Jump to content




The above adverts really do help Fotozones. Please click on them if they are relevant to you. Not seeing them? Just exclude Fotozones from your ad blocker. Thanks!


Photo
- - - - -

Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8G AF-S


  • Please log in to reply
67 replies to this topic

Poll: Rate this lens (199 member(s) have cast votes)

Rate this lens

  1. 1 Star (appalling) (0 votes [0.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 0.00%

  2. 2 Stars (below par) (0 votes [0.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 0.00%

  3. 3 Stars (average) (4 votes [1.99%])

    Percentage of vote: 1.99%

  4. Voted 4 Stars (above average) (31 votes [15.42%])

    Percentage of vote: 15.42%

  5. Voted 5 Stars (outstanding) (166 votes [82.59%])

    Percentage of vote: 82.59%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#1 Dallas

Dallas

    Fotozones Owner

  • Administrators
  • 18,167 posts
  • LocationDurban, South Africa
  • Edit my pics?:Yes

Posted 03 December 2007 - 07:03

Post your experiences with this lens here. This topic will be indexed on our LENSES page.

Please read the guidelines before participating.

Clicking on an ad just once a day will help me tremendously with financing this site. 

You can also support the site by buying your gear from the affiliate advertisers below (use these links):

Amazon.com | Amazon.co.uk | Amazon.de | Adorama | B&HThinkTankPhoto | Digital REV | OWC 

Alternatively you can DONATE via PayPal (donor list)

 

Follow Me On: social-facebook-box-blue-icon.png social-twitter-box-blue-icon.png YouTube-icon.png google-icon.png 


#2 andre

andre
  • Members
  • Pip
  • 5 posts

Posted 11 January 2008 - 03:45

This is one terrific lens.

#3 AFS

AFS

    Advanced Member

  • Life Member
  • 1,292 posts
  • LocationMiami, FL
  • Edit my pics?:Ask Me

Posted 11 January 2008 - 05:56

I've been using this lens since just after it came out, it came in the same day as my D3 first week of December. I bought it as my new midrange zoom for use with FX, moving from the 17-55 DX. I've been using it extensively on the D3 and D300 as my main walkaround and short PJ lens. It's been simply exemplary.
The wide open sharpness is like nothing I've ever seen before on a zoom. The range is great on the D3, and pretty good, if a bit tight at the wide end, on the D300. It's fantastic. I've shot quite a few photos with it, even in really low light.

Would I recommend it to others? You'd better believe it. I'm singing its praises from the mountaintops.
Harrison

D3, D700, F2, D1 UVIR, 14-24 AFS N, 24-70 AFS N, 70-200 VR, 400/2.8 AFS II, SB-900, etc...

#4 Andrea B.

Andrea B.

    Lost in the Desert

  • Administrators
  • 11,096 posts
  • LocationNuovo Jersey
  • Edit my pics?:Yes

Posted 06 February 2008 - 05:40

Outstanding lens with beautiful crisp colour & contrast.
And it has a slightly narrower design that is easier to handle than some
of Nikon's older, bulkier zoomers.
Balances beautifully on the D3.

Andrea B.
UltravioletPhotography.com


#5 AFS

AFS

    Advanced Member

  • Life Member
  • 1,292 posts
  • LocationMiami, FL
  • Edit my pics?:Ask Me

Posted 06 February 2008 - 07:17

Hmmmm.... time for an update?

so it's been almost a month since I posted my experiences and I've now used the lens for exactly two months.

I'll be damned if this isn't the best wide to midrange zoom I've ever used. And I've used them all.

It's proven extremely useful- It's the lens I've used in a plurality of my published work at this point, and I value it enough that if I switch lenses on the D3, then it goes on the D300.

It's still a bit tight on the D300 for some of my style of shooting, but not by much. I'm going to investigate inexpensive high quality options for the D300 for a light kit/walkaround rig when I don't expect to be shooting, since the 24-70 is both a bit tight for that and a bit big and heavy.
For any assignment where quality is really important, I'll reach for the 24-70, though.

