Should I splurge on the 24-70 2.8?

Alliecakes82 · Feb 16, 2015

Hi, appreciate your insight!

I have a D750, but have not purchased a wide lens yet. The only lens I have is the 70-200 f4, which is sort of my go-to for outside, but certainly too long for anything indoors.

So...since the rebates are back...I am toying with the idea of getting the 24-70 2.8, but...

a) I am obviously not a professional, but definitely passionate and hope to someday do this on the side...right now just family portraits (however, I can certainly appreciate 2.8)

b) It's definitely a splurge

c) There are so many cheaper options (but from reviews, I am not sure that any of them are close)

d) I have this feeling that Sigma is going to announce an art 24-70 soon and I would totally get that (and the Nikon will depreciate in value)

BTW, the Sigma 50 1.4 will be in my camera bag in the next month.

Thanks!

Allie

dwight3 · Feb 17, 2015

Alliecakes82 said:
...since the rebates are back...I am toying with the idea of getting the 24-70 2.8, but...

I believe the rumor of the 24-70 upgrade is based on the patent application mentioned above. However it takes most companies a long time to get a new lens out to the market so waiting might involve a year or two or three. So you might want to consider alternatives in the meantime.

ALso, Thom Hogan says he sold his 24-70/2.8 since it's "past it's sell-by date". No VR and there are a number of lenses he thinks at least match it. Even with the rebate he recommends skipping it. http://www.dslrbodies.com/newsviews/february-2015-nikon-lens.html

Alliecakes82 · Feb 17, 2015

Just want to thank you all so much for all the comments and insight! I will hold off on it and wait to see what comes out in the next few months. I think I will love using the Sigma 50 1.4 and then go from there.

Thank you all again!

Ray Ritchie · Feb 17, 2015

Just scanned the thread quickly - it's maybe worth mentioning that this lens is on the "instant rebate" list for the current Nikon lens promotion. I think it's $200 off, but only through the end of the month.

HNassif · Feb 18, 2015

You can get a brand new Tamron 24-70 VC f2.8 with 5 years Canadian warranty for $900.

Antony John · Feb 18, 2015

Do you really need F2.8 covering this focal length? If so then you're better off with F1.8 (or less) primes than the 24-70 F2.8.

Are 24-70 your preferred focal lengths?

At around F5.6/F8 the Sigma 24-105 and Nikon 24-120 might give you similar IQ, more versatility, lower mass and lower price.

The 24-70 was introduced 8 years or so ago. For what it did at that time it was a great zoom. It's a solid enough Pro lens but do you need a dated Pro zoom covering this range? I had read the reviews and posted a similar query on these forums and garnered it might be what I wanted but ultimately I feel that I could have done more with the money spent on it. I'm sure others will differ but my tuppence worth.

--
AJ
Carpe diem - or not ...

ormdig · Feb 18, 2015

Antony John said:
Do you really need F2.8 covering this focal length? If so then you're better off with F1.8 (or less) primes than the 24-70 F2.8.

Are 24-70 your preferred focal lengths?

At around F5.6/F8 the Sigma 24-105 and Nikon 24-120 might give you similar IQ, more versatility, lower mass and lower price.

The 24-70 was introduced 8 years or so ago. For what it did at that time it was a great zoom. It's a solid enough Pro lens but do you need a dated Pro zoom covering this range? I had read the reviews and posted a similar query on these forums and garnered it might be what I wanted but ultimately I feel that I could have done more with the money spent on it. I'm sure others will differ but my tuppence worth.

WarrenInOntario · Feb 18, 2015

ormdig said:
Antony John said:

Do you really need F2.8 covering this focal length? If so then you're better off with F1.8 (or less) primes than the 24-70 F2.8.

Are 24-70 your preferred focal lengths?

At around F5.6/F8 the Sigma 24-105 and Nikon 24-120 might give you similar IQ, more versatility, lower mass and lower price.

The 24-70 was introduced 8 years or so ago. For what it did at that time it was a great zoom. It's a solid enough Pro lens but do you need a dated Pro zoom covering this range? I had read the reviews and posted a similar query on these forums and garnered it might be what I wanted but ultimately I feel that I could have done more with the money spent on it. I'm sure others will differ but my tuppence worth.

