Nikon 24-70 on D700 report

dbr1066

dbr1066

Messages
253
Name
David
Edit My Images
No
I thought it might be useful for other togs considering upgrading to the Nikon 24-70 f2.8 to hear my impressions after a month shooting with it.

First some background:
I got the 24-70 to fill a gap in my lens lineup after upgrading to a full-frame D700. Before the upgrade my main camera was a D200 (great camera when it came out). I do a lot of what you might loosely call 'travel photography', and my main lens was the 18-200 DX lens - perfect as a one-size-fits-every-situation lens! But after the upgrade to the D700 I didn't have a useful general purpose lens - as many here have pointed out, there isn't really a full-frame general purpose travel lens in the Nikon lineup (an oversight in my opinion). There isn't really a serious full-frame equivalent to the 18-200.

I used the 18-200 on my D700 for several months, and it works fine. You get used to the black crop rectangle, and the photos are fine - not exciting, but perfectly usable for general purposes (e.g. posting on websites, which is where most of mine end up). But I wanted something better, and in the end I traded in a bunch of old gear for a new 24-70 Nikon.

The results:
Superb! Wow! I can understand all the glowing reviews of this lens. Since I bought the 24-70 it hasn't been off my D700, not once. It is that good. Yes, for landscape photos I will want to go wider (I have a 17-35 2.8 for that), and for occasional telephoto I have a 70-200 VRII. But for general purpose use, the 24-70 is perhaps the best lens I have ever owned. Images are incredibly clear and crisp and detailed (I know that's not a technical evaluation, but its the instant objective response I get from viewing the images).

Caveats:
It isn't a perfect lens. I was surprised by how heavy the 24-70 is. It is built like the proverbial tank. I feel like I could use it to drive nails in place of a hammer. That also means that I need to take more care with hand-held technique to ensure sharp images. On many occasions I have had to bump up the ISO to ensure a sharp image, simply because of the combined weight of camera and lens. I figure that if Nikon added VR to the 24-70 it would be just about perfect.

Reach - well, it 'only' goes to 70mm, so it isn't perfect for every situation. But its amazing how many situations that 70mm works just fine, and I know that if I need to crop in closer, the results will look great.

Bottom line:
If you get a chance to get one of these lenses, don't hesitate. It works like a charm on a D700, and I would imagine the same is true for other full-frame cameras like the D3s. Three thumbs up!
 
Nikon Rumours reckons there will be a 28-300mm FX lens coming out soon.
 
Thanks for sharing this info! I'm considering this lens atm to be my go everywhere lens with my d3. As portraiture is what I normally do, I'm guessing it should be alright to use the 70mm end to keep things tight if necessary.
 
What a surprise... Nikon's flagship Pro-spec standard-zoom being quite good. :lol:

No we don't need to see photos. They'll only prove that most of us can't take decent test photos to the standard of Nikon's contained in their brochures...
 
What a surprise... Nikon's flagship Pro-spec standard-zoom being quite good.
Click to expand...

:-))

I figure it helps to get real world feedback sometimes, rather than just tech specs or shots of brick walls. I guess the thing that really prompted me to post this was that though I expected the lens to be good, it was SO good that I was blown away. I always figured my old 80-200mm 2.8 was the best lens I've ever owned, but this one is on the same level, and from me that's very high praise.

Come on...you need to post some pics to back your findings up.
Click to expand...

Figured that would come up :-)
OK, here's a random shot from my trip to Dorset last week.

 
lol...I know what you mean - this lens is as sharp as all of my fast primes at equivalent apertures and focal lengths...which is nice...:D
 
Just upgraded to this setup yesterday from a 40D and I know exactly what you mean. It's like the subject is alive and in 3D and you half expect it to step through the monitor. Amazing bit of kit!
 
I bought a 17-55 last year, as it was supposed to be THE DX lens. I had been using the 16-85 for a year or so, and whilst I loved the lens, I wanted something sharper, faster and more robust. After a few days I decided that, although the wider smoother aperture was great for shallow DoF shots, the image quality wasn't actually any better than that of the 16-85, so I sent it back to the shop (it was on evaluation).

Six months later, after reading loads about the 24-70, I nervously splashed out on a used lens from MPB. After just one day it was obvious that this lens was in a totally different league. Sharp as a razor, neutral, and with great contrast and brilliant colour reproduction. It seemed to have no "character" influencing its images, unlike every other lens I've owned. I don't think it's failed at anything I've thrown at it, and results are consistently very good, and regularly extremely good.

In short, it just does a great job, consistently. The only problem now is that I need to spend more time in the gym in order to carry it around all day. That lens hood is a beast too, and makes a big lens look huge.
 
I too went from a D200 + 18-200 to a D700. For the first month I only had a 20mm f1.8 and the 50mm f1.8 oh and the 105mm f2.8 After nearly killing myself with silly amounts of overtime I bought the 24-70 the next month and what a difference. You are right it is just SOOOO good. I used to love sticking the 50mm f1.8 on the D200 but rarely feel the need to bother with the lens I bought to replace the f1.8 buying the AFS 50mm f1.4G which rarely gets any use whatsoever being in the middle of the 24-70's range. The 80-200 is a good lens but I need to get the 70-200 f2.8 vr2 to make me really happy.......
 
Rough Edges said:
Nice post on the 24-70, I have seen what this baby is like...

A recent post on Nikon Rumors the 18-200 is going to full frame...
Click to expand...

and we all know how good the predictions on Nikon Rumours are :lol:

I would suggest that IF something is rumoured on there then it is LESS likely to happen.

FF cameras really want to be partnered with decent glass such as the three nikon "holy trinity" models.
 
steve_lyt said:
is this the sigma or nikon, i hope to get 24-70mm 2.8 sigma on friday
for 250

cheers Steve
Click to expand...

Having used the 24-70 Sigma it is certainly not 4 times not as good as the Nikon !!

This pair is one of the best examples of the laws of diminishing returns, the Nikon might be 10% better for maybe 4 times as much money. You will be quite happy with it.
 
cowasaki said:
and we all know how good the predictions on Nikon Rumours are :lol:

I would suggest that IF something is rumoured on there then it is LESS likely to happen.

FF cameras really want to be partnered with decent glass such as the three nikon "holy trinity" models.
Click to expand...

I would agree, I can't any advantage for a lens like this on the full frame bodies.. A range like that can't be good optically....
 
How does the 24-70 compare to a prime, like the 50mm 1.4AFS? Obviously the prime should be sharper, is that the case?
 
Rough Edges said:
I would agree, I can't any advantage for a lens like this on the full frame bodies.. A range like that can't be good optically....
Click to expand...

No on the DX 18-200 lens the IQ was acceptable for a walk about lens. Mrs_C was absolutely gob smacked at the quality difference when she switched to an AF 50mm f1.8 I did like the lens though but have moved on from that level now.
 
cambsno said:
How does the 24-70 compare to a prime, like the 50mm 1.4AFS? Obviously the prime should be sharper, is that the case?
Click to expand...

I have both the 24-70 and the AFS 50mm f1.4 there is virtually no difference in IQ between them but with the 24-70 you get the added advantage of some zoom but the 50mm has the larger aperture.
 
i have the tamron 28-300mm vc di as a replacement for the nikon 18-200mm now i have a ff camera and i think it compares well, not a patch on pro glass mind but for a holiday lens spot on
 
steve_lyt said:
i have the 50mm 1.8 nikon, i saw the 24-70mm second hand

i hope its as good as the test shots i tried

Cheers Steve
Click to expand...

They are good.

The Sigma 70-200 is also similar as in 90% as good for a third/quarter of the price !

The biggest problem with the Sigmas is quality control which appears to be pants at the Sigma factory. Most of the lenses are 90% as good as the Nikons some are absolutely rubbish.
 
cowasaki said:
No on the DX 18-200 lens the IQ was acceptable for a walk about lens. Mrs_C was absolutely gob smacked at the quality difference when she switched to an AF 50mm f1.8 I did like the lens though but have moved on from that level now.
Click to expand...

It would be handy for a holiday lens, your in the swiss mountains and a cycling event is on etc.. Not too big and heavy. I have seen some great images taken with it...
But as you say a 50mm is much better.... the 70-300 is a fair size but is much better at that focal range..

maybe a 105 would be an ok compromise...
 
steve_lyt said:
hope i get a good lens , its in my budget and it seems like a deal not to be missed

in its favor it is coming from a repitable company

Cheers steve
Click to expand...

You've already tried it so I would suggest it is ok. If you do a search about that lens on the equipment section you will find details of how to spot a dudder!
 
Rough Edges said:
It would be handy for a holiday lens, your in the swiss mountains and a cycling event is on etc.. Not too big and heavy. I have seen some great images taken with it...
But as you say a 50mm is much better.... the 70-300 is a fair size but is much better at that focal range..

maybe a 105 would be an ok compromise...
Click to expand...

I love the 105 which feels like it is honed out of a lump of solid cast iron :)

I have just re-read that post and it came over more critical of the 18-200 than I meant. The 18-200 is a decent enough lens so long as you are comparing it with comparable lenses. The 70-300 and 18-200 are similar IQ but the 50mm f1.8 is a cracker. If I had tried out the AFS 50mm f1.4 prior to buying it I would have kept the f1.8 as the difference is not that great.
 
Steve-lyt I have the Sigma 24-70 f2.8 and it has been excellent on my D300. to be honest I think it looks good on my D700 too. I also have a Tamron 24-135 SP which looks very sharp. I would like to go to the Nikon 24-70 but I am wondering really how much improvement i will see. I also have 28/35/50 and 85 Nikon primes. The last 3 particularly have a bit of an edge over the Sigma, so I guess the Nikon 24-70 will look a bit more like they do. However i reckon I have a good copy of the Sigma as it seems to do an excellent job.
 
