Discussion
I have it. And in my opinion the AF is the best of any lens i've ever used (and I spend a good amount of time at the nikon stand at focus the last 2 years)
CA is a problem long forgotten about.
Sharp at all focal lengths and apertures.
I love it dearly and on FX it is a perfect walkaround lens and i'm certain I could shoot 90% of a wedding with one if I was so inclined.
Bottom line. I think it's the first lens you should own on an FX format camera.
CA is a problem long forgotten about.
Sharp at all focal lengths and apertures.
I love it dearly and on FX it is a perfect walkaround lens and i'm certain I could shoot 90% of a wedding with one if I was so inclined.
Bottom line. I think it's the first lens you should own on an FX format camera.
dumbfunk said:
As I said in this /\ thread, make sure you road test it, as there are some bad examples out there, and ...when it's good it's great, but when it bad it's just expensiveEdited by GetCarter on Sunday 2nd May 20:14
Muska said:
I have it. And in my opinion the AF is the best of any lens i've ever used (and I spend a good amount of time at the nikon stand at focus the last 2 years)
CA is a problem long forgotten about.
Sharp at all focal lengths and apertures.
I love it dearly and on FX it is a perfect walkaround lens and i'm certain I could shoot 90% of a wedding with one if I was so inclined.
Bottom line. I think it's the first lens you should own on an FX format camera.
X2 a top lens! Walkabout lens on full frame, great portrait/general lens on a crop bodyCA is a problem long forgotten about.
Sharp at all focal lengths and apertures.
I love it dearly and on FX it is a perfect walkaround lens and i'm certain I could shoot 90% of a wedding with one if I was so inclined.
Bottom line. I think it's the first lens you should own on an FX format camera.
itsnotarace said:
Has anyone one here actually done a direct comparison between teh 24-70 and the 28-70 on the same body? If you have, please post image samples (same camera settings, same subject, tripod mounted etc), thanks!
My photos from the past 7 years are 99% taken with those two lenses, and 99% of people will never look at any one of them and say... 'that 28-70 was rubbish wasn't it'. They are both great lenses. The nut behind the wheel will make all the difference.Edited by GetCarter on Sunday 2nd May 22:19
Yes exactly my point. In a blind test I doubt anyone on here could tell the difference in IQ, so the only reason to get the new one is because you want a warranty or you *really* need that extra 4mm wide end and don't have it covered by something else.
The choice between 17-35 and 17-55 is a no brainer, one obviously FF and the other DX, plus the small matter of 20mm.
I guess I just don't see the need for the new 24-70 in Nikon's lineup, I would much rather they produced some excellent quality affordable mid-range lenses that would take Canon on (I'm thinking 17-40 f/4 L and 70-200 f/4 L, 100-400 L) rather than concentrating on real budget stuff and real expensive stuff leaving a big void in the middle.
Maybe it's just me though
OOps just checked and there is a new 16-35 f/4, but it's still a grand!
The choice between 17-35 and 17-55 is a no brainer, one obviously FF and the other DX, plus the small matter of 20mm.
I guess I just don't see the need for the new 24-70 in Nikon's lineup, I would much rather they produced some excellent quality affordable mid-range lenses that would take Canon on (I'm thinking 17-40 f/4 L and 70-200 f/4 L, 100-400 L) rather than concentrating on real budget stuff and real expensive stuff leaving a big void in the middle.
Maybe it's just me though
OOps just checked and there is a new 16-35 f/4, but it's still a grand!
Hold on a minute... correct me if I'm wrong, but are you referring to the 28-70 DX lens? (No longer made I think) If so, then when on an FX body it's entirely different to the 24-70FX! (Which is why the OP was asking about it - to put it on a full frame body). If you are not referring to that lens, my apologies.
As for cost - Nikon aim their 'pro' stuff at 'pros'. It might seem expensive to you, but to a pro it's simply tax deductable, and just affects cash flow.
As for cost - Nikon aim their 'pro' stuff at 'pros'. It might seem expensive to you, but to a pro it's simply tax deductable, and just affects cash flow.
Edited by GetCarter on Monday 3rd May 08:30
Not quite sure what you are getting at. I own over 6k's worth of Nikon "Pro" equipment, and it's all down as depreciating assets.
Affordability is not the issue, it would just be nice to have some mid range equipment offered to rival Canon's massive lens range, rather than just repeating the same lenses over and over.
Affordability is not the issue, it would just be nice to have some mid range equipment offered to rival Canon's massive lens range, rather than just repeating the same lenses over and over.
Fair comment... My post did seem a bit weird - apologies. All I menat was if I buy a lens that costs £1k plus VAT, I get the VAT back straight away and 40% against tax year on year.
...but was it the 28-70DX lens? If so that is completely different to the 24-70 FX lens (which is why I bought one to replace the other)
...but was it the 28-70DX lens? If so that is completely different to the 24-70 FX lens (which is why I bought one to replace the other)
Edited by GetCarter on Monday 3rd May 09:42
28-70 2.8 is FF, not DX
When I go hill walking/ climbing, I don't shoot at 2.8 and I don't necessarily want to carry 7 kilo's of glass with me so it means I have to carry a small selection of primes which is fine but less versatile. Likewise you can easily go over your carry-on luggage weight limit if you travel via plane with a couple of 2.8's in your bag.
If I shot weddings or never ventured more than 200m from the car, the extra weight and size would not be an issue.
Hence my desire for fixed aperture f/4 which are obviously lighter and more compact. Canon deffo have the edge in the range of glass they offer which is why I think Nikon are missing a trick.
When I go hill walking/ climbing, I don't shoot at 2.8 and I don't necessarily want to carry 7 kilo's of glass with me so it means I have to carry a small selection of primes which is fine but less versatile. Likewise you can easily go over your carry-on luggage weight limit if you travel via plane with a couple of 2.8's in your bag.
If I shot weddings or never ventured more than 200m from the car, the extra weight and size would not be an issue.
Hence my desire for fixed aperture f/4 which are obviously lighter and more compact. Canon deffo have the edge in the range of glass they offer which is why I think Nikon are missing a trick.
itsnotarace said:
It was widely recognised as Nikon's best ever lens, up until it was replaced by the 24-70 and was discontinued like the 17-35 (replaced by the 14-24). If I was in the market for a FF lens, it would be high on my list, plus it's got an aperture ring so can be used on old film bodies.
Ah, just looked it up... It came out as I moved to digital (on a crop D1), so never bought one.Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff