24-70 2.8 questions

Dooginfif20 · January 23, 2010

So I have been doing some research for the past few months. I have been thinking about purchasing some good pro glass and I have heard a lot of good things about the Nikon 24-70 2.8. I use a D90 and right now I have 50 1.4G and the kit lens 18-105 that came with it. Before I take the plunge and purchase this lens I am looking for outside opinions. The reason I am choosing a non-DX lens is because I know some day I will eventually move into the D700-D3X area so I am looking to only purchase FX lenses. Would anyone like to provide experiences, pros, cons, and any other type of information about this lens or a lens you would think would be a better choice for around $1800. I am looking to use the lens for portrait type work. I know I will probably get plugs for the 70-200 and I agree that is a great lens, but I am looking for a 99% of the time use lens. I appreciate any and all comments and ideas!

ojn · January 23, 2010

We have the 17-55 DX for our D80, and I _love_ that lens. How I wish it wasn't DX since we have since upgraded to FX.

We decided to go the middle road and instead of investing the $$$ in the Nikon 24-70, we took a look at the new (as of last fall) Sigma 24-70 HSM. It's a completely different lens from the previous Sigma 24-70, so make sure you read the right reviews for it.

The one thing that's been a disappointment in our case is the quality. It's a sturdy lens but we've had AF issues. It's gone in for service once for severe back focus. I wish we would have caught it within the window of returns.

The Sigma is half the cost of the Nikon, and IF you get a good unit you get excellent value from it. I have a friend who has been very happy with his, no issues whatsoever and I would say that his is a touch sharper than ours. So it's a gamble. While I wouldn't say we lost our investment in any way, we certainly didn't luck out with ours.

In hindsight I would have preferred to sell the 17-55 and use the cash to go for the Nikon 24-70. We've rented one for a day and it's lovely. Only drawback besides the price tag is the fact that it is both longer and heaver than the Sigma.

rookieshooter · January 23, 2010

I've used this lens and it is essentially perfect. Here is a thread with pics:

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/858176

craig_d · January 23, 2010

ojn wrote:

... we took a look at the new (as of last fall) Sigma 24-70 HSM. It's a completely different lens from the previous Sigma 24-70, so make sure you read the right reviews for it.

The one thing that's been a disappointment in our case is the quality. It's a sturdy lens but we've had AF issues. It's gone in for service once for severe back focus.

I know some people love Sigma, but really, if I could just have a dollar for every time I've heard or read remarks like these...

Dooginfif20 · January 23, 2010

ojn wrote:

We have the 17-55 DX for our D80, and I _love_ that lens. How I wish it wasn't DX since we have since upgraded to FX.

We decided to go the middle road and instead of investing the $$$ in the Nikon 24-70, we took a look at the new (as of last fall) Sigma 24-70 HSM. It's a completely different lens from the previous Sigma 24-70, so make sure you read the right reviews for it.

The one thing that's been a disappointment in our case is the quality. It's a sturdy lens but we've had AF issues. It's gone in for service once for severe back focus. I wish we would have caught it within the window of returns.

The Sigma is half the cost of the Nikon, and IF you get a good unit you get excellent value from it. I have a friend who has been very happy with his, no issues whatsoever and I would say that his is a touch sharper than ours. So it's a gamble. While I wouldn't say we lost our investment in any way, we certainly didn't luck out with ours.

In hindsight I would have preferred to sell the 17-55 and use the cash to go for the Nikon 24-70. We've rented one for a day and it's lovely. Only drawback besides the price tag is the fact that it is both longer and heaver than the Sigma.

Thank you for your response! The guy that I intern for uses the 17-55 2.8 and he loves his too. The only thing holding me back from getting that lens is the DX factor. Another thing keeping me from going with Sigma or Tamron in this case is because I have rented similar lenses and wasnt satisfied with the sharpness and AF speed. I am looking for a good low light pro level fast auto focus lens. The studio I intern at does a lot of weddings so that is one thing I am trying to keep in mind. I appreciate your input and I will read more reviews on the newer version! Thanks!

