It's a shame that you can't like a video more than once. Your review is already a legacy for Nikon DSLR users out there, sir. Fantastic job. Fantastic.
if you're shooting a wedding, or an event, or a concert, you typically don't have the time to change between two, three or four primes. You need to be able to zoom wide to get a group and zoom tight to get some detail shots or single/double portraits. If you're a pro and have two bodies, one should be the 24-70 and the other should be the 70-200. That way you can shoot essentially everything you'll need to at a wedding or event and not have to call a time out from the ceremony so you can swap your 24mm to your 50mm. I have the 50mm 1.4 and I'm not super impressed with it. It focuses super slow and hunts a lot. I have the 24-70 and it focuses faster without hesitation, and if you have the room to step back, shooting at 70mm will give much better compression than at 50mm. Typically, lenses aren't shot wide open, especially at 1.4 because the DoF is so shallow, some of the subjects in a group shot can be out of focus if they're not all lined up perfectly straight and have their eyes on the same plane. This was a good review, and I agree that for static subjects, primes is the way to go... or if you're in a portrait session and you can take your time. But for realworld shooting, the 24-70 is the way to go. Cheers!
I see extremely little difference between this and my primes. I think the concept that zooms are noticeably inferior to primes is a somewhat outdated one. My 24-70 almost matches my primes and my 70-200 shits on any of my primes in that range.
@@DarthPrime10 For size the non vr gets my vote. The non vr is a pretty big lens, the vr even bigger. Image quality they are about the same. You just need to consider the sensor resolution because on a D850 you will need to use faster shutter speeds to avoid camera shake compared to a D810 or D750. So the VR is of a bit more benefit on the D850 vs the D750. Even though at times I would like vr, the bigger size would annoy me. I have the D810 and happy with the non vr.
@@aussie8114, thank you for the follow up. I had a D780 and I'm deciding if it would make sense for me to add the lens. I have the 24-120mm f/4; despite the difference in f-stop and 50mm zoom between the two, I figure I can adjust the ISO and/or, use an external flash to compensate during low light situations.
@@DarthPrime10 D780 is a 24 megapixel sensor. Not so important to have VR in the lens for general photography because to avoid hand held camera shake you likely only need to use a shutter speed about 2.5 to 3 times the lens focal length. This is known as the rule of reciprocity. So if shooting at say 70mm focal length then you best use a shutter speed no slower than about 1/200th. However on a sensor like a D850 you would need to be at about 1/400th. Basically the higher res the sensor the more camera shake will be obvious. That’s why the 24-70 VR lens was released around the time of the D850. In good lighting shooting 70mm at 1/400th will still allow your ISO to be not too high, but in lower light the ISO might creep up a bit high. Hence if you use a body like the D850 then being able to shoot at a lower shutter speed with the VR version can help with the ISO. MY D810 is 36 megapixels. I use a hand held shutter speed about 4 times the focal length just to be confident of getting a shake free shot. If I need to I can try 3 times but would need to shoot a short burst of maybe 4 or 5 shots to be confident one will be a nice sharp one. If I had the VR 24-70 I could confidently shoot at 2 times or even maybe 1times. So that would be 70mm at 1/70th. Of course if the subject itself is moving then camera shake (VR) is not that relevant. Can’t shoot a moving subject at a slower speed anyway. If the VR version of the 24-70 was not bigger and longer and heavier then I would think awesome, but it is and as it is the non VR version is a pretty big lens for such a modest focal range. Some say the 24-70 is a temperamental lens regarding if you knock the front of it you can mess up the zoom. Lens rentals confirmed this, I look after my gear and especially on the 24-70 I keep the hood on which protects the zoom from being damaged if knocked.
What a great, critically constructed and thorough discussion of these lenses! All other 'reviews' ive found on this lense are just gushy without any detailed discussion. This has really helped me think twice about whether i would want/need/use this lense vs alternative options, especially where budget is a huge factor. 👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻
Years after the newness of this version, your thought process and the truth of your usage of said lens is refreshingly helpful. As an owner of the 28 1.8 and a 50 1.4 I may or may not “upgrade” and will give greater attention to my needs in my decision making process! Thanks, your review is timeless!
I have to agree with most of the comments regarding the restricting focal lengths, size/weight, and expense. For a few years, this lens was my landscape and walk around lens on a D300, waiting for full frame body to come along. When it dawned on me that the f4 24-120mm AFS was nearly the optical equivalent in quality, I got it and never looked back. The 120mm makes a great travel lens, its VR ably making a tripod unnecessary a great deal of the time. The 24-70 f2.8 is a great lens with little utility to me now.
Im sold on this lens because of its range, built and close close proximity to prime quality.. And thats precisely where the money is folks. Its heavy, but id rather that and have the desired shots instantly at my disposal as oppose carrying dead weight around and the inconvenience of whether which lens to swap over. Sometimes you just want to capture that spontaneous shot of the action from wherever you are. This is a thorough great review, however its more towards the debate of to zoom or not to zoom. Because the reviewer favours primes in this review to his specific needs and personal choice, it does not means a piece of engineering of this calibre is not worth its weight in gold. Like anything, the importance here is to analyse your needs. You can only have one lens on a camera at a time, the rest you can figure it out. This lens suits my needs perfectly, consistent quality photos without the inconvenience. If weight is a big concern for some, think of furniture removalists..
THank you for your excellent reviews. I've used them to decide on the 14-24 and now against the 24-70 (I have the 24-120 and couldn't work out if the 24-70 was sharper). I'll just get the 60mm to complement the 85mm, both 2nd hand. love your rational approach and examples. Most helpful. THanks again.
I know it was not the focus of this video, but I'd really like to thank you for the suggestion at 22:50 of the Nikon 18-70 f3.5-4.5 DX zoom lens as part of a "walking around" kit. I purchased a D7000 recently, with box, papers, and Nikon battery grip, with only 325 clicks on it, for $325 USD. A professional photographer had bought it as a backup body and never really used it. My problem was that all of my lenses are AF-D and AIS lenses meant for full frame, and I didn't have anything that would be useful as a "sometimes use" wide-angle lens for the D7000 which I intended to use for work. I was able to buy a very clean 18-70 zoom with caps and the Nikon lens hood for $60 USD, and that included a 6 month warranty. It may not be the very best piece of glass I own, but it sure gets the most use, and I'm very happy with it. So far I have shot several hundred good photos with it to illustrate an e-book. There is always something useful to be found in your lens reviews, especially in the sections on Alternatives.
I've been thru various nikon cameras ie crop sensors and a full frame (I now own a d7100 and d750). I shoot events, weddings, theater shows, headshots/portraits. So, i o wn two of the nikon trinity and my 24-70 2.8 was purchased used. i also have 3 primes 50/85/100, a 70-200 2.8 and even a 17-55dx 2.8. i've also had to shoot in lower light, no flash. Bottom line, the 24-70 2.8 is a beast and magnificent. I don't have time to switch lenses, move my feet in crowds etc. Virtually no flare shooting into the bright backlit situation. A purist will always pixel peep, look at corners at 100% magnification but miss the beauty of lens like the 24-70 because of the cost or bitch about the weight because it's metal. Focus acquisition is almost instantaneous even in low light. The 85 1.8 won't do that. You will miss many shots with your primes because of slower focus etc. This zoom's sharpness is more than adequate, saturation is excellent, versatility goes without saying. Would I shoot landscapes with it, I've done it but it's not really geared for that. It's an event lens and one of the best ever made. You want to carry 3-4 lenses to compete? OK! To each his own!
