EvKar Loc: Middle of the Good Old USA

I have been wanting the versatility of a zoom lens for a long time, but my experience with such lenses in the past is you sacrifice a little on the picture quality in the way of sharpness for the convenience of having a wide range of focal lengths. The bigger range, you achieve less sharpness. But should you pay for the higher end lens, the above should not be an issue.

I love my prime lenses, 50mm and 35mm for the sharpness, but with my Tamron 18-270, I cannot achieve the sharpness I desire; but then again, I didn’t pay much for it compared to the high end lenses that have the better glass and same focal length. I just could not justify the expenditure for just a hobby.
Well, I keep finding my self in volunteer picture taking events… events that have large gathering and small, where I desire consistent sharpness and in a focal range of my primes. As I don’t trust the 18-270 to achieve the results (except outdoors, then even that is touch and go), I’ll swap out my primes throughout the event. In the process of swapping, I’m missing shots and I’m a nervous wreck… you guys have been there!

Well, all the above to say that I finally broke down and purchased for my Nikon D7100, a Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8E ED VR at a hefty cost of $1,899. I was excited about this lens, even the cost didn’t dampen my enthusiasm (I got over my GAS attack), but the size and weight have made me question my decision. So, my question to the UH group… is this something that I have to live with; should you want quality/sharpness in a zoom, you’ll have to understand it will be a bigger lens due the amount of glass needed to achieve this quality?

Comparing the Nikon to the Tamron and the Sigma versions at the local camera shop (where I just bought the Nikon 24-70, and the D7100 several years back), I felt that I wasn’t seeing the sharpness that the Nikon generated… but then again, they were lighter and less costly lenses. And the various reviews that I read said the same thing, the Nikon achieves better sharpness. But at 2 and half pounds (3/4 pound, 9 oz heavier than the Tamron), is it worth it? I have 30 days to return should I desire… am I just having “Buyer’s Remorse”, or is this to be expected should you want to up your game?

PixelStan77 Loc: Vermont/Chicago

I would keep the Nikon 24-70 and use a monopod to assist you for even sharper images.

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

All too often I read someone mentioning weight as a characteristic of a camera or lens. Accuracy of aperture, shutter speed, and if in-built metering is involved, in ISO and meter accuracy. The weight doesn't enter into the photographic equation.

In fact, weight will contribute to sharper photographs in a positive manner. But then, I'm inclined to ignore weight in favor of quality.

I'm not ignoring the fact that some may have physical reasons that prevent using heavier equipment. My comment is aimed at physically healthy folks.
--Bob

Yeah, That's Me On an Outing With My 4x5

(Download)

Fotoartist Loc: Detroit, Michigan

The Nikon 24-70 has long been known to be one of the sharpest Nikon lenses ever if that is of utmost importance to you.

DirtFarmer Loc: Escaped from the NYC area, back to MA

In the past, zoom lenses did make compromises that impacted sharpness. Modern computer-aided optical design has improved things considerably.

Moderate range zoom lenses do a great job with sharpness. My 24-70 works just fine for me.

Wide range zoom lenses have a way to go. My 28-300 is pretty good, and acceptable for casual shots, but I don't use it for anything important.

OTOH, the only prime lens I use is my 105 Micro, for close up work. My regularly used lenses are the 14-24-70-200-500.

rmcgarry331

On your Nikon DX 7100, you probably be better off with the AFS DX Nikkor 16-80mm f2.8-4. It is extremely sharp, light weight, and less expensive than the 24-70. It was designed to cover the same range as a 24-120 on an FX camera, on a DX camera.

Drip Dry McFleye

It might be reasonable to ask yourself whether the clients for whom you're doing the "volunteer event" images will ever actually see the difference in sharpness that you will be paying $$$ for. If you want it for yourself, then pony up the dough and enjoy your gear without looking back. If you're spending the $$$ just for the clients you volunteer for, I suggest you give yourself a thump in the forehead with the palm of your right hand and repeat this line "What was I thinking?". This is coming from a guy who owns and enjoys 7 Nikon lenses.

Drip Dry McFleye

I'm not 100% sure of it but I think the Nikon 16-80 f2.8 may not work properly on a D7100. This is because the 16-80 f2.8 has an electronic diaphragm and the D7100 may not support that. You can check up on it on the Nikon compatibility charts. I know that my 16-80 does not want to work on my old D90.

robertjerl Loc: Corona, California

Unless someone comes up with totally new materials and tech then quality and high IQ = bigger and heavier & $$$$.