Dooginfif20 · January 23, 2010

rookieshooter wrote:

I've used this lens and it is essentially perfect. Here is a thread with pics:

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/858176

Very good thread! Very nice bokeh and DOF. I am a DOF lover for sure. That thread helped me see the quality of the images that can come from that lens! Thank you for your post!

Dooginfif20 · January 23, 2010

craig_d wrote:

I know some people love Sigma, but really, if I could just have a dollar for every time I've heard or read remarks like these...

I totally agree. That is one reason why I struggle with purchasing other the Nikon stuff.

angevin1 · January 24, 2010

I think that lens you mention, the 24-70mm f/2.8 is without a doubt the Nikon Flagship of mid-range zooms. I've never had one, and only occasionally wonder if...if it would be worth the added expense over the older trusty 35-70mm f/2.8 I presently own and use. I find the 35-70 to be perfect for studio work. The added range of 24mm versus 35mm has come into play for me with a new style of shooting I am working on, but I am inclined to purchase a 20/28mm range prime.

If money isn't an issue, I say go for it. However I do think there are work arounds' and ways to buy more than one really decent lens for the money you mention.

ojn · January 24, 2010

craig_d wrote:

I know some people love Sigma, but really, if I could just have a dollar for every time I've heard or read remarks like these...

Yeah.

I have no doubt that the best lenses that roll off their production line are great, but it's a complete gamble. I have learned my lesson.

paddler4 · January 24, 2010

Another option in that range is the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8, which I bought as a (much) cheaper alternative to the Canon 24-70. I have been pleased with it. The BQ is not as high, and it does not have full-time manual focusing, but it the BQ is certainly adequate, and the IQ is excellent.

ziggy53 · January 24, 2010

I would not shy from the purchase of any equipment because of what I plan to do or might do, unless the change is imminent.

If the best solution for your current needs is a DX solution, embrace it for what it can do for you now. You can always sell the item later and recover most of your costs. (This is unlike your DX cameras which are in constant devaluation.)

If you want a reasonably priced standard/normal zoom for a Nikon DX camera I can recommend the Tamron SP AF17-50mm, F/2.8 Di II LD Aspherical (IF). It can yield very high image quality and it's a very good range of focal lengths for indoor photography and social events.

Of course Nikon wishes you would purchase the Nikkor 17-55mmm f/2.8G DX AF-S ED-IF, but the Tamron is very close in image quality for a fraction of the cost.

If you still wish to purchase a FF lens it will perform perfectly on the DX body. The Nikkor 24-70mm, f/2.8G ED AF-S is an excellent lens on the DX bodies. The zoom range is perhaps not as useful for indoor work as a 17-55mm-ish zoom but the image quality you can get from the lens is certainly professional level. I agree with Paddler and the Tamron 28-75mm, f/2.8 SP XR ZL Di LD Aspherical (IF) is very nice image quality on a crop camera.

Dooginfif20 · January 24, 2010

angevin1 wrote:

I think that lens you mention, the 24-70mm f/2.8 is without a doubt the Nikon Flagship of mid-range zooms. I've never had one, and only occasionally wonder if...if it would be worth the added expense over the older trusty 35-70mm f/2.8 I presently own and use. I find the 35-70 to be perfect for studio work. The added range of 24mm versus 35mm has come into play for me with a new style of shooting I am working on, but I am inclined to purchase a 20/28mm range prime.

If money isn't an issue, I say go for it. However I do think there are work arounds' and ways to buy more than one really decent lens for the money you mention.

you speak of work arounds. What work arounds would you suggest? I have 50mm prime lens already and have looked at the 85 as well.

Dooginfif20 · January 24, 2010

ziggy53 wrote:

I would not shy from the purchase of any equipment because of what I plan to do or might do, unless the change is imminent.

If the best solution for your current needs is a DX solution, embrace it for what it can do for you now. You can always sell the item later and recover most of your costs. (This is unlike your DX cameras which are in constant devaluation.)