Sometime tomor...er....today, I'll post some recent photos with it and tell you all what happened today at work. I'll link to the post here.
Harrison

D3, D700, F2, D1 UVIR, 14-24 AFS N, 24-70 AFS N, 70-200 VR, 400/2.8 AFS II, SB-900, etc...

#6 AFS

AFS

    Advanced Member

  • Life Member
  • 1,292 posts
  • LocationMiami, FL
  • Edit my pics?:Ask Me

Posted 10 February 2008 - 21:01

I did not come from the 28-70, that range was pretty useless for me on DX. I used the 28-70 for about two weeks courtesy of Patrick over at the cafe when I was trying to decide whether I should go for that or the 17-55. In the end, the range was just unworkable, and I went with the 17-55, though optically it was every bit as good as I'd heard.

The extra wide end range is very useful on DX, IMHO, but then again I'd say 35-36mm equivalent has been one of my favored focal lengths over the years, so it may just be me. I don't think it's wide enough as an all the time lens on DX for my purposes, but my style does favor wide and close at times, so your results may vary.

IT is expensive, so if you don't have a good reason to upgrade, I'd suggest you stick with the 28-70.
Harrison

D3, D700, F2, D1 UVIR, 14-24 AFS N, 24-70 AFS N, 70-200 VR, 400/2.8 AFS II, SB-900, etc...

#7 Nikoncam1

Nikoncam1

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 136 posts

Posted 08 November 2008 - 03:14

just got this lens to replace my very decent, low cost 24-85 3.5/4.5 midrange zoom.  the 24-70 2.8 out classes the previous lens at all apertures at the wide end but at 70mm the two go neck and neck at least in so far as center sharpness but going out toward the edges the 24-70 pulls away plus it's saturated, contrasty images look much more lively than the 24-85s.  i don't use midrange zooms much but when i do it's sometimes in situations where i need maximum quality but just don't have the time to use primes since things frequently happen fast and furious so i'm pretty confident the 24-70 will give me the results i'm seeking.

not to beat a dead horse but i do wish the 24-70 had VR since i'm getting old and i'm just not as steady as i once was plus it would help in lower light situations which i often find myself in.  fortunately my D3 does so well at high iso. 

24-70 lens distortion is not too much of a factor for most of my situations so i can live with it. 



#8 davepaterson

davepaterson

    Ex-photographer

  • Life Member
  • 2,980 posts
  • LocationKillin, Scotland
  • Edit my pics?:Ask Me

Posted 08 November 2008 - 13:57

I just bought a 24-70 (got it yesterday) and haven't had a chance to do real-world tests as it has been raining non-stop. I ran my usual indoor tests, and I have to say I'm not overwhelmed by its sharpness, at any focal length. It's ok, and it does capture a lot of detail which sharpens well, but straight out of the camera (D700) it's nowhere near as sharp as my 70-200, and is a tad less sharp than the 35-70 f2.8 which I was planning to replace.

I'm definitely a little disappointed though I'm consoling myself with the thought that I find the 17-35 pretty much the same - rather soft straight out of the camera but excellent capture of detail and the files sharpen beautifully.
Dave Paterson

#9 Jan Anne

Jan Anne

    Noob

  • Life Member
  • 3,829 posts
  • LocationAmsterdam
  • Edit my pics?:Ask Me

Posted 08 November 2008 - 14:18

Mine is cracking sharp btw on the D300, almost too sharp for portraits (no unsharp mask needed for most).

I use to have only a 50 f/1.2 between the 11-16 and 70-200VR and I really never missed in this range that much, now that I played with it for a couple of months I wonder how I ever could do without.

Only the mediocre are always at their best....

