D800 ... Replace 24-70 with 28, 50, and 85 G 1.8's?

I feel the same. From what I've read and everyone's been saying the 24-70 isn't that great at either end, and since it doesn't have VR and at f2.8, I'd really need it to be sharp wide open for indoors which it isn't. I'd rather wait for an update (hopefully soon and with VR) and shoot with either the 35 1.4 or the 50 1.8 till then.

ne beginner said:

Is this crazy?

Just received my 24-70 back from Nikon for service. AF is now accurate at 24, 50 and 70, f2.8, with a -5 AF fine tune adjustment. Nikon did a great job.

But at f2.8, using a D800, this lens is soft at both ends. Stopped down to 5.6 or even 4 it's sharp enough. I'm not knocking this lens, and it served me well for over 3 years on a D700. But with a D800 and the new 1.8 G's (I have the 50 and 85), the limitations of 24-70 seem to be more apparent.

Outdoors, when you can use the 24-70 at higher stops, this lens remains stellar. But in low light, indoors, where it was OK on the D700 ... I'm wondering if the D800's capability has exceeded this wonderful lens at f2.8?

Anyone with this set up thinking the same?

I have a 70-200 VII, and that one seems to more than hold it's own on the D800, even wide open.

Click to expand...

Hi ne,

The much shallower DOF you get with primes are in my work (PJ) not much nessacary, but I aggree totally with you a zoom lens makes you a kind of lazy. Often a prime forces you to take at least some moving with your feet to frame it good.

What about the 35mm F/2D instead of the 28mm?

Michel

ne beginner said:

That's the rub, as they say: ease of use of a zoom, vs. juggling lenses. Which is why I've always shot zooms.

I guess I opened Pandora's box when I got the 50 and 85 ... just to try out. Now I want the 28, and would need to sell the 24-70 to fund all 3 primes.

To juggle or not to juggle ...

Or carry a bag. I'm so used to zooms that often I just put one on the camera and go, no bag. Even if the 3 primes are each featherweights compared to the 24-70, and even collectively weigh less, I will always need a bag vs on zoom.

Click to expand...

--

• To observe without evaluation is the highest form of human intelligence -

http://www.fotopropaganda.com
http://www.fotopropaganda.com/blog
http://www.flickr.com/photos/9240992@N05/ (my pixel mess on flikr)
http://www.pbase.com/photopropaganda

And I cannot be any happier. I have a D800, 28 1.8, 50 1.8, 85 1.8 and 70-200 VR II currently.

I had a very sharp copy of 24-70. My main issue with the 24-70 was the weight. Because of the weight, I wasn't taking my camera with me most of the time. I bought 50 1.8 a while ago and I was taking it with me much more than the 24-70. When 85 was announced, I preordered and got one. I was amazed with the IQ and I was in love with 1.8. So, when 28 mm was announced, I sold my 24-70 and got a 28mm. I am equally impressed with the 28mm. These primes have better IQ than 24-70 at all apertures. They are lightweight (which is the major plus for me). And they are faster. I was worried that changing lenses would bother me; but it turned out that it is not a big deal. Plus, walking a few feet front or back generally works wonders

90% of the time now, all I carry is the D800, 85mm and 28mm (don't even need 50mm that often ).

I received my 24-70 today to combine with D800 took few shots cant believe how sharp it is. Iam so happy with it.

I just got a 24-70 a couple weeks ago and wonder where all these disgruntled 24-70 owners sold theirs because I could have saved some money instead of getting one new from B&H. A week later I found a D800 through Best Buy and find that the 24-70 is excellent with it.

I have a 17-55 2.8 for use on my D7000 and wanted to replace it with a 24-70 which, for me just covered a better range for me on DX and was a better performer than the 17-55 which I hardly used. I have a 24 1.4, Sigma 50 1.4 and 85 1.4 which are good lenses but find that for general use the 24-70 is excellent on both the D7000 and D800. I have no desire for any other mid primes, the 3 I have cover my main interests and are great performers. The 1.8 version are attractive because they are so light and small compared to my 1.4's so if I did not already have the larger 1.4's I would be tempted to get a set of 1.8s and save a ton of money, size and weight. My bag is now too heavy for carry on weight restrictions for flights to many parts of the world.

The D800 makes all my lenses even the marginal ones perform very well. Mounting DX lenses on it, like the 35 1.8 or even the kit 18-105 shows obvious improvement. EVERYTHING just works better on the D800.
--
Stan
St Petersburg Russia

My 24-70 is plenty sharp on my D800, no way I would replace it with primes. I do have 24/1.4 and 85/1.4 for some occasions where I don't need the zoom flexibility and need more subject isolation.

... The 24-70 is arguably the best in its class. However, it is soft at the ends wide open. "Soft" is subjective as well. So if you shoot at 4 or 5.6 or higher most of the time, and not low light wide open, this discussion may not be as applicable. Or we may have different notions of soft ... for me, and some others it would seem, that softness is more revealed by the D800's resolution.

Great post.

zoltrix79 said:

My main issue with the 24-70 was the weight. Because of the weight, I wasn't taking my camera with me most of the time.
[snip]

90% of the time now, all I carry is the D800, 85mm and 28mm (don't even need 50mm that often ).

Click to expand...

Not sure this makes much sense. Don't get me wrong - I picked the primes over the zoom myself, but not to save weight.

The 24-70 is 900g. The 28mm is 330g and the 85mm is 350g. So the difference is 220g, less if you add a filter to both lenses.

--
Fabian

flbrit said:

I have the 'e'xcellent version!
--
Brian

Click to expand...

I thought it was the 'e'xclusive version.
--
Peter
Ontario, Canada

I think you're right on all counts. The problem for me is the usability in low light.