If you want a reasonably priced standard/normal zoom for a Nikon DX camera I can recommend the Tamron SP AF17-50mm, F/2.8 Di II LD Aspherical (IF). It can yield very high image quality and it's a very good range of focal lengths for indoor photography and social events.

Of course Nikon wishes you would purchase the Nikkor 17-55mmm f/2.8G DX AF-S ED-IF, but the Tamron is very close in image quality for a fraction of the cost.

If you still wish to purchase a FF lens it will perform perfectly on the DX body. The Nikkor 24-70mm, f/2.8G ED AF-S is an excellent lens on the DX bodies. The zoom range is perhaps not as useful for indoor work as a 17-55mm-ish zoom but the image quality you can get from the lens is certainly professional level. I agree with Paddler and the Tamron 28-75mm, f/2.8 SP XR ZL Di LD Aspherical (IF) is very nice image quality on a crop camera.

Thank you for your comment! I see what you mean with looking at DX lenses. The only problem I see with that is if I am going to buy a Nikon 17-55mm which is around $1300-1500 depending on where I get it or the Nikon 24-70 which is anywhere from $1500-1800 used or new. Why would I spend that amount on a 17-55 then sell it for about 80% of what I paid just to spend even more on the 24-70? I have yet to rent or use the Tamron 28-75 2.8, but I will for sure do more research. My first Tamron I rented (70-200 2.8) I wasn't too pleased with. It had soft images (even on a tripod) and the AF was very slow compared to the Nikon 70-200 2.8. I also had to reseat the lens a few times because the focusing function quit working multiple times. I will though do more research and I appreciate you taking the time to help me out!

angevin1 · January 24, 2010

Dooginfif20 wrote:

you speak of work arounds. What work arounds would you suggest? I have 50mm prime lens already and have looked at the 85 as well.

Somehow I keep forgetting that you presently use a DX camera.

Still, the 17-50 f/2.8 Tamaron is a much cheaper solution and will hold value for DX. You may decide, as I did to keep a DX camera simply for the additional tele-inherent aspect.

The fifty you mention is ideal I would think for portraits in the Dx range, and is probably beat out image-wise by very few other choices.

The work-arounds I spoke of were considering aged glass. If you're primarily in the studio setting, then fast AF should not be a concern. Meaning older non-AF-s tech will do just as-fine-a job for you: evidenced by my choice for the older 35-70mm f/2.8. And the older 80-200mm f/2.8. Together these two cost a bit over a grand total. As for the 85mm f/1.4, I had it, but on a Dx I didn't like the field of view. I suspect now on my Fx, It'd be a different story. I did mount my Tam 17-35 f/2.8 yesterday on my Dx to take on a trip on Monday, because I feel it will provide the best range in Landscapes and snap-shots...it is an FX lens. But I assure you, if I thought for one moment that a lens was holding me back, I'd get a different lens.

SO what I am getting at is if you really think it over and research it as you are doing, you may find you can get more glass for the same dollar.

I will say this. Until I got my Fx camera. I couldn't quite put my finger on what was missing. And what was missing was a field of view I grew up with shooting 35mm film.

Ed911 · January 24, 2010

I have a Nikor 24-70mm f2.8. If you have the money, get one for yourself. Sharp end to end, f2.8 and up. I shoot portraits and events...love it. Quick focus...lots of keepers, and great color. I preordered mine, and after using ever since, am very happy that I did. I don't have to worry about it being soft at some settings...just set it and shoot. I also own a Sigma EX 70-200 f2.8 that I bought early on...it's slightly soft at 2.8, so I have to stay away from that aperature...and if you have to do that, do you really have a f2.8, or is it a f3.5. When I buy a 2.8 lens, I want to use it at 2.8, and anywhere else I choose without worry.

The Nikor 24-70mm f2.8 is simply one of the best lenses that Nikon has ever made and consequently one of the best ever. And, remember, you get what you pay for...the best lenses cost top dollar, last longer, and hold their resale value better. I've read a lot of reviews in photography magazines and for the most part, Canon and Nikon lenses dominate the competition with best in class imaging, construction, and features, just like their cameras. You haven't heard anyone saying that Nikon or Canon lenses are a suitable alternative to a Tamron or Sigma...and that pretty much says it all.

As an example of holding value, when Nikon came out with their SB900 flash, I was able to sell my old SB800's on Ebay for more than I paid for them and use the money to inexpensively upgrade to Nikon's new flagship Speedlights.

Read here for a better review:

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/24-70mm.htm

and here: for more recommendations in the comments section.

http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=337

Hope this helps...

Dooginfif20 · January 24, 2010

Ed911 wrote:

I have a Nikor 24-70mm f2.8. If you have the money, get one for yourself. Sharp end to end, f2.8 and up. I shoot portraits and events...love it. Quick focus...lots of keepers, and great color. I preordered mine, and after using ever since, am very happy that I did. I don't have to worry about it being soft at some settings...just set it and shoot. I also own a Sigma EX 70-200 f2.8 that I bought early on...it's slightly soft at 2.8, so I have to stay away from that aperature...and if you have to do that, do you really have a f2.8, or is it a f3.5. When I buy a 2.8 lens, I want to use it at 2.8, and anywhere else I choose without worry.

The Nikor 24-70mm f2.8 is simply one of the best lenses that Nikon has ever made and consequently one of the best ever. And, remember, you get what you pay for...the best lenses cost top dollar, last longer, and hold their resale value better. I've read a lot of reviews in photography magazines and for the most part, Canon and Nikon lenses dominate the competition with best in class imaging, construction, and features, just like their cameras. You haven't heard anyone saying that Nikon or Canon lenses are a suitable alternative to a Tamaron or Sigma...and that pretty much says it all.

As an example of holding value, when Nikon came out with their SB900 flash, I was able to sell my old SB800's on Ebay for more than I paid for them and use the money to inexpensively upgrade to Nikon's new flagship Speedlights.

Read here for a better review:

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/24-70mm.htm

and here: for more recommendations in the comments section.

http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=337

Hope this helps...

Ed this is the response I was looking for. I wanted to know how it performs. I can read reviews all day, but until I hear it from someone who uses it daily for weddings and portrait work its hard for me to see true value. I am a firm believer of you get what you pay for hence the reason I am looking to make the investment on some 100% quality pro level glass. I think if I get this lens that I should be able to clean out some of the other lenses I have too that will not be needed because of same focal length. Thank you for your comment! Would you mind at all posting some examples of your work with this lens?

Art Scott · January 24, 2010

Dooginfif20 wrote:

Thank you for your comment! I see what you mean with looking at DX lenses. The only problem I see with that is if I am going to buy a Nikon 17-55mm which is around $1300-1500 depending on where I get it or the Nikon 24-70 which is anywhere from $1500-1800 used or new. Why would I spend that amount on a 17-55 then sell it for about 80% of what I paid just to spend even more on the 24-70? I have yet to rent or use the Tamron 28-75 2.8, but I will for sure do more research. My first Tamron I rented (70-200 2.8) I wasn't too pleased with. It had soft images (even on a tripod) and the AF was very slow compared to the Nikon 70-200 2.8. I also had to reseat the lens a few times because the focusing function quit working multiple times. I will though do more research and I appreciate you taking the time to help me out!

What are your ambitions set on photographically?? This post sounds more like someone that sin't in this as a profession but much more like the hobbyist that thinks that if it isn't the cam brand then it isn't good.......

The reason I say you sound like a hobbyist is because you are so worried about the resell of a lens.....to start with that lens is a tax deduction....it is a tool and it should be looked at as such.....you may only resell for 80% but it has saved you more than that in taxes and should have made you enuff profit to buy 3 or 4 of any lens you decide to upgrade too......if your in this for a profession you have to take into account all aspects
of how something pays for it self, not just the resell v it will have down the road............

