New 24-70mm

I've had a 24-70mm bought for quite some time, but haven't been able to use it until today. I've read the warning posts about the apparent quality control issues with not a little trepidation. Well, after using it for half a day it appears to be fully intact and I can say that it comprehensively blows away our 18-70mm kit lens, even doing no more looking than through the D200's display screen. I'm very happy so far and looking forward to using this lens as our every day carry around lens.

That is good to hear about your 24 x 70 as I finally orderd one yesterday (Christmas Eve) & look forward to putting it onto my new D700 that I received yesterday & even try it out on my D300. Got disillusioned when reading about all the 24 x 70's gritty zooming comments here.
RB
2 D300's (1 for sale now)
1 D700
6 lenses

In 25+ years of buying Nikon lenses, so far the 24-70 has been one of the best IQ-wise and one of the worst QC wise.

I am looking forward to getting it back from Nikon service and hope that it works, because it's really a great lens optically.

--
Edward

'I see large pixels.'

http://www.edwardthomasart.com
http://www.pbase.com/edwardthomas

Glad that you like it.
I've been using my 24-70 for about a year and never had any problems with it.
Not even a hint of one.
It's super sharp and the colors are incredible.

Enjoy.

--
PhotoGo

The same here. No problems at all. Excellent lens. Sharp. Contrasty. Flare resistant.

PhotoGo said:

Glad that you like it.
I've been using my 24-70 for about a year and never had any problems
with it.
Not even a hint of one.
It's super sharp and the colors are incredible.

Enjoy.

--
PhotoGo

Click to expand...

--
Rumpis )

http://foto.pudele.com/ - Low intensity blog about photography, Nikon and some other stuff interesting to me. Just for fun. In Latvian.

I returned mine today after just a few days of use, mostly family photos. I
don't think there was anything wrong with it. I second the optical quality,
which I think is great. But it seemed like a very elaborate and fragile device,
which would break very soon. I just don't think it lives up to its hype. the
design just sucks, I also think that the aspect ratio (length/diameter) is
inadequate and makes the lens breakable as a whole.

Anyway, I have now decided that I was going to shoot 17-35mm f/2.8,
then 50mm, then 85mm and then maybe 105mm. I might get the other
amateur mid-range zoom 24-85mm, but I have kind of made up my mind
that the 24-70mm is a piece of sheee for me. this is a big disappointment
for me, but basically this means that there is no viable f/2.8 zoom solution
in the market as of now.

you just returned on of the best zoom lenses ever made!

Poly Morphic said:

I returned mine today after just a few days of use, mostly family
photos. I
don't think there was anything wrong with it. I second the optical
quality,
which I think is great. But it seemed like a very elaborate and
fragile device,
which would break very soon. I just don't think it lives up to its
hype. the
design just sucks, I also think that the aspect ratio
(length/diameter) is
inadequate and makes the lens breakable as a whole.

Click to expand...

Yeah, I guess it wouldn't bounce real well off of concrete.

Poly Morphic said:

Anyway, I have now decided that I was going to shoot 17-35mm f/2.8,
then 50mm, then 85mm and then maybe 105mm. I might get the other
amateur mid-range zoom 24-85mm, but I have kind of made up my mind
that the 24-70mm is a piece of sheee for me. this is a big
disappointment
for me, but basically this means that there is no viable f/2.8 zoom
solution
in the market as of now.

Click to expand...

Oh, go yourself a Tamron 28-75 and quit your whining. But please don't be expecting an upgrade in build quality LOL.

--Incredible! Your kidding right?

joer56
http://www.pbase.com/joer

no, I said here and elsewhere that it is great optically, but the build
quality is just lame. I am not going to fight with you guys about that.
I want something like a 35-70mm f/2.8 or maybe a 17-55mm DX.

most people here are just upset, because they spent $1500 and their
psyche can't take the critique.

Poly Morphic said:

no, I said here and elsewhere that it is great optically, but the build
quality is just lame. I am not going to fight with you guys about that.
I want something like a 35-70mm f/2.8 or maybe a 17-55mm DX.

most people here are just upset, because they spent $1500 and their
psyche can't take the critique.

Click to expand...

I don't think anyone is upset.

If you don't think the build quality is up to par, it's your money. Try the 35-70/2.8, that thing is built like a tank. But it's a complicated lens as well, find a parts illustration / schematic on it sometime and see for yourself. Apparently it is prone to internal hazing and for the blades to get sticky, so be careful if you buy a used one.

I have both the 35-70.2.8 and the 28-70/2.8 both excellent lenses. But the 24-70 handles better IMO, resolves detail better IMO, is wider and less prone to flare. And then there's the new lightning fast AF-S motor. Oh yeah, one small detail -- waaay better at f/2.8.

People have a right to be upset if their zoom is not functioning smoothly, but I'm not seeing signs that the 24-70 is a poorly designed lens, and it has absolutely amazing optics for a zoom.

So it worked fantastic, nothing wrong with the optical quality or construction... and then you proceed to trash it for its "build." Sorta sound like a troll.
The design just sucks? "Have you used the Tamron, canon or sony equivalent?

lol, Merry Christmas to all the Trolls out there!

"I returned mine today after just a few days of use, mostly family photos. I
don't think there was anything wrong with it. I second the optical quality,
which I think is great. But it seemed like a very elaborate and fragile device,
which would break very soon. I just don't think it lives up to its hype. the
design just sucks, I also think that the aspect ratio (length/diameter) is
inadequate and makes the lens breakable as a whole.

