Nikkor 24-70 - What Is The Straight Dope

[brandtb]

I am seriously considering getting the 24-70 for use with a D700.  I have read a number of posts/threads here...and elsewhere concerning this lens.  One of the most recent was an extrememly long one re. light leakage?!?  Some have said there are back focus issues.  Some have said it's "good, get it" etc. etc..  I would like to know....are there any pros using this lens this lens on a regular basis...that would say yea...this is a FANTASTIC lens...a must have (for zoom in this class/type)...get it asap...worth all the money.  I just never get the impression of the above from reading posts on this.  I would like to get the staight dope. Thanks. (Note that I did read the KR "report"...but I don't want just one source)

[JeffKohn]

I am seriously considering getting the 24-70 for use with a D700.  I have read a number of posts/threads here...and elsewhere concerning this lens.  One of the most recent was an extrememly long one re. light leakage?!?  Some have said there are back focus issues.  Some have said it's "good, get it" etc. etc..  I would like to know....are there any pros using this lens this lens on a regular basis...that would say yea...this is a FANTASTIC lens...a must have (for zoom in this class/type)...get it asap...worth all the money.  I just never get the impression of the above from reading posts on this.  I would like to get the staight dope. Thanks. (Note that I did read the KR "report"...but I don't want just one source)

The 'light leakage' only occurred when doing long exposures (multiple seconds) in bright daylight. If you ever need to do that, the easy fix is to tape/cover over the distance window on the lens.

In the 24-28mm range there is some field curvature that can make getting corner-to-corner sharpness problematic. Outside of that, the lens is very good. In fact, throughout the rest of its range it can match or beat most F-mount prime lenses.

It's pretty bulky and heavy, but that should be no real surprise for an f/2.8 pro zoom.

[brandtb]

The 'light leakage' only occurred when doing long exposures (multiple seconds) in bright daylight. If you ever need to do that, the easy fix is to tape/cover over the distance window on the lens.

In the 24-28mm range there is some field curvature that can make getting corner-to-corner sharpness problematic. Outside of that, the lens is very good. In fact, throughout the rest of its range it can match or beat most F-mount prime lenses.

It's pretty bulky and heavy, but that should be no real surprise for an f/2.8 pro zoom.

Thanks very much for feedback Jeff!...I saw a few of photos on your site...that show that lens being used.  The WR corner to corner sharpness issue was one of the things that caught my eye in other posts. How bad has that problem been for you??  You said that 'outside of that the lens is very good'....have you "lost" any shots based on that?  I tend to use that type of lens out in field doing landscape work...shooting wide alot.

[Philip Weber]

I am seriously considering getting the 24-70 for use with a D700.  I have read a number of posts/threads here...and elsewhere concerning this lens.  One of the most recent was an extrememly long one re. light leakage?!?  Some have said there are back focus issues.  Some have said it's "good, get it" etc. etc..  I would like to know....are there any pros using this lens this lens on a regular basis...that would say yea...this is a FANTASTIC lens...a must have (for zoom in this class/type)...get it asap...worth all the money.  I just never get the impression of the above from reading posts on this.  I would like to get the staight dope. Thanks. (Note that I did read the KR "report"...but I don't want just one source)

The lens is my main squeeze for my D700 and I also use it on my D300. I've NEVER had issue with it and have found it to be an awesome lens in every respect, although I do wish they'd update it one day soon with their VR II!

Phil

[PeterAit]

The lens is my main squeeze for my D700 and I also use it on my D300. I've NEVER had issue with it and have found it to be an awesome lens in every respect, although I do wish they'd update it one day soon with their VR II!

Phil

I agree - the lens (also used on a D700) is outstanding at all but the widest focal lengths, where it is merely excellent. It's is a bear to lug around, but there's no avoiding that if you want top quality images.

[Rob C]

As I have mentioned ad nauseam, it was the worst Nikkor I ever bought, being dreadful at the wide end, and that on a cropped format D200; God alone knows how it would have been on my D700, but given that Nikon has been my main food-earner, I am willing to put it behind me as a one-off disaster, an aberration, a twist of fate that would have happened to me regardless of brand: it was just my time for another glitch in my life. Fortunately I was able to offload it back to the dealer. If you buy one, it might turn out to be perfectly all right. That's contemporary quality control, you see.

Rob C

[brandtb]

As I have mentioned ad nauseam, it was the worst Nikkor I ever bought, being dreadful at the wide end, and that on a cropped format D200; God alone knows how it would have been on my D700, but given that Nikon has been my main food-earner, I am willing to put it behind me as a one-off disaster, an aberration, a twist of fate that would have happened to me regardless of brand: it was just my time for another glitch in my life. Fortunately I was able to offload it back to the dealer. If you buy one, it might turn out to be perfectly all right. That's contemporary quality control, you see.

Rob C

Okay Rob - so what are you using instead? Another sim. zoom, diff. brand??  Two lenses instead?  I must say I don't recall seeing any of your posts...

[rethmeier]

I would suggest you just buy or rent one.
Mine is great,apart from the serious barrel distortion @ 24.
However I knew about that before my purchase.

I think Rob C was just unlucky.

Best,
Willem.

[brandtb]

I would suggest you just buy or rent one.
Mine is great,apart from the serious barrel distortion @ 24.
However I knew about that before my purchase.

