SuperFly48 Loc: NE ILLINOIS

Had the opportunity to test a Nikon 24-70 f/2.8 non-VR on my d850. Had it to three different venues: shot the dam site on the Wisconsin River at Sauk City; went to the zoo in Madison, WI; went to the River Walk in Naperville, IL. Each had a different challenge. First off the Nikon 24-70 felt almost foreign to me; every time I wanted to change a setting or manual focus I felt I had to hunt for the adjustment rings? Was curious why the lens moves its front element the way it does? Overall initial impression, that is NOT a walk around lens for hand held shooting under less than ideal conditions; not without VR anyway. And it's NOT a zoo lens either. I got some nice shots at the dam site, then it was a decent afternoon with broken clouds to break up the monotony of the late September sky. Shooting conditions at the River Walk were not the best because of mostly overcast skies so I was limited to what I could do without a tripod and get sharp shots; I had intermittent rain. Auto focus worked best at the dam, probably because the lighting was better. At the zoo I had to do a lot of shooting through glass without a tripod. I had a comparable Tamron a while back that I returned to B & H because my old manual focus primes gave me as good if not better/sharper images with a whole lot less weight to deal with. I was expecting a whole lot more than what I have seen so far. MY OPINION!

Kmgw9v Loc: Miami, Florida

If the lens is not for you, dismiss it.
I like the 24-70, and use it a lot.

Bill_de Loc: US

It might not be the lens alone, but in combination with the D850. It has been mentioned quite a bit that the higher resolution of this camera requires not only a very sharp lens, but also a very steady platform. I imagine that hand holding in the low light situations you might not have had a high enough shutter speed.

A little more testing and you may learn to love this lens. Best of luck.

--

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

Very curious as to some of your rash statements. Such as, "it's not a walk around lens for handheld shooting under less than ideal conditions". What would you consider "ideal conditions"? Secondly, just how difficult is it to learn where the focusing ring is located?

The next puzzling thing is your River Walk comment. Why would overcast require a tripod?

Other than the distance of animal to the camera, what's the issue with using this lens at the zoo?

I regularly use a 28~300 Nikkor on my D800. I've no problem walking around with this lens. Though, I do admit I have to carry it. It won't walk around on its own.

I realize that these views expressed in your post are your opinion, but I'm thinking you may be depriving yourself of a great lens.
--Bob

cameraf4 Loc: Delaware

At this point, I'll make it 4-for-4. By literally every other review I've seen, this lens is one of the best, sharpest out there. Perhaps you were having a bad day.

Jules Karney Loc: Las Vegas, Nevada

I have that lens. I use it on my D500 and D4 and have never had this issue. Works great.

Strodav Loc: Houston, Tx

The 24-70mm f2.8 is a great lens so don't pass it up. It didn't take long after I got one that it became the go to lens for my D800 as I find I don't mount up my 35mm or 50mm primes near as often as I use to. Very sharp, fairly fast and flexible. Sorry, can't speak to the Nikon version as I couldn't justify the additional $500 over the Tamron. It should have worked great at the Wisconsin River and Naperville River Walk, but I would not recommend it for the zoo where you want a longer lens.

Wingpilot Loc: Wasilla. Ak

My grandson has the 24-70 he uses on his D810, and says he's not 100% pleased with the images it produces. I used it a few times on my D7200 and was thrilled with the resulst. Bottom line, certain lenses perform better on some cameras than on others. I suspect that this case may be that of a high megapixel camera showing the faults of a lens, moreso than a camera with a smaller, less dense sensor would. In any case, he thinks he gets less sharp images with that lens on his D810, and when I used it, they were tack sharp.

therwol Loc: USA

I put a Nikon 70-200 f/4 VR on my D810 for the first time and the sharpness, or lack of it, shocked me. It was near focusing. I took care of that, and it is now probably my sharpest non-macro lens. You can't just put a lens on your camera once and not make sure the combo is working properly before passing judgement on it. The second issue I see is that you didn't take comparison pictures of the same scenes with another lens or other lenses covering the same focal lengths.

yorkiebyte Loc: Scottsdale, AZ/Bandon by the Sea, OR

"It won't walk around on its own." ......Priceless!! Whooohoo!!

Strodav Loc: Houston, Tx

Naperville River Walk Fountain 9/30/2012. Lived in Naperville for 30 years before moving to Texas (see my other reply on the 24-70).

