Thinking of getting a Nikon 24-70 2.8 VR

Started 4 months ago | Discussions thread
Fullframer Contributing Member • Posts: 877
Re: Thinking of getting a Nikon 24-70 2.8 VR

J_o_e_l wrote:

Fullframer wrote:

J_o_e_l wrote:

I always appreciated this lens... it focuses SO FAST! And with the addition of VR it became even more fantastic than the G version.

But, it's crazy heavy, doesn't focus very close to objects, and 70mm isn't really very long at all. I actually enjoy using the 24-120 f/4 a lot more. The range is far more useful for my photography than having 2.8 is, it's about a lb lighter, and if it ever breaks they're on eBay for like $500 all day long!

You are comparing a kit zoom lens to one of nikons best pro zoom lens, lol. The 24-120 F4 is 2/3 the weight of the 24-70. The 24-70 has better minimum focus distance 1.25 feet vs 1.48 feet , better built and it's brighter to look through the viewfinder in darker conditions. Better sharpness throughout. Focus speed. one of nikons fastest focusing lens.

The 24-120 extra zoom range IMHO aren't worth the worse picture quality. It isn't that sharp in the corners and has alot of visible chromatic aberration. That counts in landscape photos. Last update was 2010. 24-70 was updated in 2015. Newer lens are always sharper/better.

You are de-legitimizing a gold-ringed nano-coated zoom lens with a constant aperture and outstanding VR that ships with Nikon's highest technical image quality cameras as a "kit zoom"...lol

24-120 is not a pro lens. Not on Thom Hogans recommended list. The 24-120 F4 does not ship with Nikons highest technical image quality cameras (D850 and D6 and older D5)

Let's not go making readers feel inferior because they choose to not be burdened by impractical weight, size and bloated cost, for a non-linear return in value.

If the readers want the best optical quality with the highest technical image quality on Nikon cameras, they won't chose the 24-120 with it's soft corners, that is for sure. There is no burden using a 24-70, other than cost.   Yes, faster glass is always heavier.  An F2.8 constant aperture zoom lens will be bigger and heavier than a F4.0 version.  That is physics.   Imagine size/weight if 24-120 were constant F2.8 ?

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow