Thinking About Nikkor 24-70, f2.8 ED HSM: Anyone have any opinions on this lens. I have a 24-85mmVRg, f3.5-4.5 that's pretty crisp and I like it a lot. I'm curious as to what I'd...

Nikon_DonB Loc: Chicago

Anyone have any opinions on this lens. I have a 24-85mmVRg, f3.5-4.5 that's pretty crisp and I like it a lot. I'm curious as to what I'd gain besides the half/stop in AP. Any one do a comparison?? Looks like a really nice piece. Does the lo-light advantage justify the cost?

I know that's a "loaded" question......Opinions???

oldtigger Loc: Roanoke Virginia-USA

Nikon_DonB wrote:

.... I have a 24-85mmVRg, f3.5-4.5 that's pretty crisp and I like it a lot. I'm curious as to what I'd gain besides the half/stop in AP. ..... Does the lo-light advantage justify the cost?...

bought my 24-70 as a portrait lens for the 7100 and landscape lens for the 800 but its turned out to be the go-too lens for weddings.
Yes, the extra stop is meaningful.

DavidPine Loc: Fredericksburg, TX

I keep the 24-70 mounted most of the time. It's a great lens.

Nikon_DonB wrote:

Anyone have any opinions on this lens. I have a 24-85mmVRg, f3.5-4.5 that's pretty crisp and I like it a lot. I'm curious as to what I'd gain besides the half/stop in AP. Any one do a comparison?? Looks like a really nice piece. Does the lo-light advantage justify the cost?

I know that's a "loaded" question......Opinions???

abc1234 Loc: Elk Grove Village, Illinois

Don, I cannot address your specific question but I went through a similar thing with my Canon 60D. I have the 18-200 kit lens. After seeing a picture taken with the Sigma 24-105 f/4, I said that I had to have that lens. I then read a number of reviews that added up to saying the Sigma was as good overall as the comparable Canon and Tamron lenses. Having bought it, I tested it extensively, printed comparative pictures, posted a test shot here and asked a sharpness fanatic look at it.

The technical result was that in the center and over a range of apertures, some people found the lenses were indistinguishable while a few thought the Sigma was only slightly sharper. In the corners and at 200%, the Sigma was slightly sharper and had less chromatic aberration. Under normal viewing, you could see no difference.

Bottom line: lens returned.

Lesson learned: do not fall in love with a lens without being convinced that it is a significant improvement over your current lens. Ditto for bodies.

drmarty Loc: Pine City, NY

Nikon_DonB wrote:

Anyone have any opinions on this lens. I have a 24-85mmVRg, f3.5-4.5 that's pretty crisp and I like it a lot. I'm curious as to what I'd gain besides the half/stop in AP. Any one do a comparison?? Looks like a really nice piece. Does the lo-light advantage justify the cost?

I know that's a "loaded" question......Opinions???

I have used this lens for years! It produces wonderful sharp images and is good in low light. It focuses very fast. You just can't go wrong with the 24-70.

Db7423 Loc: Pittsburgh, PA

Don, I'm with David. My 24-70 is my most used lens. Sorry that I cannot offer a comparison but if you are happy with your 24-85 I would put the two grand elsewhere. ;)

Leitz Loc: Solms

Nikon_DonB wrote:

Anyone have any opinions on this lens. I have a 24-85mmVRg, f3.5-4.5 that's pretty crisp and I like it a lot. I'm curious as to what I'd gain besides the half/stop in AP. Any one do a comparison?? Looks like a really nice piece. Does the lo-light advantage justify the cost?

I know that's a "loaded" question......Opinions???

While I don't consider the 2/3 stop increase at 24mm to be too significant, the 1 - 1 1/3 stop increase at 70mm certainly is (not having used the 24~85, I do not know what the aperture is at 70mm). I think you will appreciate the brighter viewfinder image with the 2.8 lens. The 6° less field of view (85mm vs. 70mm) should be inconsequential. I personally consider the 24~70 f/2.8 to be one of the finest lenses I own, optically and mechanically. You may be well advised to borrow or rent one first, as it is a major purchase (would be for me, at least!).

Nikon_DonB Loc: Chicago

Thanks for the comments my friends.

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

I got my 24-70/2.8 about 8 years ago. That along with the 70-200 were my two most-used lenses until I got a 28-300.

With my propensity to take casual pictures, the flexibility of the superzoom outweighs the quality of the better lenses about 75% of the time. I switch back to the 24-70-200 for important shoots. The rest of the time the 28-300 lives on my camera. It has reasonably good IQ for most casual shots.

(I also have the 14-24, but it gets little use. It's bulky and doesn't fit easily in my bag with all the other junk I have in there. When I need a wide field of view it's usually a landscape or other static scene and I can stitch).

However, I do think the 14-24-70-200 are among the best of the Nikon zoom lenses and they're reasonably fast at f/2.8. (I'm still trying to justify the purchase of a 200-400/4).

mrjcall Loc: Woodfin, NC

DirtFarmer wrote:

(I also have the 14-24, but it gets little use. It's bulky and doesn't fit easily in my bag with all the other junk I have in there. When I need a wide field of view it's usually a landscape or other static scene and I can stitch).

Wanna sell your 14-24? :roll:

edhjr Loc: Needham, MA

Dirt Farmer. Excellent post totally agree -- the core 2.8 zooms are great and are the main lenses of my kit -- including the 200-400. Having said that, the 28 to 300 is my "tourism lens" -- small, light, flexible and doesn't draw much attention. A week of walking in the cities of Morocco with that on a D800 proved the value of the "smaller kit" plan to me. Going on safari in India in the spring with two cameras: a D810 primarily with the 28-300 and a D4s primarily with a 70-200 with 2x converter. (200-400 too bulky for this trip)

Fotomacher Loc: Toronto

The 24~70 f/2.8 is one of the best lenses Nikon has made and I use it on both my D300s and D700 bodies. Indoors, outdoors and everywhere else it is fast, sharp, and has great IQ. it is professional glass so unless you plan to enlarge past 8x10 or sell your work, it is probably either overkill or a luxury.

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

mrjcall wrote:

Wanna sell your 14-24? :roll:

Although I don't use it much, I do use it enough that I want to keep it.

Thanks for the offer.

mrjcall Loc: Woodfin, NC

DirtFarmer wrote:

Although I don't use it much, I do use it enough that I want to keep it.

Thanks for the offer.

Completely understand! I wouldn't sell it either if I owned it.. 8-)

camerapapi Loc: Miami, Fl.

I am pretty conservative when it comes to buying lenses so please keep that in mind.
Yes, the 24-70 f2.8 lens is a great professional optic and yes, for wedding photographers the large maximum aperture is a must.
You seem to be happy with the 24-85 and I cannot really understand why you want to buy the 24-70. In the middle of the aperture range the images will be very similar in quality for both lenses it is when you go to the corners when the chances are excellent that the professional lens will shine compared to the 24-70. If you never enlarge beyond 13x19 I seriously doubt that you will see the difference.
I have used the 24-70 lens for landscapes along with my old 28-105 side by side. Both lenses were in the middle of the aperture range and the files cropped to 50% (that makes for a pretty large enlargement)were not that much different from each other.
If I had the 24-85 as my walk around lens I would go to the 24-70 only if I needed the larger aperture for low light shots.
Just my opinion.