My Flickr


#10 davepaterson

davepaterson

    Ex-photographer

  • Life Member
  • 2,980 posts
  • LocationKillin, Scotland
  • Edit my pics?:Ask Me

Posted 08 November 2008 - 16:39

My justification for getting it is that I'm going to sell three lenses, including the 35-70 it replaces - just clearing the decks for when the D3X comes along . . .
Dave Paterson

#11 Chris Fabbri

Chris Fabbri

    Advanced Member

  • Life Member
  • 4,361 posts
  • LocationSao Paulo / Brazil

Posted 08 November 2008 - 19:55

Stellar quality in all aspects.
THE midrange zoom, no other can take the place.
Best Regards,

Chris Fabbri
CFR Motorsports Media - www.chrisfabbriphoto.com/cfrmedia/
Site (All Galleries) - www.chrisfabbriphoto.com
Facebook - www.facebook.com/chrisfabbrifotografia

#12 Erik Lund

Erik Lund

    _

  • Life Member
  • 6,446 posts
  • Location_
  • Edit my pics?:Ask Me

Posted 08 November 2008 - 20:41

Yes stellar performance, Sharp vide open, very similar to the 28-70, and much better resistance to flare than 14-24 and 70-200 on a D3.

#13 Nikoncam1

Nikoncam1

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 136 posts

Posted 09 November 2008 - 05:51

comparing my 70-200vr with my 24-70 at 70mm shows my 70-200vr is superior in sharpness across the field at all apertures but the difference is small enough not to matter much.  that said, the 24-70 close focuses much closer than the 70-200 which is very important for some of my needs. while i'm somewhat disappointed with the 24-70 sharpness it certainly outclasses (and out costs) any of the midrange zooms i've had so far. 

#14 Geo

Geo

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 14 posts

Posted 09 November 2008 - 07:32

comparing my 70-200vr with my 24-70 at 70mm shows my 70-200vr is superior in sharpness across the field at all apertures but the difference is small enough not to matter much.  that said, the 24-70 close focuses much closer than the 70-200 which is very important for some of my needs. while i'm somewhat disappointed with the 24-70 sharpness it certainly outclasses (and out costs) any of the midrange zooms i've had so far. 


My experience is the same regards these two lenses: ie; at 70mm the 70-200 is a bees d**k sharper across the field.
Geoff
www.gbphoto.com.au

#15 davepaterson

davepaterson

    Ex-photographer

  • Life Member
  • 2,980 posts
  • LocationKillin, Scotland
  • Edit my pics?:Ask Me

Posted 10 November 2008 - 19:00

comparing my 70-200vr with my 24-70 at 70mm shows my 70-200vr is superior in sharpness across the field at all apertures but the difference is small enough not to matter much.  that said, the 24-70 close focuses much closer than the 70-200 which is very important for some of my needs. while i'm somewhat disappointed with the 24-70 sharpness it certainly outclasses (and out costs) any of the midrange zooms i've had so far. 


Since it hasn't stopped raining since I got my 24-70 four days ago, I'm reduced to indoor testing and so I did what Nikoncam1 did - I compared the 24-70 at 70 to my 70-200 at 70 as carefully as I possibly could. I used a typographic test subject about 15 feet from the D700 (more than 10 times focal length), heavy tripod, mirror lock-up, cable-release, a 5-sec delay between locking the mirror up and firing the shutter, and I used flash for the exposure (not the built-in) to further reduce any chance of shake or movement. I just tested the range f5.6 to f10 (my most used apertures), and couldn't separate the two lenses for sharpness and capture of detail - to my eye they were identical. The 70-200 had a tiny, tiny bit more contrast which may give the appearance of ever so slightly more sharpness.

