Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Main Photography Discussion
Nikon 2.8 24-70
Page 1 of 2 next>
Mar 1, 2014 07:46:35   #
bjprovo Loc: Northeast CT
 
I am about to take the plunge into FF. I have been looking at the Nikon 2.8 24-70, and in my research found out that this lens was introduced in 2007. Does anyone have an idea about how often Nikon releases a newer version of its lenses? Thanks for your input.

Reply
Mar 1, 2014 07:54:33   #
amehta Loc: Boston
 
bjprovo wrote:
I am about to take the plunge into FF. I have been looking at the Nikon 2.8 24-70, and in my research found out that this lens was introduced in 2007. Does anyone have an idea about how often Nikon releases a newer version of its lenses? Thanks for your input.

Ken Rockwell does a comparison of Nikon "Pro Normal Zooms" (link), with the release dates:
* AF-D 35-70mm f/2.8, 1987
* AF-S 28-70mm f/2.8, 1999
* AF-S 24-70mm f/2.8, 2007
so a wild guess would be 2015 to 2019. The bigger question is why would they release a new lens? The obvious answer is to add VR, but they could have done that in 2007 and chose not to.

What do you shoot with now? Some people say that the 24-70mm is the lens most often on their camera. Others would rarely find a use for it, with a wide angle and a telephoto used instead.

Reply
Mar 1, 2014 08:09:06   #
SonyBug
 
Honestly, it is the lens most on my camera, but I am trying to find subjects and environments that will make me use other lenses too. For example, I am looking for a good used d700 so I can put a split fresnel prism on it so I can manual focus a 500mm f4 prime Manual Focus Lens. If I am happy with that, I am going to accumulate a lot more really cheap manual focus lenses! Some of the vintage lenses are really spectacular.

Reply
 
 
Mar 1, 2014 08:09:15   #
Db7423 Loc: Pittsburgh, PA
 
One of Nikons "Holy Trinity" lenses. You simply can't go wrong with this lens. 24-70 cover a world of photo opportunities/possibilities. ;)

Reply
Mar 1, 2014 08:26:00   #
bjprovo Loc: Northeast CT
 
I now use a D300 and have the 18-200 and the 2.8 70-200 which I use most of the time. I just felt that the 24-70 would complement this lens well. Have decided after much comparison that the D610 best fits my needs. I do a lot of high school sports and whenever possible love to do wildlife. Kind of a left brainer so I really don't have great success with the creative side of landscaping. That's why I thought the 24-70 would work better for me.

Reply
Mar 1, 2014 08:27:25   #
bjprovo Loc: Northeast CT
 
Sorry this reply was aimed at amheta
bjprovo wrote:
I now use a D300 and have the 18-200 and the 2.8 70-200 which I use most of the time. I just felt that the 24-70 would complement this lens well. Have decided after much comparison that the D610 best fits my needs. I do a lot of high school sports and whenever possible love to do wildlife. Kind of a left brainer so I really don't have great success with the creative side of landscaping. That's why I thought the 24-70 would work better for me.

Reply
Mar 1, 2014 08:29:08   #
houdel Loc: Chase, Michigan USA
 
The Nikkor 24-70 mm f/2.8G is for sure a fine lens. But the Tamron 24-70 mm f/2.8 is rated (by DXOMark) higher than the Nikkor both in overall performance and sharpness, is a bit smaller and lighter, has vibration compensation, and costs about $600 less.

The 24-70 mm f/2.8s are quite huge and heavy though. A lot of folks like the 24-120 mm and 24-85 mm offerings for a general purpose lens, smaller and lighter, wider zoom range, although you give up about 1/2 stop in maximum aperture. I have the older 24-85 mm f/3.5-4.5 ED-IF non VR version. It is fairly small and lightweight, makes a great walk around lens, and DXOMark rates it only 1 point behind the Nikkor in sharpness. They run $225-$275 on Ebay.

All that said, if money was no object I'd buy the Nikkor 24-70 mm f/2.8 but still use the 24-85 mm as my walk around lens.

Reply
 
 
Mar 1, 2014 08:38:53   #
amehta Loc: Boston
 
bjprovo wrote:
I now use a D300 and have the 18-200 and the 2.8 70-200 which I use most of the time. I just felt that the 24-70 would complement this lens well. Have decided after much comparison that the D610 best fits my needs. I do a lot of high school sports and whenever possible love to do wildlife. Kind of a left brainer so I really don't have great success with the creative side of landscaping. That's why I thought the 24-70 would work better for me.

First, the D610 is a great choice. If the D600 had been available at the same time as the D800, it would have been a tough decision for me.
Since you have both the 18-200mm and the 70-200mm, and you are using the 70-200mm the most, it sounds like you're really not getting into the 18-50mm DX range, which is what the 24-70mm FX would give you. I understand being a left-brainer, but that means that 24-70 is especially boring. It seems like the 70-200mm would be fine until you spring for an exotic telephoto. ;-)

If you're really worried about having nothing below 70mm, get the new 18-35mm f/3.5-4.5 ($750), less than half the price of the 24-70mm ($1900). I really don't think you'd feel the 35-70mm gap, but if you're also worried about that, get the Nikon AF 50mm f/1.8D ($120), and you're still under half the price of the 24-70mm.

The worst feeling is spending $2k on a lens you never use, especially when you know it's a really good lens, but doesn't fit your shooting needs.