Click to expand...

Antony John · Feb 18, 2015

WarrenInOntario said:
ormdig said:

Antony John said:

Do you really need F2.8 covering this focal length? If so then you're better off with F1.8 (or less) primes than the 24-70 F2.8.

Are 24-70 your preferred focal lengths?

At around F5.6/F8 the Sigma 24-105 and Nikon 24-120 might give you similar IQ, more versatility, lower mass and lower price.

The 24-70 was introduced 8 years or so ago. For what it did at that time it was a great zoom. It's a solid enough Pro lens but do you need a dated Pro zoom covering this range? I had read the reviews and posted a similar query on these forums and garnered it might be what I wanted but ultimately I feel that I could have done more with the money spent on it. I'm sure others will differ but my tuppence worth.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Jeff2013 · Feb 18, 2015

dwight3 said:
Alliecakes82 said:

...since the rebates are back...I am toying with the idea of getting the 24-70 2.8, but...

Click to expand...

I believe the rumor of the 24-70 upgrade is based on the patent application mentioned above. However it takes most companies a long time to get a new lens out to the market so waiting might involve a year or two or three. So you might want to consider alternatives in the meantime.

ALso, Thom Hogan says he sold his 24-70/2.8 since it's "past it's sell-by date". No VR and there are a number of lenses he thinks at least match it. Even with the rebate he recommends skipping it. http://www.dslrbodies.com/newsviews/february-2015-nikon-lens.html

I have noticed that camera companies often make the patent application immediately before the lens introduction. Actually, the best patent protection is during the "patent pending" period. This will also allow them the longest term of protection after they introduce the lens.

The new 24-70mm f2.8 is long overdue - I would guess that it will be out in less than a year.

tektrader · Feb 18, 2015

Janoch said:
Janoch said:

Alliecakes82 wrote... so many cheaper options (but from reviews, I am not sure that any of them are close)...

Click to expand...

Scroll down a bit here https://photographylife.com/reviews/nikon-24-120mm-f4g-vr/5

... and see the comparison of 24-70 to the 24-120mm f/4.

Perhaps worth a thought? I surely liked mine... well, most of it.

Happy Hunting!

THIS.......................

I have been telling people that the 24-120 is a stellar lens for months. I actually just SOLD my 24-70 after having bought the 24-120. This review mirrors my experience perfectly as a comparison.

The VR is a huge advantage for me as I like to do hand held, low ISO landscapes. The poor edge performance and the lack of VR reduced my keeper rate on the 24-70 to the point I usually didn't take it out of my bag and used primes.

Now I have sold the 24-70 and used the cash to buy the Sigma 150-600 Sport and will go to all primes for landscape shooting.

Until the 24-70 has VR and they improve the corner performance I won't own another. In fact If I could buy a stellar used 28-70 (like I had before I dropped and broke it) I wouldn't bother. The 24-120 is very very good.

I could put up a few photos of the 24-70 that convinced me to sell it. They really are not that good... Maybe for portrait or general use but really the 24-120 is a better all rounder.

Reilly Diefenbach · Feb 18, 2015

Alliecakes82 said:
Hi, appreciate your insight!

I have a D750, but have not purchased a wide lens yet. The only lens I have is the 70-200 f4, which is sort of my go-to for outside, but certainly too long for anything indoors.

So...since the rebates are back...I am toying with the idea of getting the 24-70 2.8, but...

a) I am obviously not a professional, but definitely passionate and hope to someday do this on the side...right now just family portraits (however, I can certainly appreciate 2.8)

b) It's definitely a splurge

c) There are so many cheaper options (but from reviews, I am not sure that any of them are close)

d) I have this feeling that Sigma is going to announce an art 24-70 soon and I would totally get that (and the Nikon will depreciate in value)

BTW, the Sigma 50 1.4 will be in my camera bag in the next month.

Thanks!

Allie

Well, I don't own the lens, but if I had a hundred dollars for every gorgeous picture I've seen taken with it, I'd be kicking pink sand in the Bahamas right now. It is a golden combo with the 24MP sensor:

Nikon D600 Samples

More amazing shots with the 24-70.