It's worth remembering that according to well-known test sites such as Photozone, 70mm is the less sharp end of the 24-70 and the sharper end of the 70-200. Any reservations I had about the 24-70 have gone, but I think - just for fun - I'll compare the 17-35 and 24-70 at 24mm and 35mm.
Dave Paterson

#16 stanjan0

stanjan0

    Advanced Member

  • Life Member
  • 1,600 posts
  • LocationSouthern Florida

Posted 10 November 2008 - 23:02

I had both the 28-70 and the 24-70 to me the IQ seemed just about the same to this amateur, the same for the other aspects of both of them. Bjorn the great lens evaluator made a statement something like this that he was keeping his 28-70 but, said the 24-70 was some what better, Bjorn if I quoted you wrong I'm sure you will correct me.
"Posterity--you will never know how much it has cost my generation to preserve your freedom. I hope you will make good use of it" John Quincy Adams

#17 davepaterson

davepaterson

    Ex-photographer

  • Life Member
  • 2,980 posts
  • LocationKillin, Scotland
  • Edit my pics?:Ask Me

Posted 11 November 2008 - 12:35

I already had the 35-70 AFD (which is a VERY sharp lens but prone to flare), but I felt I was lacking a "carry-round" lens, and the extra width of the 24-70 would give me that. I was also influenced by the fact that the UK has recently lost a huge amount of value against other world currencies, and it can't be long until massive price-rises for Nikon (and other) camera gear hits us here. I also got a chance to play with Jan Anne's lens when he was here in Scotland on a trip at the end of Oct, and that was the deciding factor.  

I still haven't had a chance to do any real-life shooting with the 24-70, but my last series of carefully shot tests do convince me that it is as sharp as the 70-200, and that's very sharp.
Dave Paterson

#18 davepaterson

davepaterson

    Ex-photographer

  • Life Member
  • 2,980 posts
  • LocationKillin, Scotland
  • Edit my pics?:Ask Me

Posted 12 November 2008 - 15:55

At last, a bright (tho' not sunny) morning - I was able to shoot a few images out-of-doors with the 24-70, and now I'm satisfied - no more reservations about this lens, it's a cracker  ;D
Dave Paterson

#19 Nikoncam1

Nikoncam1

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 136 posts

Posted 14 November 2008 - 02:23

used the 24-70 f2.8 exclusively for an important shoot and the results were excellent.  i overheated my sb900 at the worst possible moment during the shoot and was forced to do low available light shooting till the flash cooled down and the 24-70f2.8 was a stellar low light performer, easily superior to my 24-85 3.5-4.5. also there were nasty sun beams passing through the shoot area but none of the pics had any flare in them.  i've never been able to get my 24-70 to quite match my 70-200 at 70mm in any of my tests but as a practical matter the difference is too slight to really matter.


#20 Steinar

Steinar

    Advanced Member

  • Life Member
  • 1,006 posts

Posted 21 November 2008 - 22:31

I received the lens Tuesday, and as always I started testing it with a few shots for back- or frontfocus, and it looks like it has front-focus, so I tested it more, and it was there. No doubt:Front focus.

From my pics others agree. One said: "Massive frontfocus"

I also send the pics to Nikon and they asked me to come in for an adjustment, and I did deliver it today.

But it is a keeper - fine colors and a VERY fast AF, I really look forward to get it back.

Of course I could have send it back to get a new copy, but I like this way, and Nikon promised to take care and do it quick, so I still have some days to deliver it back (the normal 14 days), but I am pretty sure, that if that problems is solved 100 %,  I will be very happy with the lens.

But I also trust, that the seller will give me some more days, if I want that, because I have bought a lot after changing to FX (D700)




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users





The above adverts really do help Fotozones. Please click on them if they are relevant to you. Not seeing them? Just exclude Fotozones from your ad blocker. Thanks!


An appeal to all Fotozones visitors: please help me to keep this site going by starting your gear purchases using any one of the affiliate links shown below:

Amazon.com | Amazon.co.uk | Amazon.de | Adorama.com | thinkTank Photo | DigitalRev.com | OWC | B&H or Donate via PayPal

Starting your shopping here doesn't cost you anything more, but by using the links above (or any others found on the site) you are advising the affiliate that you support this website. This results in a small commission that helps with the running costs. If your preferred outlet isn't among those listed above you can also support the site by making a donation of any amount via PayPal (no PayPal account required). Any donation will be most appreciated.