I would like some feed back on people's experience, satisfaction with the Nikkor 24-70 2.8 VR Lens for outdoor photography especially landscapes.
Mac
Loc: Pittsburgh, Philadelphia now Hernando Co. Fl.
A Frame wrote:
I would like some feed back on people's experience, satisfaction with the Nikkor 24-70 2.8 VR Lens for outdoor photography especially landscapes.
The 24-70mm is a very fine lens that will give you great pictures and enjoyment.
If you don't need the f/2.8 though, give the AF-S Nikkor 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5G ED VR a look.
I'm not trying to talk you out of the 24-70mm or into the 24-85mm, just to give you another option to consider.
Welcome to the forum.
The 24-70 2.8 is a nice lens but I personally wouldn't use it for a walk around lens. Others may but not me, I'd find it too limiting. I see no reason why you couldn't use one for landscape photography, especially on a full frame body. It would also do a decent job at night sky photos at 24mm, on a full frame body. I primarily use mine for indoor photography, things like grand children and family gatherings and parties and puppies and just about anything indoors. I've also used it for portraits.
LWW
Loc: Banana Republic of America
For FX my favorite is a NIKKOR 28-105 AFD 3.5-4.5.
For DX it’s a NIKKOR 18-200 AF VR.
Both are relatively light, close focus and not so expensive that I’d be suicidal if they were damaged.
My $0.02, YMMV.
AndyH
Loc: Massachusetts and New Hampshire
My walk about for SX is the Nikon 18-70. Great lens and a range that works for me; it’s a nice compromise between range and speed.
Andy
I have the Tamron version of the lens. Awesome lens.
Mac wrote:
The 24-70mm is a very fine lens that will give you great pictures and enjoyment.
If you don't need the f/2.8 though, give the AF-S Nikkor 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5G ED VR a look.
I'm not trying to talk you out of the 24-70mm or into the 24-85mm, just to give you another option to consider.
The 24-85 isn't so good a lens as the 24-70, which is a classic. My thought is to stick to the 24-70.
When I had a Nikon I used an 18-200 Nikon lens. After a few years I switched. I wanted a constant aperture of 2.8 so l got a Sigma 17-50(?) f2.8 which I loved.
"For FX my favorite is a NIKKOR 28-105 AFD 3.5-4.5.
For DX it’s a NIKKOR 18-200 AF VR."
What a coincidence, that is exactly what I also use.
My walk around is the 24-70 on my D850. Heavy but an excellent lens.
I use the Sigma 18-300 on my D7100.
It has the range to photograph almost anything I come across.
Dale
DannyKaye
Loc: Sheffield now but soon moving to Blanzay
It’s a very nice lens, however, it is heavy. I prefer the 24-85 f/2.8-4 as a walk around because of it’s size and weight.
I swop between the Nikkor 24-84 f3.5-4.5 ED. 50mm 1.4, and 70-200mm f4 as my knock arounds with my D800.
Thanks for all of the feedback. It will help lots in my making a sound decision.
joer
Loc: Colorado/Illinois
A Frame wrote:
I would like some feed back on people's experience, satisfaction with the Nikkor 24-70 2.8 VR Lens for outdoor photography especially landscapes.
If you currently don't have this lens consider a fast, wide, close focusing prime lens. It will be sharper, cost less and your neck will feel better at the end of the day.
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.