Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8 ED N

Digifrog

Digifrog

Messages
1,069
Name
Scott
Edit My Images
No
Hello :)

I was wondering who uses this lens here, and if they love it. I have decided that this mid range zoom lens is best for me due to its versatility and optical performance (currently half way through reading the review from Mansurov).

For someone who shoots landscapes how does this lens perform alongside the 16-35mm f/4? Disregarding the focal range of course. I like wide as in w--i--d--e but it's a fine balance between this desire and overall performance. I have read the 16-35 maybe super sharp but some pro reviews dont rate it highly and was wondering why that was. Nikon Help Hotline (Youtube) is an example here.

Given that the lens is almost 5 years old now, would you say it was a good choice if one were to go for the D800? I'm guessing that if Nikon decide to release a newer version it will be just the same but perhaps with VR, which I don't really need as I'm always on the tripod.

The 16-35 is a newer addition to the Nikon line up and already I've read that the 16-35 is ever so slightly sharper than the 14-24, so what would the comparisons be with the 24-70 regarding optical performance?

Many thanks.

Scott
 
Ay this level in the game, sharpness really isn't a huge factor - professional lenses are great across the board, and the 24-70 is a great lens used every day by thousands of professional photographers all over the world. If you buy one, you will not be disappointed.
 
24-70 is an optically very good lens and fits nicely in between the 14-24 and the 70-200 but don't be fooled into thinking that the 16-35 is sharper than the 14-24 it really, really isn't.
 
gramps said:
24-70 is an optically very good lens and fits nicely in between the 14-24 and the 70-200 but don't be fooled into thinking that the 16-35 is sharper than the 14-24 it really, really isn't.
Click to expand...

It depends on your copy I guess . My 16-35 is perfectly sharp throughout the whole image. Might not be sharper if you start comparing useless charts, but in everyday situations on a like for like basis, I doubt there is much in it.

For what it's worth, I sold my 24-70 not long after getting the 16-35mm. I just stopped using the 24-70 as it wasn't needed.
 
gramps said:
Have you actually compared it with a 14-24?
Click to expand...

Not directly no, I don't need to, the 16-35 is more than adequate. I really don't see the point in measuring every minute detail in lens on a graph, just incase one is ever so slightly better than the other.
I care about real results, with real subjects.

And I'll be dammed if I'm going to spend another £350 just to use a filter.
 
TCR4x4 said:
Not directly no, I don't need to, the 16-35 is more than adequate. I really don't see the point in measuring every minute detail in lens on a graph, just incase one is ever so slightly better than the other.
I care about real results, with real subjects.

And I'll be dammed if I'm going to spend another £350 just to use a filter.
Click to expand...

You are of course free to do as you wish, my comment about the 14-24 v 16-35 was made on my hands-on personal experience with both, not graphs, i.e. real results with real subjects.
 
TCR4x4 said:
For what it's worth, I sold my 24-70 not long after getting the 16-35mm. I just stopped using the 24-70 as it wasn't needed.
Click to expand...

Mansurov is in the opinion that the 16-35 is slightly sharper than the 24-70 at the edges at 24mm, even stopped down to f/8. But as you say taking 100% crops of streetmaps isn't my idea of subject and the difference is probably negligable in the real world.

There are times when having the extra reach (35-70) will be beneficial for me but then so is the ultra wide 16mm but be damned if I'm buying both :nono:

What is your usual subject matter? What was the main reason for the swap over? Do you mostly shoot landscapes?

Nothing's easy is it :lol:
 
Digifrog said:
Mansurov is in the opinion that the 16-35 is slightly sharper than the 24-70 at the edges at 24mm, even stopped down to f/8. But as you say taking 100% crops of streetmaps isn't my idea of subject and the difference is probably negligable in the real world.

There are times when having the extra reach (35-70) will be beneficial for me but then so is the ultra wide 16mm but be damned if I'm buying both :nono:

What is your usual subject matter? What was the main reason for the swap over? Do you mostly shoot landscapes?

Nothing's easy is it :lol:
Click to expand...


Yes mainly landscapes for me. I wanted the wider end, the 24-70 just wasnt wide enough.
When I do shoot other stuff, I still end up using the 16-35mm most of the time, apart from macro. This is why I eventually sold the 24-70, it just didnt make semse having £900 worth of lens sat in a bag not being used.

I do miss a longer length, so Im looking at a sigma 70-200, but for 90% of my stuff its the 16-35.

Yes it may not be 100% as sharp as the 14-24, which costs at lot more, isnt as practical, weighs more and doesnt take filters easilly, but unless you are Gramps I doubt you'd notice too much diference in most everyday shots.
 
TCR4x4 said:
Yes mainly landscapes for me. I wanted the wider end, the 24-70 just wasnt wide enough.
When I do shoot other stuff, I still end up using the 16-35mm most of the time, apart from macro. This is why I eventually sold the 24-70, it just didnt make semse having £900 worth of lens sat in a bag not being used.

I do miss a longer length, so Im looking at a sigma 70-200, but for 90% of my stuff its the 16-35.

Yes it may not be 100% as sharp as the 14-24, which costs at lot more, isnt as practical, weighs more and doesnt take filters easilly, but unless you are Gramps I doubt you'd notice too much diference in most everyday shots.
Click to expand...

Aye. I love the wide the Sigma 10-20 had and found it very difficult to take it off the camera. It's just that sometimes it just wasn't long enough. When wanting to shoot Swanage old pier for example (my avatar - 28mm on a crop sensor) the 16-35 will be pretty useless, the 24-70 will be more ideal.

Now we are in the realms of swings and roundabouts but due to cost I can't have both. In time I'm hoping to acquire the Zeiss 18mm or 21mm, so I can get wide that way but that's after some time.

It's a headache:bang::lol:
 
I have the 24-70mm f2.8 on my D3s. It's very sharp indeed but just don't use it much.
 
If you have a wide angle lens already, you can consider the 28-70 f2.8 AFS. optic is same as the new 24-70
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top