Reply
Mar 1, 2014 08:52:34   #
Db7423 Loc: Pittsburgh, PA
 
bjprovo wrote:
I now use a D300 and have the 18-200 and the 2.8 70-200 which I use most of the time. I just felt that the 24-70 would complement this lens well. Have decided after much comparison that the D610 best fits my needs. I do a lot of high school sports and whenever possible love to do wildlife. Kind of a left brainer so I really don't have great success with the creative side of landscaping. That's why I thought the 24-70 would work better for me.


BJ, if I understand correctly you are planning to move to FX with a D610 and are considering adding the 24-70. This lens is a great addition since you already have the 70-200. This was my progression as well back when the D600 was first released. Call and check with B&H and you might be able to work this purchase as a bundle and save a few bucks. ;)

Reply
Mar 1, 2014 09:19:36   #
bjprovo Loc: Northeast CT
 
I do have the 50mm f/1.8G that I use to shoot in a very tight high school gym. I didn't add that I have three very active grandchildren that I thought the 24-70 would work nicely to capture.
amehta wrote:
First, the D610 is a great choice. If the D600 had been available at the same time as the D800, it would have been a tough decision for me.
Since you have both the 18-200mm and the 70-200mm, and you are using the 70-200mm the most, it sounds like you're really not getting into the 18-50mm DX range, which is what the 24-70mm FX would give you. I understand being a left-brainer, but that means that 24-70 is especially boring. It seems like the 70-200mm would be fine until you spring for an exotic telephoto. ;-)

If you're really worried about having nothing below 70mm, get the new 18-35mm f/3.5-4.5 ($750), less than half the price of the 24-70mm ($1900). I really don't think you'd feel the 35-70mm gap, but if you're also worried about that, get the Nikon AF 50mm f/1.8D ($120), and you're still under half the price of the 24-70mm.

The worst feeling is spending $2k on a lens you never use, especially when you know it's a really good lens, but doesn't fit your shooting needs.
First, the D610 is a great choice. If the D600 ha... (show quote)

Reply
Mar 1, 2014 09:21:46   #
bjprovo Loc: Northeast CT
 
The only other lens I looked at was the Tamron, but when my wife said we should get the Nikon, well the smile got bigger and the drool started rolling.
houdel wrote:
The Nikkor 24-70 mm f/2.8G is for sure a fine lens. But the Tamron 24-70 mm f/2.8 is rated (by DXOMark) higher than the Nikkor both in overall performance and sharpness, is a bit smaller and lighter, has vibration compensation, and costs about $600 less.

The 24-70 mm f/2.8s are quite huge and heavy though. A lot of folks like the 24-120 mm and 24-85 mm offerings for a general purpose lens, smaller and lighter, wider zoom range, although you give up about 1/2 stop in maximum aperture. I have the older 24-85 mm f/3.5-4.5 ED-IF non VR version. It is fairly small and lightweight, makes a great walk around lens, and DXOMark rates it only 1 point behind the Nikkor in sharpness. They run $225-$275 on Ebay.

All that said, if money was no object I'd buy the Nikkor 24-70 mm f/2.8 but still use the 24-85 mm as my walk around lens.
The Nikkor 24-70 mm f/2.8G is for sure a fine lens... (show quote)

Reply
 
 
Mar 1, 2014 09:26:10   #
amehta Loc: Boston
 
bjprovo wrote:
I do have the 50mm f/1.8G that I use to shoot in a very tight high school gym. I didn't add that I have three very active grandchildren that I thought the 24-70 would work nicely to capture.

I would call the 24-70mm a "wedding and event" lens. I guess adding "and good luck keeping up with the grandkids" makes some sense. Though the 50mm f/1.8G might be better, since the faster lens allows the camera to autofocus better in low light.

"I want pictures of my grandkids" is probably the most compelling reason to buy good equipment. :-)

Reply
Mar 2, 2014 09:38:02   #
Festus Loc: North Dakota
 
bjprovo wrote:
I am about to take the plunge into FF. I have been looking at the Nikon 2.8 24-70, and in my research found out that this lens was introduced in 2007. Does anyone have an idea about how often Nikon releases a newer version of its lenses? Thanks for your input.


I've been shooting Nikon equipment for almost 40 years and in my opinion there is no rhyme or reason to what Nikon does (especially in the last 10 years). Therefore, it is not possible to make a guess as to when this great lens will be updated:~)

Reply
Mar 2, 2014 14:28:03   #
silver Loc: Santa Monica Ca.
 
bjprovo wrote:
I am about to take the plunge into FF. I have been looking at the Nikon 2.8 24-70, and in my research found out that this lens was introduced in 2007. Does anyone have an idea about how often Nikon releases a newer version of its lenses? Thanks for your input.


You have to remember a couple of things about the Nikon 24-70. This lens is all metal design, much more durable when handling over time. Because of the metal construction the lens is heavy but you sacrifice one thing, weight, to get another, long life. The Nikon 24-70 has outstanding resolution and it is amazingly sharp at all apertures. I have this lens and it is an outstanding performer. There is no lens in this size that performs better. Tamron and Sigma both have the same type of lens but those lenses are all plastic and build quality can't come near to the Nikon. The Nikon 24-70 out performs either of the aforementioned lenses.

Reply
Mar 2, 2014 16:10:40   #
wsa111 Loc: Goose Creek, South Carolina
 
I will purchase the Nikon 24-70mm 2.8 when Nikon installs VR.
If i used a tripod all the time the present version would suffice.
Since I shoot 75%+ hand held I love the VR. That's why I have the 16-35mm f4.

Reply
Page 1 of 2 next>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main Photography Discussion
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.