Love this lens for 'walking around' shots. I have the Holy Trinity. Plus a plethora of Nikkor AF-S Primes that I was fortunate enough to afford thanks to a generous inheritance. Prefer the primes to the zooms for Tack Sharp work. Especially the 35mm F1.4 for Street Photography. Great review. Kudos on presentation. Cheers, Mark
Dear JKLenses, this is a fantastic Review to say the absolute least. You have really explored, no wait: exploited each lens' capabilities to the hilt and for which I offer my profound-: "thanks". I love the enthusiasm of comments submitted to you, even if they appear to be negative ( I never understand this culture on You Tube: especially when you are trying educate people on your basis of [their] learning). I did the one lens meets all with an 18-250 Sigma Art but then I find a very affordable 18-38 f.1.8 and my whole focus ( pardon pun) changed. Beautiful job man. Pete
For weddings, I'd opt for the 24-70 as you cant always switch lenses fast enough, or run closer to something happening before the moment has passed. I ran the 35-85 setup for a few years and sometimes the 35 wasn't wide enough and the 85 was cropped in too much. For everything else though I'd use primes.
Best two lens combo in place of the 24-70 (as I have found) are the Sigma 35mm f/1.4DG Art (best AF 35mm prime on the market in every way, including price, period), and a trusty 50mm f/1.8G (sharper than the f/1.4G throughout, nearly half the price, updated mechanics, much lighter). I now wish I had the 14-24 instead (as I would use it a whole lot more!), but, I find the new Nikon af-s 20mm f/1.8G ED to be just wide enough and I can use my feet to adjust. Benefits: third of the weight of the 14-24, still ultra sharp, faster aperture (though coma right at the corners slightly more annoying on the 20mm than the 14-24). Beyond this lens, I also use the 85mm f/1.4G (I cannot praise it enough, and its usefulness), and a 105mm f/2.8G VR Micro-Nikkor (damned good lens). Anything else I rent as I cannot justify the expense except for occasional use - which is the position the 24-70 has now found itself to be in, purely for the same reasons highlighted in this review: the weight does become a drag to carry around, and also it is a VERY conspicuous lens (not the sort of lens you'd want for doing candids on the streets, for instance). Yes, for weddings and in the studio, this lens has its place... this much really is true, and for landscapes, it is also useful. But, once you get bored carrying the weight around your neck/ over the shoulder, you will be reaching for lighter primes from time to time, and you will stick with them once you notice the optical quality the zoom provides doesn't quite match up
what a great review !!! i was wondering if to get this lens and not primes, but now i have all the answers ! one of the best helping reviews !! Thank you for that !
An absolutely informative & honest review !! I have to admit that I have been perennially confused about this lens & you have certainly cleared a few cobwebs not saved me a few pounds of hard earned money !!
Love the review... and still love my 24-70mm. I do own prime lenses but i tend to return to my 24-70 for my go to daily lense. Maybe it is just my laziness or trying to avoid to miss a shot because you dont have the right lense on. 24-70 mm is very functional to carry on events, parties, etc but it is damn so heavy. Even with the heaviness I still to carry this lens because it like a multiple primes (a little less sharp) stitch in one lense.
Funny as this is my most used lens. I have the trinity and a ton of primes. I would say 60% of my shots are on this lens and the 70-200 2.8 is 38% and the other 2% is all other lenses.
I have to say I find my 24-120 far more versatile than the 24-70, when i had the 24-70 I was constantly wishing I had a just a bit more reach, never regretted moving to the 24-120 f/4 with today's cameras and noise levels the difference between 2.8 and f/4 is negligible
Hi Scott, I also have the Nikon 24-120 f/4 on my Nikon D850, I have been thinking about renting a Nikon 24-70 just to see how much more IQ (if any) I am missing. I am also looking at the Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 g2 for the same reasoning....I do love the extra reach with the 24-120 though!
Great review!!! Very down to earth in your assessment of the lens. I borrowed the lens for the day from a friend and found it to be too heavy for everyday use. I'm thinking the kit lens on the 24-120 f4 and some primes when I want to bump it up a notch. Thanks again
It’s funny because I just got done watching a portrait photographer who took a look at every single lens he used to see, which is the most used lens in his photography, and it happened to be the canon equivalent of this focal length zoom lens.
As a retire veteran I am happy too say happy i am not a photographer but this video was the video that made me interested in photography. Thank you for sharing the video and I finally got all three and I am now on my way.
Really great review! Much thanks! Looks like I will stick to my primes for now. I bought the 28-70 F/3.5-4.5 for $60 which is in mint condition and I just tend to use that along with my other 14, 35, 50 primes.
Nice reviews, quite happy with this lens. Also impressed with the 14-24 results and interested in your thoughts on the 70-200 f4, lighter and a lot cheeper. cheers. (PS d610)
I have the 50mm 1.4 for my Nikon and a 70-200mm 2.8 for my Canon. And I'm paying off a 85mm 1.2 for the Canon. My question is if I should get the 24-70mm 2.8G or the Sigma 24-35mm 2.0 Art? The 24-70mm 2.8G is more versatile, weather sealed, will probably last more, focuses faster. The 24-35mm 2.0 Art is sharper, is full stop faster, costs the half.
Brutal and perhaps fair... I purchased this just prior to the review being released (doh!) as the 'holy trinity' label seems to almost label these as the perfect selection. I've sold my D7000, 35mm 1.8 (eek, loved it!), 70-300 f4.5-5.6 and the V1 18-200 and bought a D750, 14-24, 24-700 and 70-200 (+1.7TC) all at f2.8. My bag weighs so much I'm worried it will tear... The 24-70 is heavy... it is sharp....it is horribly expensive (although grey imports help)... and results so far have been satisfactory... but I really, really miss the 35mm 1.8 plastic lens for sheer beauty (a DX lens). I wish I'd heard this once, thought twice and waited. It is a wonderfully sharp and convenient lens but I think I could have invested more wisely. 'Holy Trinity' - such a loaded term - I'm looking forward to the 70-200 review as I've already bought that - but I know already it is amazing - it seems it's this middle ground where you need to think more carefully before spending... Great review, thank you!
No worries - you've got three great lenses which will collectively 'get the job done' at any focal length from 14 up to about 350 (with the TC). Tiny and inexpensive (esp. s/hand) 24mm f2.8 or 35mm f2 will help your bag on the days when you want to leave the 24-70 at home, though! Many thanks for your comments... :-)
Not an entirely fair review - I disagree with the "useless" innuendo for its features. Although a small aside mention was made about its perhaps intended application, this lens was not designed for the example photos shown (landscapes / macro). The 24/70 excels in high pressure situations - events, weddings, corporate functions, concerts as a portrait lens where the need is for HANDLING speed. The primes it was compared to are total dogs in those situations -too slow to focus, change over, more flare prone, not weather resistant (yeahh, try having beer spilled on your lens!). The 24/70 also sucks wide open at infinity, making it useless for travel landscape photography. Optimum sharpness at f2.8 is from 10 feet and closer! The 24/70 also is crap for video, as the focus throw is too short for accuracy. Bottom line, the 24/70 is solely for on the go commercial work (overkill for a studio situation). Don't waste your money if you're a hobbyist - but, if you're under pressure to cover an event - then the 24/70 will save your ass! The review was too biased with respect to intended application.
Fair comment - thanks. I used the 24-70 at a trade fair recently and really enjoyed the convenience of being able to shoot at 24 and then at 70 without changing lenses. The 50/1.4, 35/2 and 24/2.8 are great lens but, as you say, in some high pressure situations changing between these lenses could lose you the shot...
