Reading mode: Light Dark

Nikon 24-70 AF-S 2.8 worth it?

Go to last post
macnmore said:
I've read about the 24-70 but it's never been in my price range so I've never really looked into it. A person is offering their D700 and 24-70 f2.8 for $2500. I had budgeted $1900 for the D700 alone, so this would mean it would cost me $600 for the 24-70. Figure any if I don't like it, I can offload it to someone else for a little bit of profit.

I have the battery grip on my D90, so hopefully the size won't be that big of a jump. I shoot with my Sigma 70-200 and I can't imagine the 24-70 is any heavier than that. I'm going to look at them both tomorrow. Are there any specifics I should be looking for? Someone said stiff zoom or focus? What's that?
Click to expand...
Seems like a smoking deal. Would be hard to resist for me too.

On the camera, check the shutter acutations.
Also examine it for damage and shoot a few photos with the combo.

The same with the lens. Check the zoom action for smooth consistent movement. Check the glass for nicks and such. Check the filter ring for damage (from, for example a drop).
--

See my plan (in my profile) for what I shoot with. See my gallery for images I find amusing.
 
Images of this quality could have easily been taken with a $100 P&S camera.

With all due respect, images posted at .3 megapixels (one third of one megapixel) demonstrate absolutely nothing.
 
I'm an avid amateur and I have found the D700 + 24-70 to be a very nice combination; I carry it with me most everywhere. Its not discreet and at times it has caught a few glances. It focuses fast and I have been pleased with its sharpness. My eyes aren't what they used to be, so I may have missed something up in the corners, but my subjects always appear to be good. Typically I PP anything I share with others. It was my first lens when I bought the D300 and it was acceptably wide on it, but I really appreciate the extra FOV on the 700. If you get it and use it for a while, I think you will find it hard to give up. Happy shooting.
--
JimKa
 
phastglass said:
Images of this quality could have easily been taken with a $100 P&S camera.
Click to expand...
....what your $100 P&S can do!! ;-) I am sorry that you were dissapointed with my examples, maybe you could provide some better ones...... oh I just noticed you have no photos in your gallery. Thanks anyway....
phastglass said:
With all due respect, images posted at .3 megapixels (one third of one megapixel) demonstrate absolutely nothing.
Click to expand...
I agree with you, the size of many gallery photos both mine and others, is too small to make an accurate assesment of any lens. I apologize, I wasted the OP's and your time.

Terry

--
Graham Fine Art Photography
http://www.pbase.com/windancer
http://gallery.reginaphotoclub.com/TGraham
See my profile for all my equipment.

Disclaimer: This e-mail is intended to impart a sense of humor. Given e-mail's inability to carry inflections, tone and facial expressions it may fail miserably in its intent. The sender acknowledges the limitations of the technology and assigns to the software in which this message was composed any ill feelings that may arise. ;-)
 
macnmore said:
I might have a chance to pick up this lens in a bundle with a D700 for a very good price. I currently have the Nikkor 35 1.8, Nikkor 50 1.8, Nikkor 85 1.8, and the Sigma 70-200 HSM II 2.8. I mainly want the D700 as an upgrade to my D90, but buying both would let me get them for a crazy cheap price. Would anyone that currently has or had this lens please let me know your thoughts on it's pro's and con's? Thanks

Also, someone suggested I look into the Sigma 24-70 as an alternative. I could get the Nikkor at a cheap prices, sell it, purchase the Sigma 24-70 and have some money left over. I'm not a professional and I have gotten by the past 2 years with a Promaster 17-50 for most of my indoor sessions. I feel either the Sigma or Nikkor would be an upgrade from that. Am I correct?
Click to expand...
it's worth every penny IF you have a need for the lens... not worth a nickel if you buy it and stick it in the closet.

the real question is do you need a high quality legendary 70-200 zoom. that I can't answer.... -strange
 
It helps to be practical. If you make income with photography, the 24-70 nikkor is a tool. And regardless of the cost it is a business expense. We use it a lot. It is very important to us. If it is a hobby, then you might want to consider something lighter and certainly cheaper. For me, the size and weight are not and issue. It's built to a different spec than "lesser" lenses and it's heft and dimensions reflect it.
 
if you want to take sharp and contrasty images with a reliable lens under a wide variety of circumstances.

The 24-70 is my most used lens. Love it.

maljo
 
I found it too bulky for a walkabout lens and sold it as I was not using it. I shoot mostly wildlife and use longer lenses most of the time.

In the interim I am using an old 24-85 AF-S which is a lot lighter and smaller and not bad at all. Apart from the size, the 24-70 is a better lens in all respects though.
--
http://kennekam.blogspot.com/
http://www.pbase.com/kennekam
 
on the wide end at open apertures, and a little vignetting, as Bjorn Rorslett mentions in his review, and others have noted. It is a great lens, though, but not perfect.
 
I really want this lens, but I would love a version with VR. No, you don't always need it, but it can certainly come in handy at times (handheld architectural night shots, for example). VR doesn't have to mean a huge increase in cost, size, or weight (see 16-24 f/4 and 24-120 f/4, for example). Actually my dream lens in the same category would be more like 20-60mm with the same specs and performance, but that's nitpicking.
 
I had it for a while, when I did some wedding and portrait photography and wanted a workhorse zoom. For that purpose it's fine, but somehow I just didn't feel the lens had any WOW-factor - and as others have mentioned it's heavy, so unless you really need the zoom, I'll recommend you to stick with the primes and maybe get a zoom with a wider coverage and VR for casual use.

--
Kåre
 
It's a great lens, super sharp, and stays on my D300 most of the time. Occasionally I use my 70-300 or Sigma 10-20 but mostly it's the 27-70.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

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