I'd almost be afraid Nikon would screw it up by updating it :^)

glo · Feb 19, 2015

Reilly Diefenbach said:
Alliecakes82 said:

Hi, appreciate your insight!

I have a D750, but have not purchased a wide lens yet. The only lens I have is the 70-200 f4, which is sort of my go-to for outside, but certainly too long for anything indoors.

So...since the rebates are back...I am toying with the idea of getting the 24-70 2.8, but...

a) I am obviously not a professional, but definitely passionate and hope to someday do this on the side...right now just family portraits (however, I can certainly appreciate 2.8)

b) It's definitely a splurge

c) There are so many cheaper options (but from reviews, I am not sure that any of them are close)

d) I have this feeling that Sigma is going to announce an art 24-70 soon and I would totally get that (and the Nikon will depreciate in value)

BTW, the Sigma 50 1.4 will be in my camera bag in the next month.

Thanks!

Allie

Click to expand...

Well, I don't own the lens, but if I had a hundred dollars for every gorgeous picture I've seen taken with it, I'd be kicking pink sand in the Bahamas right now. It is a golden combo with the 24MP sensor:

Nikon D600 Samples

More amazing shots with the 24-70.

I'd almost be afraid Nikon would screw it up by updating it :^)

Yes, I agree. It's amazing to me how many people are dog-piling on the notion that this lens is out dated and isn't any good any more. Ridiculous. And then people are actually compairing it to the 24-120. That's funny.

glo

tektrader · Feb 19, 2015

glo said:
glo said:

And then people are actually compairing it to the 24-120. That's funny.

Click to expand...

Said by someone who has NEVER used a 24-120 f4......

Read Nasims review before you take a dump in the thread. He is spot on.....

A good 28-70 has way better screen uniformity than the 24-70. I have had all three lenses and it is frighteningly obvious where the 24-70's weaknesses are......

tektrader · Feb 19, 2015

Some people need to remove their rose coloured glasses.

Here is a photo I took a few weeks ago before I sold the 24-70.

The full pic here. 27mm at F8 so quite a deep DOF.

sharpened, Have a look at the edges.

Now the corners.......

Top right side crop, Soft enough for you?

Top left crop... Just ewwwwww

Here is a centre crop just showing how sharp the middle is. Quite good

The edge performance of this "PRO" lens is just rubbish and no better than the 24-120. IMO if the 28-70 f2.8 had Nano coating it would wipe the floor with the current offering.

Nikon need to lift their game. I have seen crops of the new canon 24-70 its a world away better than this weakest link in the trinity.

This lens need replacing asap.

GlobalGuyUSA · Feb 19, 2015

Alliecakes82 said:
Hi, appreciate your insight!

I have a D750, but have not purchased a wide lens yet. The only lens I have is the 70-200 f4, which is sort of my go-to for outside, but certainly too long for anything indoors.

So...since the rebates are back...I am toying with the idea of getting the 24-70 2.8, but...

a) I am obviously not a professional, but definitely passionate and hope to someday do this on the side...right now just family portraits (however, I can certainly appreciate 2.8)

b) It's definitely a splurge

c) There are so many cheaper options (but from reviews, I am not sure that any of them are close)

d) I have this feeling that Sigma is going to announce an art 24-70 soon and I would totally get that (and the Nikon will depreciate in value)

BTW, the Sigma 50 1.4 will be in my camera bag in the next month.

Thanks!

Allie

Hi Allie,

I didn't read the other comments -- but I wouldn't buy the 24-70/2.8, if I were you (unless you are working as a wedding photographer or something, but you said you're not a professional). I would strongly advise you to consider the Tamron VC version, which has VR, even as a non-professional, if you are going to get a 24-70. The VC / VR will help you to a very reasonable degree.

However, I don't recommend you get this lens.

I recommend you get an FX 35/1.8G, an 85/1.8G, a 50/1.8D (yes, "D" version), and a 20/1.8G, instead. You don't have to "splurge" all at once. I buy in this order if you are looking to build out a NORMAL (mid-range): (1.) The 35/1.8G, then (2.) add the 85/1.8G, and finally (3.) add the 20/1.8G & 50/1.8D to complete your range. In the long run, you are going to be really glad you invested in quality primes.