Thanks for the response. I almost never take the 24-70 when travelling, personal, or for video - just too heavy and bulky. It's a work machine, that's it.
Rockwood Joe I agree The thing with the 24-70 is that it is meant for pro event/PJ work where you just dont' have the time to screw around with primes but still need a relatively fast aperture. It is a compromise lens meant for shooting a rapidly changing situation under tight time constraints when you are being paid to get the shot. Most people would probably be better off buying a refurbished 24-85mm f/3.5-f/4.5G VR for like $300-$350 which will give you wide angle, the versatility of a zoom when you dont' want to be switching lenses and optical quality about equal to the much more expensive 24-120mm f/4.0. Then adding the 50mm 1.8G and 85mm 1.8G for excellent IQ, subject isolation, low light shooting and portraits. Or if you're really sure you wont need the versatility and speed of a zoom you can trade out the 24-85 for the 24mmf/2.8D prime or even have it in addition to the 24-85 if you can spend the money. You could also get a used 105mm or 135mm DC f/2.0 lens instead the 85mm and still be below what a new 24-70 costs. Which leaves extra money for other things that can make a huge difference in your images such as a decent tripod or a flash setup. The price, size,weight ect of the 24-70 only makes sense if you are using it for what it is meant for. If you aren't shooting event/pj type stuff where you just dont' have the time to change lenses there are better, lighter, and cheaper options.
Rockwood Joe very well said. As a wedding photographer this lens is just amazing. Yes, its heavy and bulky but the convenience of having all that focal lengths at 2.8 aperture is just a delight. Yes, shooting primes might get you slightly better result but you wont need that slight edge when the moment has already passed. Such is the reality in event photography. I wont also use this lens for travel and as a walk around lens due to its size and weight but for event photography this may be all that I need and maybe the 70-200.Other than the missed purpose of this lens it was a good review. keep up the good work.
Noel Perena Exactly. It is all about using the right tool for the right job. Most people who buy the 24-70 though are not pro event shooters, they are amateurs who buy it because it's expensive, "the Best" "fast" and "what the pros use" not because they actually thought about if it was the best choice or not for them personally. For many, perhaps most people who buy it the 24-70 is actually a huge waste of money.
The 24-85 f3.5-4.5 vr lens is sharper and yields better results than the 24-70, unless you need the wider aperture. If your photographing outside during the day leave the heavy 24-70 at home and use the 24-85 vr.
It's sharp in the center but at the edges, even closing down to f8 it doesn't beat the previous AFD version. Between 24 and 40mm the edges are a disaster, and I am not the only user who says so.
Thanks for this excellent review. I'm trying to decide on new lenses for my D810 to take advantage of it's features. My reading suggests many "older" lenses won't resolve properly with the new chip. ALL my current lenses are old, manual focus. Given your review I would consider adding some of the prime AF--D lenses rather than the newer zooms like the 24-70. Any opinions on this issue?
Nikon have been making lenses with enough resolution for the D810 since the days of film photography. When manual lenses were ‘replaced’ by AF lenses this didn’t represent any sudden leap forward in optical quality. I have several manual focus AI lenses and their optical quality is usually every bit the match of their current AF-D or AF-S versions. With the AF-D versions you get the convenience of autofocus and with the AF-S versions you get rather faster autofocus although the margin varies considerably between particular lenses. This may or may not be important to the kind of photography you do. More modern lenses will also probably perform better in tricky lighting conditions by virtue or developments in coating technologies, such as Nanocoating etc. In other words, I would expect many of the better manual lenses to perform well up to the standard of the D810’s chip in terms of things like resolution. Due to their simple construction they often give rather better images in terms of saturation etc than the modern zooms which contain ten or more pieces of glass. Optical quality of the glass is therefore not likely to be the deciding factor here - as always, it comes down to the type of things which you are photographing. If your subjects stay still or move predictably and you’re not always shooting into the Sun, then a good quality Nikon prime lenses from the days of AI or AI-S will give excellent or even better results than a modern plastic zoom. If your subjects jig about a lot or you regularly have to deal with an enforced poor viewpoint and/or tricky lighting then a more modern AF lens will be a better bet. AF-D lenses can often be fine, depending on the speed of your subject. For example, when photographing a stately home I often use a 30-year old 24mm f2 AI Nikkor which produces results which are more than up to modern standards on my D3s. However, when stuck at a less than ideal corner of a race circuit photographing Formula 1 cars, I need all the modern whizzy features of my 70-200 f2.8 AF-S VR lens..! So I guess it’s up to you - try your old manual Nikkors on the D810 - | don’t think you’ll be too disappointed and you’ll quickly identify the areas/applications where it’s going to be worth paying for a new lens with all these new-fangled features… J
JKLenses Thank you for taking the time to reply. I have been testing my current lenses and am satisfied with some (e.g. my 40 yr old 55mm Micro) and not so much with others. My primary work is done in the studio with the Nikon on a Cambo with Schneider lenses. But I'd like new lenses to explore other uses for the D810 at a reasonable cost. So, based on your tremendously helpful comments, my plan is to start by picking up some used AF-D lenses. If the optical quality is good, I'm sure I'll be happy with them. Thanks again.
Is it better to have the Sigma 24-35mm 2.0 or a 24mm 1.8G (to go with a 50mm 1.4G and a 85mm/105mm 2.0)? The advantage of the 24-70mm seems to be that one can go quickly through the zoom range. While other combinations require carrying several lenses and bodies. Really interesting reviews. Most reviews will tell you to avoid the 50mm 1.4G and to absolutely have the 24-70mm 2.8 as your #1 lens.
I think you've answered your own question! There are pros and cons of the 24-70 over a couple of primes and it depends on the kind of photography that you need them for. In some situations the primes will give better quality and VFM whereas in other situations only the speed of the 24-70 will get the shot you need... :-)
Great revue top information. I'm with the 60mm afd micro lens here, and will be purchasing one in a few days to match up my D810. Was really thinking of the 24/70 before viewing this never fancied the weight. 😊😊
Thanks. 60mm AF-D is one of my favourite and sharpest lenses. Works well with non-macro subjects too as long as they're not moving about too much! It's also cracking value now that it's been 'overshadowed' by the AF-S version. :-)
I don't think that was the point that JK was making Simon. I have this 24-70 too, but seldomly use it: I favour my 50mm f/1.8 G which performs better at 50mm and gives the extra stop of light and bokeh, and is marginally sharper, and is about a seventh of its weight, my Sigma 35mm f/1.4 Art blows it away at 35mm, even sharper at f/1.4, and my Nikon 20mm f/1.8G ED is my favoured wide angle. At short tele I prefer to put an 85mm f/1.4 on as it has better compression and far better bokeh and sharpness (though the latter, yes, very expensive). So I've got to the stage where I am thinking of selling mine, because it is too heavy, too conspicuous, limited compared to my primes in that range in terms of speed and bokeh, and doesn't outperform them optically. Yes, as an all-in-one compromise lens covering those focal lengths it is still a great lens, but it comes at a cost and in terms of weight and in size
I really enjoy your reviews I have been thinking about replacing my 24 -120 F4 with the 24 - 70 f2.8 not sure why other than all the test show the 2.8 is sharper. The 24 -120 is used as a walk around lens whilst travelling. I also love to use primes so having watched this I will stick with my existing combination and may be get a 24mm prime instead.
