Nikkor 24-70 F 1:2.8 lenses: I need some help from the dedicated Nikonians in the group. I'm suffering from GAS. I'm going to buy myself a birthday present in mid October. I'll be...

jsmangis Loc: Peoria, IL

I need some help from the dedicated Nikonians in the group. I'm suffering from GAS. I'm going to buy myself a birthday present in mid October. I'll be upgrading to a full framer and buying a D610. That part I have already decided on. I rented one with the above listed lens, and was sold on the combination. My problem is that, besides the current "G" version of the lens for just under $2K, there is an older "D" version for less than one third of that price. I have several AF-D Nikkors, and a few of the newer G types and like both types. At the risk of sounding "cheap" have any of you used both of these, and is it really worth the extra money to buy the new one?

skiman Loc: Ventura, CA

jsmangis wrote:

I need some help from the dedicated Nikonians in t... (show quote)

If you can handle the lack of VR and slower focus, the D versions should be just as good optically

traveler90712 Loc: Lake Worth, Fl.

jsmangis wrote:

I need some help from the dedicated Nikonians in t... (show quote)

Before you take the plunge, please check out the Tamaron 24-70 f1:2.8 (http://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Ratings) and save yourself some money.

amehta Loc: Boston

jsmangis wrote:

I need some help from the dedicated Nikonians in t... (show quote)

The two lenses are
1. Nikon AF-S 28-70mm f/2.8D, about $1000
2. Nikon AF-S 24-70mm f/2.8G, about $1900

Neither lens has VR. The 28-70mm f/2.8 is only available used, it has been out of production for over 5 years now. The current 24-70mm f/2.8 is wider and sharper. I used to have the 28-70mm, unloaded it when I switched to primes. I recently got the 24-70mm for events, and while I still prefer the primes, it performs very well. And it is a little wider, which makes it more versatile for landscapes. I would get the new one. Correction: I did sell the old one and later got the new one. :-D

amehta Loc: Boston

traveler90712 wrote:

Before you take the plunge, please check out the Tamaron 24-70 f1:2.8 (http://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Ratings) and save yourself some money.

The two other lenses to consider, and perhaps consciously decide against, are the Nikon 24-120mm f/4 and Sigma 24-105mm f/4. You lose a stop but gain 70% and 50% greater focal length and VR.

jsmangis Loc: Peoria, IL

skiman wrote:

If you can handle the lack of VR and slower focus, the D versions should be just as good optically

Thank you Skiman, you are the only reply that answered my question. I liked the VR and quick focus on the one I rented, and the 24-105 is just not fast enough for the shooting I do. I have had bad luck with Sigma and Tamron lenses, but I tried a 150-600 at the tailgate show, and I'm tempted. Maybe after the first of the year.....

amehta Loc: Boston

jsmangis wrote:

Thank you Skiman, you are the only reply that answered my question. I liked the VR and quick focus on the one I rented, and the 24-105 is just not fast enough for the shooting I do. I have had bad luck with Sigma and Tamron lenses, but I tried a 150-600 at the tailgate show, and I'm tempted. Maybe after the first of the year.....

Which lens did you rent which had VR?

jsmangis Loc: Peoria, IL

amehta wrote:

Which lens did you rent which had VR?

The AF-S Nikkor 24-70mm 1:2.8G ED. I loved it. Definitely going to buy that one. It did everything I wanted under all lighting situations. I'll probably get a CPL though. I had to change the ISO on the beach in Glencoe, when it got sunny.

amehta Loc: Boston

jsmangis wrote:

The AF-S Nikkor 24-70mm 1:2.8G ED. I loved it. Definitely going to buy that one. It did everything I wanted under all lighting situations. I'll probably get a CPL though. I had to change the ISO on the beach in Glencoe, when it got sunny.

Cool, it is a great lens. It does not have VR, though.

jsmangis Loc: Peoria, IL

amehta wrote:

Cool, it is a great lens. It does not have VR, though.

You are right about that. I guess I didn't notice because up to 70mm with the weight of the D610 and that somewhat heavy lens, it all seemed to balance and I didn't notice any shake. Besides, with the large aperture, my shutter speed seldom fell below 1/100sec.

amehta Loc: Boston

jsmangis wrote:

You are right about that. I guess I didn't notice because up to 70mm with the weight of the D610 and that somewhat heavy lens, it all seemed to balance and I didn't notice any shake. Besides, with the large aperture, my shutter speed seldom fell below 1/100sec.

:thumbup:

To your original question about the 24-70mm f/2.8G and 28-70mm f/2.8D, I think the 24-70mm is a better lens and worth the extra money.

jsmangis Loc: Peoria, IL

amehta wrote:

:thumbup:

To your original question about the 24-70mm f/2.8G and 28-70mm f/2.8D, I think the 24-70mm is a better lens and worth the extra money.

Thank all of you for your responses. All of the reviews I've read say that is the case. I was interested in what those of you in the "real world" had experienced from the "D" and "G" versions of the Nikkor 24-70mm lens.

amehta Loc: Boston

jsmangis wrote:

Thank all of you for your responses. All of the reviews I've read say that is the case. I was interested in what those of you in the "real world" had experienced from the "D" and "G" versions of the Nikkor 24-70mm lens.

There are not two versions of the Nikon 24-70mm lens, there is only one, the f/2.8G. The older "mid-range pro zoom" was the 28-70mm f/2.8D, it did not go to 24mm.

My copy of the older lens was a little soft, I do not feel that about my 24-70mm.

jsmangis Loc: Peoria, IL

amehta wrote:

There are not two versions of the Nikon 24-70mm lens, there is only one, the f/2.8G. The older "mid-range pro zoom" was the 28-70mm f/2.8D, it did not go to 24mm.

My copy of the older lens was a little soft, I do not feel that about my 24-70mm.

OK thank you. I saw the D lens for sale on E bay for less than $500, ann it was listed as a 24-70. After your last post I did som research, and I guess that they were listing it improperly. A close inspection of the photo revealed it's true pedigree. As they say "if something appears to be too good to be true, it usually is". Thank you again.

amehta Loc: Boston

jsmangis wrote:

OK thank you. I saw the D lens for sale on E bay for less than $500, ann it was listed as a 24-70. After your last post I did som research, and I guess that they were listing it improperly. A close inspection of the photo revealed it's true pedigree. As they say "if something appears to be too good to be true, it usually is". Thank you again.

I'm glad you got the right information about that "deal" before jumping in. :-)