CO

Take a look at the Tamron 35-150mm f/2.8-4 lens. It weighs 790 grams as opposed to 1070 grams for the Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8E lens. It gets very good reivews.

You could also consider the Nikon 16-80mm f/2.8-4 lens. I had the lens but returned it. It seems like a $500 to $600 lens that sells for over $1000. It's sharp but other than that it's a poor lens. I got the previous Nikon 16-85mm f/3.5-5.6 lens. It's a better lens than the 16-80mm.

PHRubin Loc: Nashville TN USA

I guess it is a case of how sharp is sharp? Attached are 2 images from the same shot, showing the sharpness of my Sigma 18-300mm zoom at 300mm. Sharp enough?

(Download)

IDguy Loc: Idaho

The 24-70 f4 S on my Z6 is great for me. You can get the kit for near the price of the f2.8. (No ZTF adapter and it isn’t VR so you’d need a Z for it).

I guess the question is, “ Do you need f2.8?” If Landscape is your thing, then not. If portrait ultimate sharpness isn’t wanted.

E.L.. Shapiro Loc: Ottawa, Ontario Canada

Anyone who is serious about their photography, except for soft-focus and special effects, wants SHARP lenses but HOW SHARP? Perhaps since the advent of digital imaging, folks have become totally preoccupied with microscopic razor sharpness shod I say "surgical instrument" sharpness- sharpness beyond reality- sharper that we actually see things. Some of the photography looks like pasted-up cutouts, especially withy excessive post-processing sharpening. The way some photographers go on, you would think everyone is producing photo murals or viewing the vacation shots on the Jumbotron at their local sports venue or at the nearest i0max theatre. Some obsess over diffraction to the extent that the won't stop down the lens beyond the "sweet spot" and loose sleep over IQ at the expense of actually taking pictures!

Generally speaking, modern zoom lenses are pretty decent throughout their range but that won't necessarily optimally perform at every focal length and aperture settings as high-quality prime lenses of the same manufacturing quality. Zooms, however, have their obvious advantages and conveniences. In certain kinds of work, the should be the tool of choice to facilitate fast and spontaneous shooting situations.

In my own commercial and industrial work, I don't usually shoot sports but I do lots of work in factories, construction sites, and basically dirty environments. I walk around in the mud, there are sawdust, iron filings, welding sparks, airborne particles and the last thing I want to do is change lenses. There are fas moving heavy equipment and I need to focus, compose, and shoot quickly. My 24-105 on a full-frame body, hanginh on my neck, does the job! The shots are used in full-page spreads in corporate annual reports, advertising, and mural-size prints for trade show displays- sharp enough!

I have had (wise-guy) art director tell me they want "pictures so sharp I can see the dust" Really? In the studio, I can pop on a macro lens and shot medium format on my digitized RZ- but I do dust off the products before shooting them! Then the tall my ultra-sharp image and print their brochures on Xerox instead of high-quality offset!

Another gripe- I see shooters, who complain of soft results with their costly zooms and long telephoto glass because the are blurring the images with poor camera support techniques, insufficient shutter speeds, and focusing technique. The make tripods, grips, gunstock mounts, monopods, and all kinds of newfangled gambles for a reason. Some haven't yet mastered all the autofocus option on their menu or really know how to manually focus for extremely precise results.

There is a matter of budget unless of course, you are independently wealthy. How may lenses of different focal lengths can you afford? I do photography commercially and folks say "you can buy all the gear you want and write it off" My answer is write it off against WHAT?! First, you need to show a profit, manage your business wisely, and only spend on gear that will pay for itself in quality, efficiency, and better sales potential. Sometimes we have to improvise, overlap and use what we have. The only GAS we have goes into the tank!

The attaced image is indicative of my glamerous life of a commercial photographer! No majestic mountais or beautiful modls this week! Shot with 24-105. Made into a 80x`100 inch print for a trade show booth.

EvKar Loc: Middle of the Good Old USA

Thank you for your reply...

EvKar Loc: Middle of the Good Old USA

Thanks for your input... I was just surprised at the weight compared to my prime lenses... but then I have not utilized a quality zoom before.
EvKar