Dooginfif20 · January 24, 2010

Art Scott wrote:

What are your ambitions set on photographically?? This post sounds more like someone that sin't in this as a profession but much more like the hobbyist that thinks that if it isn't the cam brand then it isn't good.......

The reason I say you sound like a hobbyist is because you are so worried about the resell of a lens.....to start with that lens is a tax deduction....it is a tool and it should be looked at as such.....you may only resell for 80% but it has saved you more than that in taxes and should have made you enuff profit to buy 3 or 4 of any lens you decide to upgrade too......if your in this for a profession you have to take into account all aspects
of how something pays for it self, not just the resell v it will have down the road............

my ambitions are do photography at a minimum of part time in the next year to two years. I don't feel as if I have enough experience yet to do this all on my own. You are reading into that too far. Im not saying that Tamron or Sigma are garbage. The reason I focus on resale of a DX lens is because when not if I choose to move up to FF then my DX lens would be useless and would need to sell it. Don't you think it would be a smarter idea to make the correct investment in the beginning instead of buying something that I won't be able to use when I upgrade? I know you are a big Sigma and Tamron guy and everyone is entitled to their opinions. I have personally rented 2 Tamron lenses and they don't perform as well as the Nikon lens in the 70-200 2.8 range. If I know that Nikon is good why wouldn't I stick with it?

Qarik · January 24, 2010

I have been using mine for about year now. It is a superb lens. There is no better lens for events. It is very sharp (sharper then primes at 2.8) and hits focus 95% of time in good light. It does very well in low light as well.

That said, if you not going to be shooting events professionally..there really is not need for it imo. There are a host of other great lens that will perform 90% as well at 1/2 the cost. imo the AF accuracy and speed is what really makes it stand out as lens for a profesional. It may only hit focus 10% more then some other good lens and hunt just bit less here and there...but that really does make difference when shooting in real time.

rookieshooter · January 25, 2010

FWIW I used this lens for a one-week workshop in montana last summer. It was flawless. It's AF is so fast and it's so sharp at any aperture, you literally never have to think about the lens at all or whether or not you will get the shot. It just works. Pick it up and fire away.

Here are some pics:

6122/602178554_BPcAp-L.jpg

Ed911 · January 25, 2010

Dooginfif20 wrote:

Would you mind at all posting some examples of your work with this lens?

Sure Doog. I'd be happy to. The following are shot with a D300 and Nikor 24-70mm f2.8 lens.

1. This is Sidney Carter...a painter at Artsplosure in Raleigh, NC. I asked if I could take his picture and he happily said, yes. The day was a little overcast, it had been raining, see the water at his feet. I really liked his work. Expensive for originals, but copies weren't that bad.

2. This is a family shot. My grandson looking at the rain, wishing he could go outside.

3. This one is from a shoot I did for a family last year. This lady is a great, great grandmother, and this is her grandson. The great, great, granddaughter was there too. Natural light coming in over her right shoulder, no flash. Processed in CS3.

4. This is from a photo session that I did onsite...using two Nikon Speedlights and a reflector. This particular shot is using clamshell lighting. The background is black paper, and she is laying on a $29 black king-sized comforter from Target.

5. And here's a black and white from a maternity shoot that I did on-site, using two Speedlights and an umbrella. I asked her to give me that, "I am woman/serious look." And, I liked it.

Hope this helps.

Dooginfif20 · January 25, 2010

Ed911 wrote:

Sure Doog. I'd be happy to. The following are shot with a D300 and Nikor 24-70mm f2.8 lens.

1. This is Sidney Carter...a painter at Artsplosure in Raleigh, NC. I asked if I could take his picture and he happily said, yes. The day was a little overcast, it had been raining, see the water at his feet. I really liked his work. Expensive for originals, but copies weren't that bad.

2. This is a family shot. My grandson looking at the rain, wishing he could go outside.

3. This one is from a shoot I did for a family last year. This lady is a great, great grandmother, and this is her grandson. The great, great, granddaughter was there too. Natural light coming in over her right shoulder, no flash. Processed in CS3.

