ThomasMiller
Senior Member
Overall
The 24-70 2.8 is a BIG lens. It easily steals the title of "The Beast" away from the legendary 28-70 2.8. Fitted to a D40, D50 or D80 the lens feels absurdly large for a normal zoom and even on the grip-equipped D300 it's large enough to throw things off balance. The mechanical operation of the lens is virtually perfect and doesn't get in your way.
Optically this is close to perfection as I've seen in this range. Wide open it remains VERY sharp as seen here:
This is better than any prime in my kit, though perhaps my 50mm 1.4 can match it at 2.8 (though with less contrast/pop). It clobbers my well loved 24mm 2.8 for example by serving up tack sharp images with lots of pop. Stopped down even a bit the lens becomes even better of course. Bokeh is very good to excellent. It's not a match for the 85mm 1.4, but it's up there with the better lenses. Color is not something to be concerned with as this lens seems to have no visible effect on the spectrum. It's a virtual zooming window for the D300.
Flaws?
In my tests and usage of the lens there are no real-world flaws. While this lens exhibits some distortion, it's rare to be a problem unless you're shooting architecture. In fact I don't notice it 99% of the time since I'm shooting people with this lens. Beyond that you can easily correct the issue in post.
On the D300 there is absolutely NO CA at all and very little corner darkening wide open. This is my second 24-70. The first was also perfect, but I gave it to a friend who couldn't score one for hes China trip. So I'm happy to say that two samples several months apart were both excellent.
The Dreaded Range
There are plenty of posts asking about this lens vs. the 17-55DX, which suddenly seems like a bargain! It depends on your style and the venue. In a small room shooting a kids party you might find the 24mm too tight on a D300. Having used the lens indoors I don't feel that restriction, but some might. On the other hand the 70mm end makes this a far superior portrait machine to the 17-55DX. It's also optically better than the 17-55 over the overlapping range. Your style of composition will dictate how good a choice this lens is. Some folks walk around all day with a Sigma 10-20mm on their cameras, but I'll do the same thing with a 85mm 1.4, so it's a personal pick.
Other Ideas?
Well, believe it or not, I toyed with the idea of adding a Canon 40D and 17-55 to my kit. That combo is only a bit more expensive than the 24-70!!! My logic was that the 17-55 has VR (IS) type stabilizing and I'd have another camera body to play with. I passed on the idea in the end because I wanted the 55-70 range and the state of the art glass on the new Nikon. I knew that, after I bought the Canon, I'd still want the 24-70!
Finally
Good lord, what a GREAT lens! For 1800 buck it had better be as well. With a FX format machine on the horizon for many of us in the next couple of years, it's easy to get serious NAS for this hunk of glass. It's clearly a lens that can remain in your kit for many years to come and it's a natural partner for my 70-200. At the end of the day, should the 24-70 fit your style of shooting, the lens' single weakness might be size and weight for some. In actual use it doesn't feel much smaller than a hoodless 70-200 AF-S. Big lenses equal big performance at this price point I suppose.
Hope this has been useful for some!
Cheers,
--
Thomas (Lord Nikon!)
The 24-70 2.8 is a BIG lens. It easily steals the title of "The Beast" away from the legendary 28-70 2.8. Fitted to a D40, D50 or D80 the lens feels absurdly large for a normal zoom and even on the grip-equipped D300 it's large enough to throw things off balance. The mechanical operation of the lens is virtually perfect and doesn't get in your way.
Optically this is close to perfection as I've seen in this range. Wide open it remains VERY sharp as seen here:
This is better than any prime in my kit, though perhaps my 50mm 1.4 can match it at 2.8 (though with less contrast/pop). It clobbers my well loved 24mm 2.8 for example by serving up tack sharp images with lots of pop. Stopped down even a bit the lens becomes even better of course. Bokeh is very good to excellent. It's not a match for the 85mm 1.4, but it's up there with the better lenses. Color is not something to be concerned with as this lens seems to have no visible effect on the spectrum. It's a virtual zooming window for the D300.
Flaws?
In my tests and usage of the lens there are no real-world flaws. While this lens exhibits some distortion, it's rare to be a problem unless you're shooting architecture. In fact I don't notice it 99% of the time since I'm shooting people with this lens. Beyond that you can easily correct the issue in post.
On the D300 there is absolutely NO CA at all and very little corner darkening wide open. This is my second 24-70. The first was also perfect, but I gave it to a friend who couldn't score one for hes China trip. So I'm happy to say that two samples several months apart were both excellent.
The Dreaded Range
There are plenty of posts asking about this lens vs. the 17-55DX, which suddenly seems like a bargain! It depends on your style and the venue. In a small room shooting a kids party you might find the 24mm too tight on a D300. Having used the lens indoors I don't feel that restriction, but some might. On the other hand the 70mm end makes this a far superior portrait machine to the 17-55DX. It's also optically better than the 17-55 over the overlapping range. Your style of composition will dictate how good a choice this lens is. Some folks walk around all day with a Sigma 10-20mm on their cameras, but I'll do the same thing with a 85mm 1.4, so it's a personal pick.
Other Ideas?
Well, believe it or not, I toyed with the idea of adding a Canon 40D and 17-55 to my kit. That combo is only a bit more expensive than the 24-70!!! My logic was that the 17-55 has VR (IS) type stabilizing and I'd have another camera body to play with. I passed on the idea in the end because I wanted the 55-70 range and the state of the art glass on the new Nikon. I knew that, after I bought the Canon, I'd still want the 24-70!
Finally
Good lord, what a GREAT lens! For 1800 buck it had better be as well. With a FX format machine on the horizon for many of us in the next couple of years, it's easy to get serious NAS for this hunk of glass. It's clearly a lens that can remain in your kit for many years to come and it's a natural partner for my 70-200. At the end of the day, should the 24-70 fit your style of shooting, the lens' single weakness might be size and weight for some. In actual use it doesn't feel much smaller than a hoodless 70-200 AF-S. Big lenses equal big performance at this price point I suppose.
Hope this has been useful for some!
Cheers,
--
Thomas (Lord Nikon!)