As always, can you identify shots which your 24-120 isn't getting you? If so, would this be cured by an f2.8 aperture or extremely good (rather than very good) optical quality..? If so, then the upgrade may be worthwhile. If not then your money may be better spent elsewhere... :-)
As usually your comments are very straight to the point and useful. Agree 2.8 will not assist and the quality difference is hard to detect without zooming in 100%. I will stick with the 24 -120 f4 it works well with both the D800 & D4S. Looking forward to your next review and the primes I have.
Great review, I have this 24-70 lens and I also have the 16-35 f4VR and the 50mm f1.4G and the 85mm 1.4G, I was thinking of ditching the 24-70 and purchasing the 35mm f2, how do you think that lens would perform on a D800, I shoot mostly Landscapes, trying to lighten the bag a bit which is the reason I was thinking of going down this route,,,your advice would be appreciated...
+MrAppledude007 i agree, He might need this lens at some point. i for one shoot all type of shoots. so for weddings i think this would be great. fast, sharp, and not having to stop and change the lens is a plus.
I use a D610 with an Nikon AF 35-105 f3.5-4.5 (Non-D, with macro button), its really a perfect match! i have it hard to find any good reasons to change to this lens, even if its 30 years newer and have better optical elements and better weather sealing. maybe if i upgrade to a D800 series body.
I think it could be a good lens for Wedding photography if you don't want to change the lens during the wedding. I did weddings only with a 35mm and a 50mm prime but have to change lenses of course. With the 24 - 70 i don't have to 🧐🤔🤔🤔🤔
I'm curious to know what your opinion would be now that this lens has dropped in price and recently dropped even further temporarily for holiday special to $1,696 in the US
Do you think 'Nikon AF NIKKOR 35mm f/2D' is better than 'Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 35mm f/1.8G ED'? The difference is ~$140, but not really worried about this delta if 1.8 is slightly better.
+Samuel Monte-Arrieta In all the reviews I have seen & read about the Tamron 24-70mm it competes well with the Nikon-it is as sharp and great resolution. Maybe a touch softer in corners at f2.8 but apart from that it is supposed to be as good, has IS and is loads cheaper.
...it's a couple of years I bought this lens for 600€, in perfect conditions, since that moment I'm using it almost 90% of the time on my D700, 35-70 f2.8D is just a collection item right now and even the 20-35 f2.8D is something I'm not using since a long period, it was my everiday lens on D80... Only the 50 1.4 sometimes remembers me the quality of fixed optics... I'm really happy about the 24-70, it's my favourite lens together with 70-200 VRI...
This video saved me £1200. I will just keep my 14 24mm f2.8, 35mm f1.4g and 85mm f1.4g will use the power of my D810 to zoom 24 to 35 (crop) and my 35mm f1.4g to zoom up to 85mm (crop) and my 85 beyond. Job done no money spent Cheers.
+JKLenses Better to do a review and comparison with other makes of 24-70mm lens than with primes. Bit disappointed in this respect with what would have been an excellent review
I could not agree more, as yet another wedding photographer. I busted my ass to get this lens, to all out there watching DONT BOTHER. Its heavy, cumbersome, to bloody expensive and all in all a pain in the neck.
1-1-2018 Hobbyist and street - cityscape photos in NYC. I have Nikkor 35-70 2.8 D, 24-85 3.5-4.5 G (nonVR) and primes in the same range am habby with as wlak around choices for D7500 and D750. Not going for any of the big 3 holy trinity. All stuff used or rerurb. I'd love to try them all out though.
It seems as though you have a lens that you want to put in someone else's hands. Give me a price and lets talk, I would be happy to make room in your camera case for other lenses. I do appreciate your thoughts and experience.
I agree with most of whats being said about this lens but like ALL lenses, its what you prefer and what you get the results you were after with the shot that counts for you individually. This is a lens that saves you time and you pay for that time saving, but then again isn't that the whole point of any zoom lens? They are heavier and more expensive in general because you don't have to swap them out for another lens when you want to change focal lengths. I'm trying not to repeat anything that's already been said but its hard sometimes. My point is it does not matter what lens you use as long as you get the result you wanted right? I've done portrait shoots in the studio where probably 70% of the time i use the 85 1.4 and 29% of the time i'll use the 70-200 2.8, but there's always that odd 1% where i think...this might look better in 60mm or 40 or 30, those are the times where this lens is handy. Obviously i did not buy this lens just to use 1% of the time in a studio, its always on my main camera for events and parties etc and gets used in maybe 80% of the photo's i'll take in those situations. And having the 24-70 on 1 camera and the 70-200 on the other both ready to go at the lift of an arm means if you miss a shot its your own fault not your equipment. In summary...if you think this lens will make a nice edition to your style of shooting then yeah its one of the best lenses you can ever own...but its not the be all and end all you can get the same results with a couple of cheaper primes.
It's a shame that you can't like a video more than once. Your review is already a legacy for Nikon DSLR users out there, sir. Fantastic job. Fantastic.
if you're shooting a wedding, or an event, or a concert, you typically don't have the time to change between two, three or four primes. You need to be able to zoom wide to get a group and zoom tight to get some detail shots or single/double portraits. If you're a pro and have two bodies, one should be the 24-70 and the other should be the 70-200. That way you can shoot essentially everything you'll need to at a wedding or event and not have to call a time out from the ceremony so you can swap your 24mm to your 50mm. I have the 50mm 1.4 and I'm not super impressed with it. It focuses super slow and hunts a lot. I have the 24-70 and it focuses faster without hesitation, and if you have the room to step back, shooting at 70mm will give much better compression than at 50mm. Typically, lenses aren't shot wide open, especially at 1.4 because the DoF is so shallow, some of the subjects in a group shot can be out of focus if they're not all lined up perfectly straight and have their eyes on the same plane. This was a good review, and I agree that for static subjects, primes is the way to go... or if you're in a portrait session and you can take your time. But for realworld shooting, the 24-70 is the way to go. Cheers!
I see extremely little difference between this and my primes. I think the concept that zooms are noticeably inferior to primes is a somewhat outdated one. My 24-70 almost matches my primes and my 70-200 shits on any of my primes in that range.
@@aussie8114, I'm debating buying the 24-70mm non vr and VR version. Which one would you buy, if they were side by side in a camera store?
@@DarthPrime10 For size the non vr gets my vote. The non vr is a pretty big lens, the vr even bigger. Image quality they are about the same. You just need to consider the sensor resolution because on a D850 you will need to use faster shutter speeds to avoid camera shake compared to a D810 or D750. So the VR is of a bit more benefit on the D850 vs the D750. Even though at times I would like vr, the bigger size would annoy me. I have the D810 and happy with the non vr.
@@aussie8114, thank you for the follow up. I had a D780 and I'm deciding if it would make sense for me to add the lens. I have the 24-120mm f/4; despite the difference in f-stop and 50mm zoom between the two, I figure I can adjust the ISO and/or, use an external flash to compensate during low light situations.
@@DarthPrime10 D780 is a 24 megapixel sensor. Not so important to have VR in the lens for general photography because to avoid hand held camera shake you likely only need to use a shutter speed about 2.5 to 3 times the lens focal length. This is known as the rule of reciprocity. So if shooting at say 70mm focal length then you best use a shutter speed no slower than about 1/200th. However on a sensor like a D850 you would need to be at about 1/400th. Basically the higher res the sensor the more camera shake will be obvious. That’s why the 24-70 VR lens was released around the time of the D850. In good lighting shooting 70mm at 1/400th will still allow your ISO to be not too high, but in lower light the ISO might creep up a bit high. Hence if you use a body like the D850 then being able to shoot at a lower shutter speed with the VR version can help with the ISO.
