24-70 F2.8 lenses

Gary Coyle said:
Its a great lens, ive never been a fan of the Nikon 24-70mm, over rated and over priced
Click to expand...

I've been off and on about selling mine. My 16-35 at 24mm is sharper, lighter etc. At 18mm its fine, and by 30mm its dropping off a bit but acceptable for sure. Much less CA too. I use the 24-70 as the focal range is pretty much perfect but reckon a cheaper 28-something or 24-85/105/120 would do the job just as well and loosen up a few bob....
 
ST4 said:
I've been off and on about selling mine. My 16-35 at 24mm is sharper, lighter etc. At 18mm its fine, and by 30mm its dropping off a bit but acceptable for sure. Much less CA too. I use the 24-70 as the focal range is pretty much perfect but reckon a cheaper 28-something or 24-85/105/120 would do the job just as well and loosen up a few bob....
Click to expand...
Theres also the superb Tamron 24-135mm to consider if you dont need f/2.8
 
  • Like
Reactions: ST4
I'm not sold on the 24-70 yet. Mainly due to its size and weight compared to primes. I'm going to give it a full test run over the weekend and if its a no go, I will sell it on!
 
JJ! said:
Good stuff! I loved the concept of primes, but in reality... it wasnt working for me!
Click to expand...

JJ! said:
I'm not sold on the 24-70 yet. Mainly due to its size and weight compared to primes. I'm going to give it a full test run over the weekend and if its a no go, I will sell it on!
Click to expand...

Sigma 35mm will be the worst of both worlds - weight and prime.

Stick with the zoom!
 
JJ! said:
I'm not sold on the 24-70 yet. Mainly due to its size and weight compared to primes. I'm going to give it a full test run over the weekend and if its a no go, I will sell it on!
Click to expand...
24-70 lens are to zooms as what 50mm are to primes - everyone recommends them and says they are a must have but that doesn't mean to say it will be for you.

I have a 28-75, of which in the last 18mths of landscape photography, I have used 4 times, as opposed to 204 shots with the 16-35 and 155 with the 70-200.
 
Personally i really like my 24-70. i use it quite a lot & find it a very useful lens.
as a contrast i pretty much never use my 50mm. just find it a bit meh!
 
Last edited:
24-70 is brilliant for work, not so much for a walkabout as it's quite heavy. I generally use it like a prime in that I'll choose a focal length before bringing it up instead of zooming when it's to my eye. You give up a bit of that prime "look", which most clients won't notice anyway, but gain much better AF and flexibility.
 
AndrewSt said:
Any thoughts on your switch?
Click to expand...

Just got home from a full days wedding and backing up. First thoughts - I'm liking it. The first and most obvious thing is the weight....I didn't think it'd be this much of a factor but the 24-70 & 70-200 puts considerably more strain on you than a prime combo. I wear the moneymaker which helps a lot but even with that, I'm feeling it right now!

Once I got used to the fact that I could zoom and that I had a wider/longer reach to play with it felt very natural. I can only think of maybe one occasion when I thought that I'd have liked 1.4 or 1.8 and that was detail shots. For the church, venue, first dance, 2.8 was more than adequate. The VC on the Tamrons works wonderfully as well.

If I can think of anything else I'll add it when my brain is less mushy :)
 
Personal preference, as always. If you think you've been fine so far without one, you're probably going to continue to be fine without one. I wouldn't think weight was an issue, 24-70s are hardly big lenses.

I use one for events all the time, probably my main lens on over 95% of event jobs. Haven't touched it for weddings in a long time (well, actually, used it for one group shot on Saturday), but have it in the bag as it's a cover-all back up.

It's a good safe lens to have available. I just don't find them particularly interesting to use.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top