting expectations in a 24-70mm.

 

Of course, it's another reason to decide that mid-range focal lengths are boring, and stick to the ultrawides and the telephotos. :-) I'd be paying a lot more attention if there really was an exceptional candidate; instead I'm looking more at getting a 24-85 as a minimalist lightweight option and accepting the optical compromise when I use it.

[mike_halliwell]

I'm looking more at getting a 24-85 as a minimalist lightweight option

I quite like the old non-AFS 24-85mm 2.8/4 with a very handy 1:2 macro.

 

Bit of a sleeper.

[chulster]

I quite like the old non-AFS 24-85mm 2.8/4 with a very handy 1:2 macro.

 

Bit of a sleeper.

 

I was scared away from that lens years ago by the test results at Optical Limits. Is your real-world experience of it exculpatory?

[mike_halliwell]

I had one for about 2 years and used it as a bit of a bug walkaround lens.

 

I eventually got tired of it's lack of reach for nervous beasts.

 

It worked very well on my screwdrive DX bodies, but AF was a bit slow for moving butterflies etc.

 

I really, really wish the Sigma 50-100mm 1.8 DX had better close focus.

[ben_hutcherson]

Well, just for grins, I just bought a cheap AF-Nikkor 35-70 f/2.8D. I'm going to be interested to see how it behaves, and will keep adding to my 24-70 f/2.8 slush fund.

[RaymondC]

Did you ever use the 35-70mm, Mary?

 

I bought the 35-70mm F2.8 non D in my case b/c I was after a lens for times when I needed it but it's not something I use often. I did shoot it side/side with my 50mm F1.8D and it is just as sharp. Maybe it was not at wide open but probably at F4 and F5.6. F2.8 I didn't have any real concerns either.

 

The only issue that bugged me is that at night or if you have sunlight direct into the lens, the 35-70mm would flare. Also in the daytime if you are in a community hall for example or like a garage. So you have a darker room with light spilling into the room then you can get lens flare. Or likewise inside a hall or a garage that is a bit dark and then you have side windows with the light spilling inside.

 

Edit.

With the current prices of the 28-70 and the older 24-70mm. I think it is not going to be my own walkabout lens but for times when I need it like indoors at an event or with people I would prefer the 24-70 just more versatile also the FL. If I were to play evil advocate; if one was contemplating the Z cameras, I would go with the 24-70mm F4.0 I think it is. F4 should be plentiful for most people but there is also the F2.8 I think. For myself again it is not like I am printing posters anyway.

Edited May 24, 2020 by RaymondC