MY D810 is 36 megapixels. I use a hand held shutter speed about 4 times the focal length just to be confident of getting a shake free shot. If I need to I can try 3 times but would need to shoot a short burst of maybe 4 or 5 shots to be confident one will be a nice sharp one. If I had the VR 24-70 I could confidently shoot at 2 times or even maybe 1times. So that would be 70mm at 1/70th. Of course if the subject itself is moving then camera shake (VR) is not that relevant. Can’t shoot a moving subject at a slower speed anyway.
If the VR version of the 24-70 was not bigger and longer and heavier then I would think awesome, but it is and as it is the non VR version is a pretty big lens for such a modest focal range.
Some say the 24-70 is a temperamental lens regarding if you knock the front of it you can mess up the zoom. Lens rentals confirmed this, I look after my gear and especially on the 24-70 I keep the hood on which protects the zoom from being damaged if knocked.
Hands down the best critical review I've seen of this lens. Thank you so much for putting this together!
What a great, critically constructed and thorough discussion of these lenses! All other 'reviews' ive found on this lense are just gushy without any detailed discussion. This has really helped me think twice about whether i would want/need/use this lense vs alternative options, especially where budget is a huge factor. 👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻
What did you decide in the end?
What a fantastic review! Thank you so much. I appreciate that you offered an alternative and great context for the real-world applications.
Years after the newness of this version, your thought process and the truth of your usage of said lens is refreshingly helpful. As an owner of the 28 1.8 and a 50 1.4 I may or may not “upgrade” and will give greater attention to my needs in my decision making process! Thanks, your review is timeless!
I love your extremely thorough discussion of the vast array of Nikkor lenses. This is very helpful to the photography community! Kudos to you!
Probably the best review of any lens on YT. I really love the direct, straight to the point "HMDIUI" rating system. Keep the videos coming.
Thank You! :-)
I have to agree with most of the comments regarding the restricting focal lengths, size/weight, and expense. For a few years, this lens was my landscape and walk around lens on a D300, waiting for full frame body to come along. When it dawned on me that the f4 24-120mm AFS was nearly the optical equivalent in quality, I got it and never looked back. The 120mm makes a great travel lens, its VR ably making a tripod unnecessary a great deal of the time. The 24-70 f2.8 is a great lens with little utility to me now.
Im sold on this lens because of its range, built and close close proximity to prime quality.. And thats precisely where the money is folks. Its heavy, but id rather that and have the desired shots instantly at my disposal as oppose carrying dead weight around and the inconvenience of whether which lens to swap over. Sometimes you just want to capture that spontaneous shot of the action from wherever you are. This is a thorough great review, however its more towards the debate of to zoom or not to zoom. Because the reviewer favours primes in this review to his specific needs and personal choice, it does not means a piece of engineering of this calibre is not worth its weight in gold. Like anything, the importance here is to analyse your needs. You can only have one lens on a camera at a time, the rest you can figure it out. This lens suits my needs perfectly, consistent quality photos without the inconvenience. If weight is a big concern for some, think of furniture removalists..
THank you for your excellent reviews. I've used them to decide on the 14-24 and now against the 24-70 (I have the 24-120 and couldn't work out if the 24-70 was sharper). I'll just get the 60mm to complement the 85mm, both 2nd hand. love your rational approach and examples. Most helpful. THanks again.
very good review, i always get a new perspective after seeing one of your reviews. thanks for the time you give us.
Love this video. No more hesitation, not buying this lens.
Thanks1 :-)
Thank you again!!! Congrats on the honesty and the thorough review. Waiting for the last part... thanks again!
Thanks - 70-200 review should be out shortly... :-)
Love the HMDIUI rating haha. Your reviews are seriously unparalleled...super comprehensive and clear. You should get a lot more views...
Thanks for your support! :-)
Absolutely fantastic and thorough review. Congratulations.
I know it was not the focus of this video, but I'd really like to thank you for the suggestion at 22:50 of the Nikon 18-70 f3.5-4.5 DX zoom lens as part of a "walking around" kit. I purchased a D7000 recently, with box, papers, and Nikon battery grip, with only 325 clicks on it, for $325 USD. A professional photographer had bought it as a backup body and never really used it. My problem was that all of my lenses are AF-D and AIS lenses meant for full frame, and I didn't have anything that would be useful as a "sometimes use" wide-angle lens for the D7000 which I intended to use for work.
I was able to buy a very clean 18-70 zoom with caps and the Nikon lens hood for $60 USD, and that included a 6 month warranty. It may not be the very best piece of glass I own, but it sure gets the most use, and I'm very happy with it. So far I have shot several hundred good photos with it to illustrate an e-book. There is always something useful to be found in your lens reviews, especially in the sections on Alternatives.
Great review, well presented, fantastic examples, good food for thought. Thanks for your time and effort. Peter (Melbourne, Australia)
I've been thru various nikon cameras ie crop sensors and a full frame (I now own a d7100 and d750). I shoot events, weddings, theater shows, headshots/portraits. So, i o
wn two of the nikon trinity and my 24-70 2.8 was purchased used. i also have 3 primes 50/85/100, a 70-200 2.8 and even a 17-55dx 2.8. i've also had to shoot in lower light, no flash. Bottom line, the 24-70 2.8 is a beast and magnificent. I don't have time to switch lenses, move my feet in crowds etc. Virtually no flare shooting into the bright backlit situation. A purist will always pixel peep, look at corners at 100% magnification but miss the beauty of lens like the 24-70 because of the cost or bitch about the weight because it's metal. Focus acquisition is almost instantaneous even in low light. The 85 1.8 won't do that. You will miss many shots with your primes because of slower focus etc. This zoom's sharpness is more than adequate, saturation is excellent, versatility goes without saying. Would I shoot landscapes with it, I've done it but it's not really geared for that. It's an event lens and one of the best ever made. You want to carry 3-4 lenses to compete? OK! To each his own!
Love this lens for 'walking around' shots. I have the Holy Trinity. Plus a plethora of Nikkor AF-S Primes that I was fortunate enough to afford thanks to a generous inheritance. Prefer the primes to the zooms for Tack Sharp work. Especially the 35mm F1.4 for Street Photography.
Great review. Kudos on presentation.
Cheers,
Mark
Mark Patten l wish someone would die and leave me a few bucks 💵💰💵
Dear JKLenses, this is a fantastic Review to say the absolute least. You have really explored, no wait: exploited each lens' capabilities to the hilt and for which I offer my profound-: "thanks". I love the enthusiasm of comments submitted to you, even if they appear to be negative ( I never understand this culture on You Tube: especially when you are trying educate people on your basis of [their] learning). I did the one lens meets all with an 18-250 Sigma Art but then I find a very affordable 18-38 f.1.8 and my whole focus ( pardon pun) changed. Beautiful job man. Pete
For weddings, I'd opt for the 24-70 as you cant always switch lenses fast enough, or run closer to something happening before the moment has passed. I ran the 35-85 setup for a few years and sometimes the 35 wasn't wide enough and the 85 was cropped in too much. For everything else though I'd use primes.