(Download)

Dr.Nikon Loc: Honolulu Hawaii

FlyGuy47 .., I am puzzled .. , For so many Nikon around the world .., the 24-70 2.8 G is the go to lens .. a lot of professionals have gone to the VR model as it is the newest model of the go to lenses There is very little diff in the two ..., I bought my 24-70 2.8 used when I bought my new D800E ..and continued to use it on myD810 and now on my D850 .

As with increased Megapixel of the newer cameras .. , hand held non tripoded shots require practice as the slightest jitter is now magnified by a whopping 46 megapixel ...I have never had a problem with this lens slotting Birds..planes or people and especially landscape .. I Tripod this lens 2% of the time and hand hold 98% of the time ... I might suggest you go out with a local photo club person and pass your camera back and forth between the two of you ...see what is up .. hand held shooting technique or it it a problem with the lens ..

I have loaded tree shots from this weeks trip to Yosemite. D850 24-70 2.8 non VR ...All except the star shot was hand held auto focus ..

Hand held 24-70 2.8 non vr D850

(Download)

Hand held 24-70 2.8 non vr D850

(Download)

Tripod 24-70 2.8 non vr D850

(Download)

SuperFly48 Loc: NE ILLINOIS

Whatever floats your boat!!! My response to all who jumped on my topic...all the attached pics were shot off hand with the d850 and with the exception of the first two, all were with that new Nikon 24-70 f/2.8 non VR. First two pics were taken with an old Nikkor 50mm f/1.4 manual focus lens that's about 25 years old. As for operator error as in MY shooting technique, that's a possibility for one reason....my old Nikkor manual focus lenses (28 and 50mm) weigh on average 8.5 ounces whereas the 24-70 weighs around 31 ounces and is a whole lot longer than either old Nikkor so I may not be used to how the d850 balances and feels in my hands right now? I put the old 50mm f/1.4 up against a Tamron 24-70 G2, had the Tamron locked in at 50mm and shot the same targets to make the comparison as fair as possible. The G2 got sent back.
The shots at the Sauk City dam I thought were fine.
Shots 5 & 6 were at the zoo. The rhino shot is a pretty big crop; as posted its file is less than half the original JPEG. My comment that the 24-70 is not a zoo lens, if I cannot get tight face shots of the critters, why bother. That's why I go to the zoo, get face shots which are what I want, and my preferred method is to use a lens with a lot more reach than 70mm so I can shoot through the bars and cages. When done the way I prefer, the bars and screens disappear. You want to go to the zoo and take people pics? Have at it! The only person I care to photograph when she will let me is my only grandchild.
Last 2 shots are from the River Walk neighborhood. I was pleased with the street shot of the Millenium Carillon bell tower shot straight west down Aurora Ave; the bell tower is maybe a half mile away from where I stood. The other River Walk shot came out pretty well also, got the subject in decent focus shooting through the pillars. On the other hand most all the shots taken of the gazebo in that area, most every shot was soft in the center even with AF on.
I have taken well over 1,500 shots with the old manual focus Nikkors on the d850; both those lenses combined weigh maybe half what the 24-70 Nikon weighs. And both of them have produced a number of nice images for me to date. If a whole lot of people feel the Nikon 24-70 is worth what Nikon is asking for that lens, either with VR or not, I am happy for them. For me it's around $1,800 I can use in other ways. Had the 24-70 blown away the old lenses with its sharpness, I would not have posted anything here. In my opinion it did not; at least not for me. It's not a lens I have to have.

(Download)


(Download)


(Download)


(Download)


(Download)


(Download)


(Download)


(Download)

queencitysanta Loc: Charlotte, North Carolina

Have you used your camera menu to pair pr match the lens to your camera? check your manual or your local camera store.

Good luck

Brock

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

Interesting comments.
This particular lens is a superb lens IQ wise.
As to IS you knew it did not have it and if holding steady is an issue then this is not the lens for you. I and many others who find IS is a God send look at this as a deciding factor for what lenses we get.
Again the lens as you see is highly regarded and well loved for it's superb quality and it sounds more like operator error than the lens. Perhaps some couch time playing with it and getting used to the layout. Of course it is a zoom and not a prime so there are 2 rings rather than 1. That is where couch time learning one from the other will develop the muscle memory of how to hold and operate this wonderful lens.