BlackCloud said:
Steve-lyt I have the Sigma 24-70 f2.8 and it has been excellent on my D300. to be honest I think it looks good on my D700 too. I also have a Tamron 24-135 SP which looks very sharp. I would like to go to the Nikon 24-70 but I am wondering really how much improvement i will see. I also have 28/35/50 and 85 Nikon primes. The last 3 particularly have a bit of an edge over the Sigma, so I guess the Nikon 24-70 will look a bit more like they do. However i reckon I have a good copy of the Sigma as it seems to do an excellent job.
Click to expand...

This seems to agree with my observations too. The NIKON holy trinity are pretty much as good as the primes whilst the sigmas are not far off.

I would love to do a comparison test of 24-70 Sigma and Nikon plus 70-200 Sigma and Nikon on both D700 & D300.
 
steve_lyt said:
Tp would be a good unbias comparison , and a fair critique
how about trying it .

Cheers Steve
Click to expand...

I would do but I am short of both Sigmas and the 70-200 Nikon :) I am sure I can borrow the Nikon quite easily but still need the two Sigmas. Would be more than happy to do a complete review of both pairs.
 
I'd really love a 24-70 but cash is not so free at the moment so I got a 35-70 to fill the gap and it's brilliant..... well worth the punt if you can't stretch to a 24-70.
 
Not wanting to hijack this thread but I might be buying a D700 soon and read Ken Rockwell's website (a guilty pleasure) and he seems to rate the 50mm f/1.8 and a '28-80mm G' IQ as being "Incredible means unbelievable. The performance of this lens is so good that no one will believe it possibly can come from a lens this cheap."

Now I realise the 24-70mm will be a great lens, but how accurate are these Rockwell statements. Is the 28-80mm G 'Incredible'?
 
Don't know about the 28-80, but the 50mm f1.8 I had (but sold) was just ridicuosly sharp on my D300. I do seem to have been lucky with cheaper end lenses as they all seem to have been calibrated well. I can't imagine the zoom being as good as the prime but if it is you couldn't ask for more.
 
BlackCloud said:
Don't know about the 28-80, but the 50mm f1.8 I had (but sold) was just ridicuosly sharp on my D300. I do seem to have been lucky with cheaper end lenses as they all seem to have been calibrated well. I can't imagine the zoom being as good as the prime but if it is you couldn't ask for more.
Click to expand...

All three of the current 50mm lenses that you can get hold of now are superb

a) AF 50mm f1.8 D (app £120)

b) AF 50mm f1.4 D (app £230)

c) AFS 50 mm f1.4 G (app £280)

They all have advantages and disadvantage. They are all incredibly sharp and only pixel peepers will tell them apart.

a - +CHEAP, +sharp, -f1.8 rather than f1.4 of the others, -plastic mount, +does not require hood as glass is recessed.

b - +f1.4, +cheaper than c, +fastest focusing, +metal mount, +works with older film cameras as it has an aperture ring

c - +f.14, +sharpest (arguably), +metal mount, +AFS so works with D40,40x,60,3000 & 5000


My f1.8 was £45 3 years ago in Hong Kong :) should have bought the f1.4 (b) which was £135 but I have the AFS now.
 
cowasaki said:
All three of the current 50mm lenses that you can get hold of now are superb

a) AF 50mm f1.8 D (app £120)

b) AF 50mm f1.4 D (app £230)

c) AFS 50 mm f1.4 G (app £280)

They all have advantages and disadvantage. They are all incredibly sharp and only pixel peepers will tell them apart.

a - +CHEAP, +sharp, -f1.8 rather than f1.4 of the others, -plastic mount, +does not require hood as glass is recessed.

b - +f1.4, +cheaper than c, +fastest focusing, +metal mount, +works with older film cameras as it has an aperture ring

c - +f.14, +sharpest (arguably), +metal mount, +AFS so works with D40,40x,60,3000 & 5000


My f1.8 was £45 3 years ago in Hong Kong :)
Click to expand...

A lot of the reviews I've been reading say the Sigma 50mm f1.4 just pips the bunch. Some people have reported front focusing issues though.. Which seems like a quality control issue.
 
gingerweasel said:
A lot of the reviews I've been reading say the Sigma 50mm f1.4 just pips the bunch. Some people have reported front focusing issues though.. Which seems like a quality control issue.
Click to expand...

Having used 2 Sigma 50mm lenses I would say they are about the same as the AFS 50mm f1.4G no better and no worse.
 
That would indeed make an interesting comparison. The only trouble I see is what has been pointed out by several people - the Sigma's CAN be very, very good, for a potentially huge cost savings over the Nikon, but the Sigma quality control can also be so dodgy that its hard to draw conclusions based on a single positive or negative test result (i.e. the results might just be down to sample variation in the lenses tested). That's one of the main reasons I put down the extra money for the Nikon 24-70; I was confident that the sample I bought would be pretty much the same as the ones getting great reviews around the 'net. I had no such confidence with the Sigmas. I'd love to be wrong and save the money next time!
 
the lens i am getting look like the sigma 24-70mm , but seems to be a 28-70 with the looks of the 24-70 , is there a later model of the 28-70.

it has the front pull on the lens to switch from auto to manual?

Anyone seen this

Cheers Steve
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top