Best two lens combo in place of the 24-70 (as I have found) are the Sigma 35mm f/1.4DG Art (best AF 35mm prime on the market in every way, including price, period), and a trusty 50mm f/1.8G (sharper than the f/1.4G throughout, nearly half the price, updated mechanics, much lighter). I now wish I had the 14-24 instead (as I would use it a whole lot more!), but, I find the new Nikon af-s 20mm f/1.8G ED to be just wide enough and I can use my feet to adjust. Benefits: third of the weight of the 14-24, still ultra sharp, faster aperture (though coma right at the corners slightly more annoying on the 20mm than the 14-24). Beyond this lens, I also use the 85mm f/1.4G (I cannot praise it enough, and its usefulness), and a 105mm f/2.8G VR Micro-Nikkor (damned good lens). Anything else I rent as I cannot justify the expense except for occasional use - which is the position the 24-70 has now found itself to be in, purely for the same reasons highlighted in this review: the weight does become a drag to carry around, and also it is a VERY conspicuous lens (not the sort of lens you'd want for doing candids on the streets, for instance). Yes, for weddings and in the studio, this lens has its place... this much really is true, and for landscapes, it is also useful. But, once you get bored carrying the weight around your neck/ over the shoulder, you will be reaching for lighter primes from time to time, and you will stick with them once you notice the optical quality the zoom provides doesn't quite match up
Very nice and clear review. I have 24-70mm f2.8, 70-200mm f4, 300mm f4 and 1.7x teleconverter. 24-70mm f2.8 is 90% of the time on my D600. :)
i enjoyed the detailed review - thanks for sharing
what a great review !!! i was wondering if to get this lens and not primes, but now i have all the answers ! one of the best helping reviews !! Thank you for that !
Great honest review subscribed thanks
Brilliant lens ,
I
Remember canon users getting mounts to use this and the 14-24 on canon cameras a decade or 2 ago
An absolutely informative & honest review !! I have to admit that I have been perennially confused about this lens & you have certainly cleared a few cobwebs not saved me a few pounds of hard earned money !!
Love the review... and still love my 24-70mm.
I do own prime lenses but i tend to return to my 24-70 for my go to daily lense. Maybe it is just my laziness or trying to avoid to miss a shot because you dont have the right lense on. 24-70 mm is very functional to carry on events, parties, etc but it is damn so heavy. Even with the heaviness I still to carry this lens because it like a multiple primes (a little less sharp) stitch in one lense.
Funny as this is my most used lens. I have the trinity and a ton of primes. I would say 60% of my shots are on this lens and the 70-200 2.8 is 38% and the other 2% is all other lenses.
you should do a review of the new release of this lens or the 200 to 500mm tele lens nikon just released
Once again another fantastic and informative review. Thanks for taking the time.
Extremely helpful to take a decision on the right lenses than paying a premium on zoom ... Thanks for sharing!
I have to say I find my 24-120 far more versatile than the 24-70, when i had the 24-70 I was constantly wishing I had a just a bit more reach, never regretted moving to the 24-120 f/4 with today's cameras and noise levels the difference between 2.8 and f/4 is negligible
Hi Scott, I also have the Nikon 24-120 f/4 on my Nikon D850, I have been thinking about renting a Nikon 24-70 just to see how much more IQ (if any) I am missing. I am also looking at the Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 g2 for the same reasoning....I do love the extra reach with the 24-120 though!
Keep these coming!
Great review!!! Very down to earth in your assessment of the lens. I borrowed the lens for the day from a friend and found it to be too heavy for everyday use. I'm thinking the kit lens on the 24-120 f4 and some primes when I want to bump it up a notch. Thanks again
best video I've seen on any lens. well done!
It’s funny because I just got done watching a portrait photographer who took a look at every single lens he used to see, which is the most used lens in his photography, and it happened to be the canon equivalent of this focal length zoom lens.
Thank You for the detailed video, it really helped me in making my final decision.
Stunning review........many thanks
As a retire veteran I am happy too say happy i am not a photographer but this video was the video that made me interested in photography. Thank you for sharing the video and I finally got all three and I am now on my way.
Really great review! Much thanks! Looks like I will stick to my primes for now. I bought the 28-70 F/3.5-4.5 for $60 which is in mint condition and I just tend to use that along with my other 14, 35, 50 primes.
Good video. What's your thoughts on the 28-70mm f2.8 that the 24-70mm replaced?
Towards the end of the video. The 28-70 2.8D is recommended as a alternative; albeit a bit softer at 2.8
So did I hear you right, there is no adjustable aperature? You have to shoot everything at f2.8?
You set the aperture on the camera, it has not aperture ring on the lens to do it manually.
Great lens, my main and walk around lens. Discontinued. Also its younger brother the 24-120mm AFS, VR, G f4 very sharp travel lens.
Nice reviews, quite happy with this lens. Also impressed with the 14-24 results and interested in your thoughts on the 70-200 f4, lighter and a lot cheeper. cheers.
(PS d610)
Thanks - 70-200 review will be out soon... :-)
I have the 50mm 1.4 for my Nikon and a 70-200mm 2.8 for my Canon. And I'm paying off a 85mm 1.2 for the Canon. My question is if I should get the 24-70mm 2.8G or the Sigma 24-35mm 2.0 Art?
The 24-70mm 2.8G is more versatile, weather sealed, will probably last more, focuses faster.
The 24-35mm 2.0 Art is sharper, is full stop faster, costs the half.
Why use both Nikon and canon 🤔 Make up your mind and go with one system then you can get a range of lenses.
Brutal and perhaps fair... I purchased this just prior to the review being released (doh!) as the 'holy trinity' label seems to almost label these as the perfect selection. I've sold my D7000, 35mm 1.8 (eek, loved it!), 70-300 f4.5-5.6 and the V1 18-200 and bought a D750, 14-24, 24-700 and 70-200 (+1.7TC) all at f2.8. My bag weighs so much I'm worried it will tear...
The 24-70 is heavy... it is sharp....it is horribly expensive (although grey imports help)... and results so far have been satisfactory... but I really, really miss the 35mm 1.8 plastic lens for sheer beauty (a DX lens).
I wish I'd heard this once, thought twice and waited. It is a wonderfully sharp and convenient lens but I think I could have invested more wisely.
'Holy Trinity' - such a loaded term - I'm looking forward to the 70-200 review as I've already bought that - but I know already it is amazing - it seems it's this middle ground where you need to think more carefully before spending...
Great review, thank you!
No worries - you've got three great lenses which will collectively 'get the job done' at any focal length from 14 up to about 350 (with the TC). Tiny and inexpensive (esp. s/hand) 24mm f2.8 or 35mm f2 will help your bag on the days when you want to leave the 24-70 at home, though! Many thanks for your comments... :-)
finally the truth...thanks for the review I will keep my prime lenses as the benchmarks of perfection.
Not an entirely fair review - I disagree with the "useless" innuendo for its features. Although a small aside mention was made about its perhaps intended application, this lens was not designed for the example photos shown (landscapes / macro). The 24/70 excels in high pressure situations - events, weddings, corporate functions, concerts as a portrait lens where the need is for HANDLING speed. The primes it was compared to are total dogs in those situations -too slow to focus, change over, more flare prone, not weather resistant (yeahh, try having beer spilled on your lens!). The 24/70 also sucks wide open at infinity, making it useless for travel landscape photography. Optimum sharpness at f2.8 is from 10 feet and closer! The 24/70 also is crap for video, as the focus throw is too short for accuracy. Bottom line, the 24/70 is solely for on the go commercial work (overkill for a studio situation). Don't waste your money if you're a hobbyist - but, if you're under pressure to cover an event - then the 24/70 will save your ass! The review was too biased with respect to intended application.