I am coming from a Canon background and my lens of choice was the EF-S 17-55 2.8 IS which is sharp wide open and has IS. With that I could comfortably shoot in low light at ISO 1600 / 3200 as it had IS and handheld shots at 1 / 15 s or longer were no problem.

As the 24-70 doesn't have VR, I need a much higher ISO to get handheld shots. A non-VR doesn't let me do it at ISO's that I am happy with the results at.

The addition of VR, hopefully with the next update, would solve all the issues for me.

ne beginner said:

... The 24-70 is arguably the best in its class. However, it is soft at the ends wide open. "Soft" is subjective as well. So if you shoot at 4 or 5.6 or higher most of the time, and not low light wide open, this discussion may not be as applicable. Or we may have different notions of soft ... for me, and some others it would seem, that softness is more revealed by the D800's resolution.

Click to expand...

... in place of the 50mm. Is that what you're thinking as well? The 35, with an 18 or 20 (like the new rumored ones perhaps), with maybe the 60 vs. the 50. Perhaps no need perhaps for the 85 with that set up since I have a 70-200.

If I hold with the 50 and 85, I can keep the 24-70. Kind of like playing cards! Hit me on the 18 or 20 later.

By keeping the 24-70 for now, I can play with the 2 primes, and then maybe next year be better able to make a decision on a permanent change to primes.

I'm thinking the D800, and perhaps the D600 later this year, and a D700 replacement next year, all these higher res sensors may mean Nikon will come out with a 24-70 VR. I think VR on this lens would allow off-set the new 2x unofficial rule of thumb for the D800.

As a hobbyiest my needs are less defined perhaps, but PJ is kind of what I see as closest to one need: all purpose, indoor, low natural light (like in museums, people, etc), people, street, outdoor evenings on the street. The D700 and 24-70 was ideal for this, and I carried it everywhere. The D800 is great for this as well, and the same 24-70 is near perfect. Except where wide open and the ends, and when I need to cheat on the 2x rule.

... For the conditions we are talking about. It would let us cheat on the "2x" rule with the D800. I think you're right, a VR is a likely update for this lens. especially now that Nikon has, and seems to have planned, more higher res bodies. T

he current 24-70 was designed for the D700 and D3, and is still be great on the D800 ... as long as you can get enough shutter for the 2x hand held rule.

I also came from Canon, and had their "holy trinity" zooms. I found the Nikon glass, especially the 70-200 VR, just a bit better. For those not needing 2.8's, Canon's f4 zooms are unmatched by Nikon, IMHO.

It's an amazingly sharp and versatile lens. If you want an 85mm, get it, but I wouldn't let go of that amazing zoom.

FWIW, I've got the 24-70, a 50mm, 85mm, 105 micro, 70-200 II and the TC-200 III. The worst quality is when the TC is attached to the 70-200. Otherwise, they're all excellent on the D800.
--
david

Did you sen the 24-70mm because of AF finetuning or something else. Some people are reporting some extreme AF FT differences between 24 and 70 (a recent post says 17).

Re the lens, I'd keep it, soft in corners wide open is expected and not a big issue, since likely that would be used for bokeh effects and corners would be oof anyway.

If it works well at 5.6 or 8, thats'awesome. Of course, having one prime for special situations is a good idea, get the one you need most, the 1/1.8 line is pretty good and relatively inexpensive. The new 85 and 28 look like winners, the 50 is a great lens as well.

--
Renato.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/rhlpedrosa/
OnExposure member
http://www.onexposure.net/

Good shooting and good luck
(after Ed Murrow)

Ray Soares said:

But I've kept my 70-200mm VRII and TC's

Click to expand...

how is that lens on the D800?

...Using LensAlign, I was getting some BF at 24, much more significant BF at 70 (2x as much), and (here's the crazy part) slight FF at 50. I know, but I kept getting the same results, even using a few other ways to measure BF\FF. AF adjustment could fix the center, making each end much worse, or fix one end or the other, but at the expense of other FL's.

Could have been my mistake, but on other hand the repair estimate was $600 (before I got that waived for warranty). So I'm guessing there was more it than simple BF.

The thing is, this lens wide open at either end has been more often than not for me a mild disappointment, even on the D700. In all fairness, many of these situations have been where the 24-70 is at its weakest. But these shortcomings were more noticeable on the D800, so I got more serious about testing the lens.

Now with a -5 it's spot on at all FL, which is pretty good. It also seems a tad sharper wide open as well.

I've got a D4, but the 70-200mm VRII is one the top pro zoom Nikkors of all time.
You can't go wrong with it for a D800.
Big and heavy for sure
Best
--
Ray Soares

See my pictures at http://www.pbase.com/raysoares

USE CAPTURE ONE SOFTWARE. I have played with all the softwares and my jpgs on an 8 have been as good as my raw files except on capture one . it has made a huge difference.
the other softwares are adobe cs5 . nikon nx2, DXO.
Capture on is a free download and you can get a huge discount.
EVERY D800 USERS SHOULD HAVE ONE!!!
I will still use dxo for distortion. but it is a huge difference.

Lenses 16-35mm 50mm 1.8g 70-200mmvrII, 300mm afs f/4(my poorest performer ..) & 105mm vr

When I am on location shooting among people, the 24-70 is very hard to beat. I own the magic 24 and 35 f1.4 lenses and they are sharp but I find that I get way more candid shots with the ability to zoom.

Sometimes I think people "obsess" with this tack sharp thing. There is still composition and running around in a group of people, letting your "feet do the zooming" is BS and will draw way more attention to you than you want.

These extra pixels are great but there is no need to turn your back on the 24-70 because you are trying to squeeze every drop of sharpness out of your camera. There is still room for this lens in my bag.
--
Greg Gebhardt in
Jacksonville, Florida