Most people I know end up putting down the 24-70/2.8.

By the way, the 50/1.8D is one of the least expensive, but still very much one of the sharpest Nikon lenses. It only costs around $150. For many, many people it totally replaces the 24-70/2.8, except at the wide-end. If you are looking for WIDE-END, then I would reverse the purchase order: (1.) Buy a 50/1.8D, and a 20/1.8G, then add an (2.) 85/1.4G, and finally a (3.) 35/1.8G.

I think you will be really happy & have a much more compact kit that is very flexible.

By the way, all of those lenses I am recommending are every bit as good as the Sigma 50/1.4 ART, except the 50/1.8D. The reason I recommend that one, is because you can save nearly $1,000 and build up your light-weight kit. Everyone wants heavy zooms, and heavy heavy glass (the Sigma weighs a ton), until they bust their back and decide not to take their cameras out anymore. The 50/1.8 D is extremely tiny, barely can notice it on your camera & saves you enough money to help buy the other lenses I mentions along with your budget.

Just food for thought!

--
Sincerely,
GlobalGuy

Reilly Diefenbach · Feb 20, 2015

And as mentioned by Roger Cicala, the Nikon 24-70 outperforms the new Canon zoom lens on a Canon 5D3 easily for resolution when paired with a D800. Not exactly chopped liver. Not that improvement can't be had...

ChapelThrill23 · Feb 20, 2015

A lot of it depends on what kind of shooter you are. I debated a 24-70 Nikon or Tamron but in the end I decided to keep the lighter 24-85 for outdoor landscape work and buy the 28 1.8, a refurb 50 1.4, and 85 1.8 instead. I really like the speed and quality of Nikon primes and shoot a lot of pictures where not being able to go below 2.8 would be limiting. I've been really happy with my choice and saved enough that, in addition to the other lenses, I could also buy a used 80-200 2.8 for about the same overall price as just having the Nikon 24-70.

mlewan · Feb 20, 2015

A lot of people love the 24-70, and I do not doubt that it is magnificent and worth every cent if you are that kind of shooter. However, personally I do not see any need for that lens. There may be reasons to use a compromise superzoom like a 28-300mm, if one really needs to switch quickly between vastly different focal lengths. But when it comes to 24-70, a prime and some cropping in post processing works well enough for my needs for different framing. Primes are cheaper, often sharper, have wider apertures and are usually much lighter than the 24-70.

Then again, if you really need to zoom between 24 and 70mm, I am sure the 24-70mm is an excellent choice.

ormdig · Feb 20, 2015

Even at f/8 and 27mm you are way in front of your DOF in the left image and the right side within the DOF is hidden behind the foreground.

This image is a snapshot at f/8 and 24mm, supposedly the weakest area of the lens and even though the sign is way in front of the DOF it is still legible,

--
Pete

RBFresno · Feb 20, 2015

mlewan said:
A lot of people love the 24-70, and I do not doubt that it is magnificent and worth every cent if you are that kind of shooter. However, personally I do not see any need for that lens. There may be reasons to use a compromise superzoom like a 28-300mm, if one really needs to switch quickly between vastly different focal lengths. But when it comes to 24-70, a prime and some cropping in post processing works well enough for my needs for different framing. Primes are cheaper, often sharper, have wider apertures and are usually much lighter than the 24-70.

Then again, if you really need to zoom between 24 and 70mm, I am sure the 24-70mm is an excellent choice.

Hi!

Agree with our caveat "if you are that kind of shooter".

While there are many uses for the 24-70, it's hard to argue that there aren't a number of prime lenses that match or exceed its performance within its focal length range.

Personally, I find myself using the 24-70 most often at events like family get togethers where it's nice being able to frame the shot with a zoom in close quarters.

If I made a living with enlarged landscapes, I suspect I'd be seeking out a 21 Zeiss, 24 PC-E, and/or 24 1.4 on the wide end of the 24-70 range.