Fair comment - thanks. I used the 24-70 at a trade fair recently and really enjoyed the convenience of being able to shoot at 24 and then at 70 without changing lenses. The 50/1.4, 35/2 and 24/2.8 are great lens but, as you say, in some high pressure situations changing between these lenses could lose you the shot...
Thanks for the response. I almost never take the 24-70 when travelling, personal, or for video - just too heavy and bulky. It's a work machine, that's it.
Rockwood Joe
I agree
The thing with the 24-70 is that it is meant for pro event/PJ work where you just dont' have the time to screw around with primes but still need a relatively fast aperture. It is a compromise lens meant for shooting a rapidly changing situation under tight time constraints when you are being paid to get the shot.
Most people would probably be better off buying a refurbished 24-85mm f/3.5-f/4.5G VR for like $300-$350 which will give you wide angle, the versatility of a zoom when you dont' want to be switching lenses and optical quality about equal to the much more expensive 24-120mm f/4.0. Then adding the 50mm 1.8G and 85mm 1.8G for excellent IQ, subject isolation, low light shooting and portraits. Or if you're really sure you wont need the versatility and speed of a zoom you can trade out the 24-85 for the 24mmf/2.8D prime or even have it in addition to the 24-85 if you can spend the money. You could also get a used 105mm or 135mm DC f/2.0 lens instead the 85mm and still be below what a new 24-70 costs. Which leaves extra money for other things that can make a huge difference in your images such as a decent tripod or a flash setup.
The price, size,weight ect of the 24-70 only makes sense if you are using it for what it is meant for. If you aren't shooting event/pj type stuff where you just dont' have the time to change lenses there are better, lighter, and cheaper options.
Rockwood Joe very well said. As a wedding photographer this lens is just amazing. Yes, its heavy and bulky but the convenience of having all that focal lengths at 2.8 aperture is just a delight. Yes, shooting primes might get you slightly better result but you wont need that slight edge when the moment has already passed. Such is the reality in event photography. I wont also use this lens for travel and as a walk around lens due to its size and weight but for event photography this may be all that I need and maybe the 70-200.Other than the missed purpose of this lens it was a good review. keep up the good work.
Noel Perena Exactly. It is all about using the right tool for the right job. Most people who buy the 24-70 though are not pro event shooters, they are amateurs who buy it because it's expensive, "the Best" "fast" and "what the pros use" not because they actually thought about if it was the best choice or not for them personally. For many, perhaps most people who buy it the 24-70 is actually a huge waste of money.
Best review ever .Very objective
Thanks!
Very good video, very honest review, thanks so much
Very accurate and honestly presented
The 24-85 f3.5-4.5 vr lens is sharper and yields better results than the 24-70, unless you need the wider aperture. If your photographing outside during the day leave the heavy 24-70 at home and use the 24-85 vr.
It's sharp in the center but at the edges, even closing down to f8 it doesn't beat the previous AFD version. Between 24 and 40mm the edges are a disaster, and I am not the only user who says so.
Thanks for this excellent review. I'm trying to decide on new lenses for my D810 to take advantage of it's features. My reading suggests many "older" lenses won't resolve properly with the new chip. ALL my current lenses are old, manual focus. Given your review I would consider adding some of the prime AF--D lenses rather than the newer zooms like the 24-70. Any opinions on this issue?
Nikon have been making lenses with enough resolution for the D810 since the days of film photography. When manual lenses were ‘replaced’ by AF lenses this didn’t represent any sudden leap forward in optical quality. I have several manual focus AI lenses and their optical quality is usually every bit the match of their current AF-D or AF-S versions.
With the AF-D versions you get the convenience of autofocus and with the AF-S versions you get rather faster autofocus although the margin varies considerably between particular lenses. This may or may not be important to the kind of photography you do.
More modern lenses will also probably perform better in tricky lighting conditions by virtue or developments in coating technologies, such as Nanocoating etc.
In other words, I would expect many of the better manual lenses to perform well up to the standard of the D810’s chip in terms of things like resolution. Due to their simple construction they often give rather better images in terms of saturation etc than the modern zooms which contain ten or more pieces of glass.
Optical quality of the glass is therefore not likely to be the deciding factor here - as always, it comes down to the type of things which you are photographing. If your subjects stay still or move predictably and you’re not always shooting into the Sun, then a good quality Nikon prime lenses from the days of AI or AI-S will give excellent or even better results than a modern plastic zoom. If your subjects jig about a lot or you regularly have to deal with an enforced poor viewpoint and/or tricky lighting then a more modern AF lens will be a better bet. AF-D lenses can often be fine, depending on the speed of your subject.
For example, when photographing a stately home I often use a 30-year old 24mm f2 AI Nikkor which produces results which are more than up to modern standards on my D3s. However, when stuck at a less than ideal corner of a race circuit photographing Formula 1 cars, I need all the modern whizzy features of my 70-200 f2.8 AF-S VR lens..!
So I guess it’s up to you - try your old manual Nikkors on the D810 - | don’t think you’ll be too disappointed and you’ll quickly identify the areas/applications where it’s going to be worth paying for a new lens with all these new-fangled features… J
JKLenses Thank you for taking the time to reply. I have been testing my current lenses and am satisfied with some (e.g. my 40 yr old 55mm Micro) and not so much with others. My primary work is done in the studio with the Nikon on a Cambo with Schneider lenses. But I'd like new lenses to explore other uses for the D810 at a reasonable cost. So, based on your tremendously helpful comments, my plan is to start by picking up some used AF-D lenses. If the optical quality is good, I'm sure I'll be happy with them. Thanks again.
Is it better to have the Sigma 24-35mm 2.0 or a 24mm 1.8G (to go with a 50mm 1.4G and a 85mm/105mm 2.0)?
The advantage of the 24-70mm seems to be that one can go quickly through the zoom range. While other combinations require carrying several lenses and bodies.
Really interesting reviews. Most reviews will tell you to avoid the 50mm 1.4G and to absolutely have the 24-70mm 2.8 as your #1 lens.
I think you've answered your own question! There are pros and cons of the 24-70 over a couple of primes and it depends on the kind of photography that you need them for. In some situations the primes will give better quality and VFM whereas in other situations only the speed of the 24-70 will get the shot you need... :-)
great review. prime lenses always my favorite ones
Great revue top information. I'm with the 60mm afd micro lens here, and will be purchasing one in a few days to match up my D810. Was really thinking of the 24/70 before viewing this never fancied the weight. 😊😊
Thanks. 60mm AF-D is one of my favourite and sharpest lenses. Works well with non-macro subjects too as long as they're not moving about too much! It's also cracking value now that it's been 'overshadowed' by the AF-S version. :-)
My 24-70mm lives on my D800 more than any other glass I have.
Mine too.
This is the best lens I own. Absolutely amazing. Don't agree with your review
Fair enough - thank you.
I don't think that was the point that JK was making Simon. I have this 24-70 too, but seldomly use it: I favour my 50mm f/1.8 G which performs better at 50mm and gives the extra stop of light and bokeh, and is marginally sharper, and is about a seventh of its weight, my Sigma 35mm f/1.4 Art blows it away at 35mm, even sharper at f/1.4, and my Nikon 20mm f/1.8G ED is my favoured wide angle. At short tele I prefer to put an 85mm f/1.4 on as it has better compression and far better bokeh and sharpness (though the latter, yes, very expensive). So I've got to the stage where I am thinking of selling mine, because it is too heavy, too conspicuous, limited compared to my primes in that range in terms of speed and bokeh, and doesn't outperform them optically. Yes, as an all-in-one compromise lens covering those focal lengths it is still a great lens, but it comes at a cost and in terms of weight and in size
JKLenses and the kids were
I really enjoy your reviews I have been thinking about replacing my 24 -120 F4 with the 24 - 70 f2.8 not sure why other than all the test show the 2.8 is sharper. The 24 -120 is used as a walk around lens whilst travelling. I also love to use primes so having watched this I will stick with my existing combination and may be get a 24mm prime instead.
