Reading mode: Light Dark

It's gone, sold the 24-70mm lens (my review/take on the 24-70)...

Go to last post
P

photonerdcom

Veteran Member
Messages
2,615
Reaction score
0
Location
Seattle, US
I actually sold it to help pay for the 24mm 1.4G that I bought.

It's a good lens, just not great. Optically it's very good, sharp all over, but the new 50 and 24 are optically better and of course faster. Of course, that's the trade off between primes and zooms.

Here's what would make it great: I have two major issues with the current 24-70 that Nikon should address in the next revision (ignoring the focus window), a lens for this price should be internal focus. I love the fact that my 70-200, 105, 50, and 24 have all the moving parts inside - it just helps keep the lens cleaner, and sturdier. Also, the 70-200 and 105 both have VR. It's a great feature... the next gen should have that too. Granted, that would make the next gen a little beefier, but it's a worthwhile tradeoff.

Would I recommend the current 24-70 today? It really depends on your shooting style, but honestly, I think I would recommend the aforementioned primes instead.
 
Hi,
It is internal focus lens.
--
Best regards
 
if they made the 24-70 internal zoom so that the length doesn't change as you zoom in and out, it would be even bigger, because the barrel would have to be long enough to house the elements at the maximum extended length.

I really don't see how they can make the lens any smaller than it is right now.

That's why I like the 17-55. It is only 1 inch shorter, but it FEELS much smaller than the 24-70 to me.
 
I just find the 24-70 to be an excellent lens. I have the 14-24, 24-70, 70-200 VRII, 16mm fisheye. Of these The 14-24 and the 24-70 get the most workout. I guess it depends on one's shooting style. Optically I find this lens just amazing. I have tried the 50mm, but I honestly find the 24-70mm equal to the 50mm for my kind of work (landscapes) as I use a smaller aperture anyway. But for me the colors and contrast that this lens produces are just phenomenal.

Hope you enjoy your 24mm. I am sure you will make good use of it.

24-70mm











Cheers
--------
Nikhil
http://www.lihkin.net
 
You will love your 24 f1.4. The versatility of a wide f1.4 should not be underestimated, especially in low light handheld. Happy shooting.
photonerdcom said:
I actually sold it to help pay for the 24mm 1.4G that I bought.

It's a good lens, just not great. Optically it's very good, sharp all over, but the new 50 and 24 are optically better and of course faster. Of course, that's the trade off between primes and zooms.

Here's what would make it great: I have two major issues with the current 24-70 that Nikon should address in the next revision (ignoring the focus window), a lens for this price should be internal focus. I love the fact that my 70-200, 105, 50, and 24 have all the moving parts inside - it just helps keep the lens cleaner, and sturdier. Also, the 70-200 and 105 both have VR. It's a great feature... the next gen should have that too. Granted, that would make the next gen a little beefier, but it's a worthwhile tradeoff.

Would I recommend the current 24-70 today? It really depends on your shooting style, but honestly, I think I would recommend the aforementioned primes instead.
Click to expand...
 
Hi-

I think I'm starting to agree with you. I have the trifecta of 2.8 zooms, but I also have the 35 2, 50 1.4 and 85 1.4. I love the 50 and 85, but hate the 35. I am renting the 24 1.4 for a wedding this weekend (first one at glazers in Seattle!) and so far I love it!

I don't think I would sell off my zooms, but primes are the way to go - at least for me. I truely love their versatility and fantastic sharpness... Now I needto come up with $2200 :)
 
As to size, why is the Tamron 28-75 2.8 offer perhaps almost matched IQ at so much less size. I give the fact weight would be an unkonw if the Tamron went to much sturdier materials. But even factor if the changed to an all internal zoom it the 24-70 still drawfs the Tamron. It can't be the extra 4mm as the 28-70 also drawfs the Tamron

Maybe the pros have size insecurity.

I could see it all the engineering guys studing the competition, should we make it smaller? The materials and glass exists, it would be lighter, etc. etc.

The marketing guys, woudl say NO NO, it has to be big, it wouldn't be a "Pro" lense if we didn't make it big and accept 77mm filters.

LOL
 
tyb said:
As to size, why is the Tamron 28-75 2.8 offer perhaps almost matched IQ at so much less size.
Click to expand...
Should have gone to Specsavers ;)

This is quite an interseting post as I have sold my Sigma 12-24 and I will soon sell my Sigma 24-70, I am really torn between primes and the Nikon 24-70.
 
Spectacular 24-70 samples ! I'd love to see the 24mm f1.4 version of these. Then again they're two different types of lenses aren't they, for different shooting styles.
These two lenses would pair up nicely.

Pierre
 
I actually held one in my hands three or four months ago, and said to myself...let me sleep on it. The next day I was ready to buy, but too late... argghhhhh!

I had to wait three months or so and got my from J&R in New York.

The 24mm does focus closer at 24mm than the 24-70.
 
Now if they could make a 200mm 1.4G that didn't cost more than the 70-200, I would sell my 70-200mm and buy that. I'm thinking that's a pie in the sky dream though.
 
Is the F2VR not good enough?

If Nikon released an updated version of the the 135 F2, I would certainly consider selling the 70-200 and upgrading.

As for a 200mm 1.4G, apart from the fact it would cost more than the average family car, it would probably weigh as much.
photonerdcom said:
Now if they could make a 200mm 1.4G that didn't cost more than the 70-200, I would sell my 70-200mm and buy that. I'm thinking that's a pie in the sky dream though.
Click to expand...
 
photonerdcom said:
It's a good lens, just not great. Optically it's very good, sharp all over, but the new 50 and 24 are optically better and of course faster. Of course, that's the trade off between primes and zooms.
Click to expand...
The new 24 is certainly better than the 24-70@24, but I don't know about the 50... I've come to realize over time that the 50G has pretty bad field curvature for landscape. It might be flatter up close, which would explain its excellent test chart results on sites like this one, though I have not personally tested whether it is flatter up close. After noting some bad landscape results at f/4, I sought out a perfectly flat landscape target, but one that had revealing foreground and background objects, just to see what the focus was really doing on the 50G. To see that evaluation photo (it's a full size D3s file), click here:

http://www.davidhillphoto.com/previews/50G-curvature.jpg

I put a bunch of arrows in there just for my own evaluation purposes. The are to be compared in pairs, i.e. 1 vs 2, 3 vs 4, ... 15 vs 16.

I have shot tons of 50mm landscapes with the 24-70, and I think it might be superior in that regard, except where hiking is concerned (size).

--
David Hill
http://www.sanfranciscoweddingphotographer.com
San Francisco & San Jose, CA | Austin, TX
Wedding Photographer and Apparent Gearhead
 
P.S. to my last comment --

Please note that in my shot it is a truly symmetrical curvature and not a misalignment.

Also, as a shooting strategy for this lens: Using a mid-frame focus point instead of the center focus point could be used to push the arc of focus back further from the camera when that is desired, though in my experience it does not solve the problem at f/4. I'll be looking more to f/9 for landscapes with this lens in the future, which is OK on a 12 MP FX body but not so much at higher pixel densities. The issue here is that for D3x shooters and other future high megapixel bodies, it will be important to know which lenses are flat at infinity for landscapes at wider aperture, because diffraction limitation already kicks in around f/7.1 on the D3x.... Know your lenses.

--
David Hill
http://www.sanfranciscoweddingphotographer.com
San Francisco & San Jose, CA | Austin, TX
Wedding Photographer and Apparent Gearhead
 
Looks like you had a fun time. Have to admit there are some decent 24 1.4 shots in your trip. Enjoy your new lens.
Sincerely,
Pierre
 
photonerdcom said:
It's a good lens, just not great. Optically it's very good, sharp all over, but the new 50 and 24 are optically better and of course faster. Of course, that's the trade off between primes and zooms.
Click to expand...
To each their own. For versatility and AF speed the 24-70 is a winner every time, and personally I dont find it inferior to the 50mm AF-s except for the 2 stops speed difference, but then DOF is often marginal at f2.8 for what I use this lens for anyway. The exotic 24 is of course another story.
 
the 70-200 f/2.8 vr 2 is amazing... I would love to compare the two lenses.

If anyone wants to mail me their 200 f/2 for me to test out, just send me a message.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

N
Already have a 70-200... 24-70 or 24-120?
2 3
Replies
48
Views
77K
buildingsights
B
W
Nikon Z 24-70mm f/2.8 S II - form factors considerations
Replies
7
Views
133K
Rodenmg
Rodenmg
Carpetrunner
Lens Value for Money - some numbers
Replies
8
Views
13K
GeoffRG
G
C
24-70 replacing all primes?
2
Replies
36
Views
37K
polizonte
polizonte
J
Paint bubbling on Sigma 24-70 Nikon F mount lens
Replies
12
Views
5K
GeoffRG
G

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top