4. This is from a photo session that I did onsite...using two Nikon Speedlights and a reflector. This particular shot is using clamshell lighting. The background is black paper, and she is laying on a $29 black king-sized comforter from Target.

5. And here's a black and white from a maternity shoot that I did on-site, using two Speedlights and an umbrella. I asked her to give me that, "I am woman/serious look." And, I liked it.

Hope this helps.

This was exactlly what I was looking for! Thanks for sharing. These have totally awesome color and are tact sharp! I love them! So on a scale of 1-10 how would you rate everything on the lens?

Ed911 · January 25, 2010

Dooginfif20 wrote:

This was exactlly what I was looking for! Thanks for sharing. These have totally awesome color and are tact sharp! I love them! So on a scale of 1-10 how would you rate everything on the lens?

On the D300...it's great...and as you have read by now...it's a fine lens. The D90 uses the same sensor as the D300, tweaked for even better results...so you should see similar, or better. I post processed all of the posted images in Photoshop or LR...as most, if not all images benefit from post processing.

I've been told that it really shines on the D700/D3 series cameras.

Glass, build, ease of use...all top notch...the only drawback is that since it's built to withstand professional use, it's heavy...not excessively, in my opinion, but, you will know it's there.

I'm happy you enjoyed my photos.

Dooginfif20 · January 25, 2010

Ed911 wrote:

On the D300...it's great...and as you have read by now...it's a fine lens. The D90 uses the same sensor as the D300, tweaked for even better results...so you should see similar, or better. I post processed all of the posted images in Photoshop or LR...as most, if not all images benefit from post processing.

I've been told that it really shines on the D700/D3 series cameras.

Glass, build, ease of use...all top notch...the only drawback is that since it's built to withstand professional use, it's heavy...not excessively, in my opinion, but, you will know it's there.

I'm happy you enjoyed my photos.

I think after your posts I have decided to stick with my plan to pick up this lens. I dont think the weight will be an issue because I have shot with the Nikon and Tamron 70-200 2.8 before with no problem. The only thing that is great about the Nikon 70-200 2.8 is the VR which allows for more hand held shots. I do a lot of post work as well so it wouldn't be any different with that lens. I appreciate your comments and help with guiding me in the right direction!

Pine00 · January 29, 2010

I had the same bad experience with a Sigma 120 - 400 with a soft image. Landed up buying a Canon 100-400 L lens which is simply great. The lesson that I learned is rather pay more and get a great lens.

Regards

Dooginfif20 · January 29, 2010

Pine00 wrote:

I had the same bad experience with a Sigma 120 - 400 with a soft image. Landed up buying a Canon 100-400 L lens which is simply great. The lesson that I learned is rather pay more and get a great lens.
Regards

i appreciate the input. you and me are on the same boat and i think in the long run it will pay off in better images!

Photometric · February 15, 2010

I don't know if you're still thinking of getting the 24-70mm F2.8, but I just purchased yesterday and I have a gallery/post with a comparison of all of the lenses from my stop off inside of B&H superstore in Manhattan yesterday.

Post is inside:
http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=159130

Within the posting is a link to the gallery with test shots.

Dooginfif20 · February 15, 2010

I appreciate the post! I cant wait to buy mine!

Mav · February 17, 2010

I wish you guys had warned me of the cost first! I just read through this thread and thought: "Yeah, this looks like a great lens..." And then I checked out the cost on Amazon :cry

ziggy53 · February 17, 2010

Mav wrote:

I wish you guys had warned me of the cost first! I just read through this thread and thought: "Yeah, this looks like a great lens..." And then I checked out the cost on Amazon :cry

"The best" of anything usually has a high cost associated. For a crop camera, and if you don't need the faster AF, a Tamron 28-75mm, f2.8 XR Di LD Aspherical (IF) is pretty good for the money, although not a standard zoom for crop 1.5x/1.6x cameras, and the Tamron gets soft in the edges and corners on FF.

It's always something.

zoomer · February 17, 2010

Just buy it, you won't find a better choice.

24-70 2.8 questions

Comments