As always, can you identify shots which your 24-120 isn't getting you? If so, would this be cured by an f2.8 aperture or extremely good (rather than very good) optical quality..? If so, then the upgrade may be worthwhile. If not then your money may be better spent elsewhere... :-)
As usually your comments are very straight to the point and useful. Agree 2.8 will not assist and the quality difference is hard to detect without zooming in 100%. I will stick with the 24 -120 f4 it works well with both the D800 & D4S. Looking forward to your next review and the primes I have.
Great review, I have this 24-70 lens and I also have the 16-35 f4VR and the 50mm f1.4G and the 85mm 1.4G, I was thinking of ditching the 24-70 and purchasing the 35mm f2, how do you think that lens would perform on a D800, I shoot mostly Landscapes, trying to lighten the bag a bit which is the reason I was thinking of going down this route,,,your advice would be appreciated...
Stuart Lamont Get a 14-24mm for landscapes. Dont ditch your 24-70 you'll regret it 2 seconds after you've sold it.
+MrAppledude007 i agree, He might need this lens at some point. i for one shoot all type of shoots. so for weddings i think this would be great. fast, sharp, and not having to stop and change the lens is a plus.
Nice stuff, I forgot I was comparing lenses....
Excellent Review! Thanks.
well done... excellent review
Very good comment. Thanks a lot. I have the same experience in the use of it.
Brgds.
Klaus
I use a D610 with an Nikon AF 35-105 f3.5-4.5 (Non-D, with macro button), its really a perfect match! i have it hard to find any good reasons to change to this lens, even if its 30 years newer and have better optical elements and better weather sealing. maybe if i upgrade to a D800 series body.
I think it could be a good lens for Wedding photography if you don't want to change the lens during the wedding. I did weddings only with a 35mm and a 50mm prime but have to change lenses of course. With the 24 - 70 i don't have to 🧐🤔🤔🤔🤔
I'm curious to know what your opinion would be now that this lens has dropped in price and recently dropped even further temporarily for holiday special to $1,696 in the US
Great review! Thanks
When will you be reviewing the new 24-70 VR version?
+Bill Solomon As soon as I can get my hands on one... :-)
Any timelines that you can share ? There are a lot of conflicting reviews on the new lens so clarity will help
Great video thank you :)
Do you think 'Nikon AF NIKKOR 35mm f/2D' is better than 'Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 35mm f/1.8G ED'? The difference is ~$140, but not really worried about this delta if 1.8 is slightly better.
Any thoughts on the tamron equivalent? I got it and I don't regret not having bought the nikkor version.
+Samuel Monte-Arrieta In all the reviews I have seen & read about the Tamron 24-70mm it competes well with the Nikon-it is as sharp and great resolution. Maybe a touch softer in corners at f2.8 but apart from that it is supposed to be as good, has IS and is loads cheaper.
Excelente revisión!
I usually carry around 3 primes, a 20, 35, and 85
...it's a couple of years I bought this lens for 600€, in perfect conditions, since that moment I'm using it almost 90% of the time on my D700, 35-70 f2.8D is just a collection item right now and even the 20-35 f2.8D is something I'm not using since a long period, it was my everiday lens on D80... Only the 50 1.4 sometimes remembers me the quality of fixed optics... I'm really happy about the 24-70, it's my favourite lens together with 70-200 VRI...
I'm a little confused, is this a 24-70 review, or is it a review of all alternative's which seems to last longer?
It's a review of the 24-70 lens with a (large) section reviewing possible alternative lenses in the 224mm to 70mm range.
I thought the same thing. This is more the reviewer presenting a case to NOT get the 24-70!
This video saved me £1200. I will just keep my 14 24mm f2.8, 35mm f1.4g and 85mm f1.4g will use the power of my D810 to zoom 24 to 35 (crop) and my 35mm f1.4g to zoom up to 85mm (crop) and my 85 beyond. Job done no money spent Cheers.
Glad you found it useful! :-)
+JKLenses
Better to do a review and comparison with other makes of 24-70mm lens than with primes. Bit disappointed in this respect with what would have been an excellent review
You didn't mention the Nikon 35-70 F2.8, which is any incredibly sharp lens.
hard to find a clean used copy.
When are you going to review the 24-70 2.8 VR.
The alternative lens can also include 35-105mm f3.5-4.5 AF-D
35 is not wide enough for landscape type shots.
Thanks very much, it's excellent.
Thanks! :-)
well done!!
So are you saying that a 50 mm 1.8 is better than a 24-70mm f2.8?
I could not agree more, as yet another wedding photographer. I busted my ass to get this lens, to all out there watching DONT BOTHER.
Its heavy, cumbersome, to bloody expensive and all in all a pain in the neck.
Mark Reynolds
@@DavidSmith-eu4zr the one and only, i thought that was hoar cross church
nIKon 24-70 f 2.8 is for Potrait or Landscape ? or Both will work?
Both
Subscribed. :)
Thanks! :-)
thanks
Very interessting, but nontheless, I will stick to my most used lense on my d800
Great review
Mine has just fallen to bits!! Like yesterday!
How can it fall to bits
1-1-2018 Hobbyist and street - cityscape photos in NYC. I have Nikkor 35-70 2.8 D, 24-85 3.5-4.5 G (nonVR) and primes in the same range am habby with as wlak around choices for D7500 and D750. Not going for any of the big 3
holy trinity. All stuff used or rerurb. I'd love to try them all out though.
how dis compare to the canon version
I forgot to mention I returned my first unit for bad optical performance.
It seems as though you have a lens that you want to put in someone else's hands. Give me a price and lets talk, I would be happy to make room in your camera case for other lenses. I do appreciate your thoughts and experience.
revnwu nya dong nikkor 16-35mm af s vr N
I agree with most of whats being said about this lens but like ALL lenses, its what you prefer and what you get the results you were after with the shot that counts for you individually.
This is a lens that saves you time and you pay for that time saving, but then again isn't that the whole point of any zoom lens? They are heavier and more expensive in general because you don't have to swap them out for another lens when you want to change focal lengths.
I'm trying not to repeat anything that's already been said but its hard sometimes. My point is it does not matter what lens you use as long as you get the result you wanted right? I've done portrait shoots in the studio where probably 70% of the time i use the 85 1.4 and 29% of the time i'll use the 70-200 2.8, but there's always that odd 1% where i think...this might look better in 60mm or 40 or 30, those are the times where this lens is handy.
Obviously i did not buy this lens just to use 1% of the time in a studio, its always on my main camera for events and parties etc and gets used in maybe 80% of the photo's i'll take in those situations. And having the 24-70 on 1 camera and the 70-200 on the other both ready to go at the lift of an arm means if you miss a shot its your own fault not your equipment.
In summary...if you think this lens will make a nice edition to your style of shooting then yeah its one of the best lenses you can ever own...but its not the be all and end all you can get the same results with a couple of cheaper primes.
Hi I hv a few questions in your opinion what is the best lens to use with a D850 for Portrait photos in a small area
And also with the Sharpest picture outcome
Good