Anyway, I have now decided that I was going to shoot 17-35mm f/2.8,
then 50mm, then 85mm and then maybe 105mm. I might get the other
amateur mid-range zoom 24-85mm, but I have kind of made up my mind
that the 24-70mm is a piece of sheee for me. this is a big disappointment
for me, but basically this means that there is no viable f/2.8 zoom solution
in the market as of now."

--
-Blake

It's actually not fragile. I've been walking around Shangri-La, with it as my only lens. It's heavy and built like a tank. It did well with rain, snow and extreme cold temps to warm humid rooms. It's solid.

It is sick now, some f* knocked my camera bag off my trolley at Hong Kong airport when running to get to his plane. (Same plane as my plane but flights to New Delhi are full of pushy f* s.) My bag had my Thinkpad in it. The whole pack went down 3.5 ft onto concrete. I heard the thud and thought I'm in trouble. The lens barrel seems to be misaligned. If my laptop hadn't been there adding extra momentum it would have survived I'm sure.

Poly Morphic said:

But it seemed like a very elaborate and
fragile device,
which would break very soon. I just don't think it lives up to its
hype.

Click to expand...

Well, fragile it is not. . . not my copy that is.

I have taken my copy to Africa, S-America and several Asian countries including a couple of Arabic countries.

Shot probably around 13.000 images on it and it still works just as well as it did the day I got it.

Not only that but I have had to replace four uv filters because they got too scratched up that's how much I've used it.

Poly Morphic said:

the design just sucks, I also think that the aspect ratio
(length/diameter) is
inadequate and makes the lens breakable as a whole.

Click to expand...

The design sucks? Really.
Well, that is your opinion of course. Nothing I can say about that.

I know it's longer than many other lenses in that zomm range and that may turn people away from it. As a matter of fact it's about as long as my 70-300.

But it's also much better and if you ever put it on a D3 you'll notice how nicely it handles.
I love having the zoom ring that close to the camera.
It helps in stabilizing the whole kit.

Poly Morphic said:

basically this means that there is no viable f/2.8 zoom solution
in the market as of now.

Click to expand...

There are a lot of 2.8 lenses out there and 1.8 and 1.4 and . . . .

I actually think, after using my lens this much, that most other lenses don't cut it.
With the exception of some primes.

Good luck with your shopping.
I hope you can find the lens you're looking for.
Please let us know what it'll be.

--
PhotoGo

Poly Morphic said:

I returned mine today after just a few days of use, mostly family
photos. I
don't think there was anything wrong with it. I second the optical
quality,
which I think is great. But it seemed like a very elaborate and
fragile device,
which would break very soon. I just don't think it lives up to its
hype. the
design just sucks, I also think that the aspect ratio
(length/diameter) is
inadequate and makes the lens breakable as a whole.

Anyway, I have now decided that I was going to shoot 17-35mm f/2.8,
then 50mm, then 85mm and then maybe 105mm. I might get the other
amateur mid-range zoom 24-85mm, but I have kind of made up my mind
that the 24-70mm is a piece of sheee for me. this is a big
disappointment
for me, but basically this means that there is no viable f/2.8 zoom
solution
in the market as of now.

Click to expand...

thanks for the chuckle

--
Thanks

Randy

http://www.Carolina-SportsPhotography.com/

http://www.sportsshooter.com/randysportsshooter/

I currently use the Tamron 28-75 on my D300 and really like it but it's a tad soft at 2.8. I'm tempted to get the Nikon 24-70 but will hold off for a bit as the QC posts are making me a bit nervous and now I've been seeing mention of vignetting as well. I can see a D700 in my future next year so hopefully the 24-70 will work nicely with that.

Personally I don't think there's anything wrong with the build quality of my Tamron 28-75, it's lasted through lots of wedding shoots with no problems at all, I'm well over 10,000 images with it so far.

Cheers
Nas
-------------------------------------------
I reserve the right to an opinion
http://www.nasirhamid.com

bossnas said:

I can see a D700 in my future next year so hopefully the 24-70 will work > nicely with that.

Click to expand...

You will love it on the D700.
I wouldn't pay too much attention to the negative press on this lens.
It's simply one heck of a lens.

Why don't you buy it and check it out?

I will tell you though that it took me a few weeks before becoming fully comfortable with it. At first I almost returned it. Very VERY glad I didn't.

--
PhotoGo

Somebody else will be very happy to get it.

Poly Morphic said:

I returned mine today after just a few days of use, mostly family
photos. I
don't think there was anything wrong with it. I second the optical
quality,
which I think is great. But it seemed like a very elaborate and
fragile device,
which would break very soon. I just don't think it lives up to its
hype. the
design just sucks, I also think that the aspect ratio
(length/diameter) is
inadequate and makes the lens breakable as a whole.

Anyway, I have now decided that I was going to shoot 17-35mm f/2.8,
then 50mm, then 85mm and then maybe 105mm. I might get the other
amateur mid-range zoom 24-85mm, but I have kind of made up my mind
that the 24-70mm is a piece of sheee for me. this is a big
disappointment
for me, but basically this means that there is no viable f/2.8 zoom
solution
in the market as of now.

Click to expand...

--
Rumpis )

http://foto.pudele.com/ - Low intensity blog about photography, Nikon and some other stuff interesting to me. Just for fun. In Latvian.