I think Rob C was just unlucky.

Best,
Willem.

Thanks Willem...is the sort of barrel dist. easily dealt with in PS?

[NashvilleMike]

I am seriously considering getting the 24-70 for use with a D700.  I have read a number of posts/threads here...and elsewhere concerning this lens.  One of the most recent was an extrememly long one re. light leakage?!?  Some have said there are back focus issues.  Some have said it's "good, get it" etc. etc..  I would like to know....are there any pros using this lens this lens on a regular basis...that would say yea...this is a FANTASTIC lens...a must have (for zoom in this class/type)...get it asap...worth all the money.  I just never get the impression of the above from reading posts on this.  I would like to get the staight dope. Thanks. (Note that I did read the KR "report"...but I don't want just one source)

It's an excellent lens with a couple of "gotcha's", so it depends on whether one of the "gotchas" is going to be a deal breaker for you.

Item #1 is that it is a poor 24mm lens. Very sharp in the center, quite average in the corners. Okay for photojournalist work, but not good for landscape. When I need to shoot at 24mm for  landscape, this lens won't do. Even if you stop it down, to say F/11, it never gets "excellent", only perhaps "somewhat acceptable", which is a shame given how good it is in other parts of the focal length range. By 28mm it gets much, much better.

Item #2 is that there is light leakage on super long daylight exposures. Cover up the plastic distance window with black tape and you'll be fine.

However, if you think about this lens as being a 28-70 instead of a 24-70, it is quite excellent in that range from 28mm and up. I own most or have shot with most of the Nikon primes in that 28-70 range and to date I have not found one that is significantly better. In a lot of cases I prefer the image from the 24-70 to the prime. Note however that I have not shot with the 45 PC-E, which from the looks of imagery I have seen, is quite excellent. Really the only lens in that range that I currently own that is a distinct step ahead is the new 70-200/2.8 VR2 zoom, which is so stupendously good I almost feel it came as a gift from a superior life form on another planet; that lens at 70mm is distinctly superior to the 24-70 at 70mm, but that is about it.

But again, if your intent is to shoot in that 24-28mm focal length range, it is not going to be the best option for you. There are some rumors floating about concerning new Nikon lenses to be announced in February. Most think a 24 or 28mm fast prime will be one of them; some feel a 16-35 type of lens might also be in there. If you are not in a hurry it may be prudent to wait a month and see what gets announced.

-mike

ps: Mike Johnston wrote an interesting article a few years ago; check the last paragraph (in italics, near the very end) where he discusses the Nikon 24-70, I think it summarizes my feelings on this lens quite well.

http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/t...-camera-le.html

[JeffKohn]

Thanks very much for feedback Jeff!...I saw a few of photos on your site...that show that lens being used.  The WR corner to corner sharpness issue was one of the things that caught my eye in other posts. How bad has that problem been for you??  You said that 'outside of that the lens is very good'....have you "lost" any shots based on that?  I tend to use that type of lens out in field doing landscape work...shooting wide alot.

Well, let's be clear here, the term "bad" is relative. The performance of the 24-70 in the corners @ 24mm is pretty disappointing relative to the same lens at 30mm, but that's not to say it's on the level of the cheapest kit lenses. To be honest, I'm not sure how significant this issue would on a D700/D3 due to the lower pixel density. I've only used the lens on cameras with higher pixel densities (D300 and D3x).

I will say that I wouldn't want to have this lens as my only 24mm option if corner sharpness for landscapes was a high priority, assuming 24mm is an important focal length for you. I rarely use it at that focal length, because I almost always have the 24 PC-E with me and it's noticeably better (plus having the advantage of tilt/shift).

[brandtb]

It's an excellent lens with a couple of "gotcha's", so it depends on whether one of the "gotchas" is going to be a deal breaker for you.

Item #1 is that it is a poor 24mm lens. Very sharp in the center, quite average in the corners. Okay for photojournalist work, but not good for landscape. When I need to shoot at 24mm for  landscape, this lens won't do. Even if you stop it down, to say F/11, it never gets "excellent", only perhaps "somewhat acceptable", which is a shame given how good it is in other parts of the focal length range. By 28mm it gets much, much better.

Item #2 is that there is light leakage on super long daylight exposures. Cover up the plastic distance window with black tape and you'll be fine.

However, if you think about this lens as being a 28-70 instead of a 24-70, it is quite excellent in that range from 28mm and up. I own most or have shot with most of the Nikon primes in that 28-70 range and to date I have not found one that is significantly better. In a lot of cases I prefer the image from the 24-70 to the prime. Note however that I have not shot with the 45 PC-E, which from the looks of imagery I have seen, is quite excellent. Really the only lens in that range that I currently own that is a distinct step ahead is the new 70-200/2.8 VR2 zoom, which is so stupendously good I almost feel it came as a gift from a superior life form on another planet; that lens at 70mm is distinctly superior to the 24-70 at 70mm, but that is about it.

But again, if your intent is to shoot in that 24-28mm focal length range, it is not going to be the best option for you. There are some rumors floating about concerning new Nikon lenses to be announced in February. Most think a 24 or 28mm fast prime will be one of them; some feel a 16-35 type of lens might also be in there. If you are not in a hurry it may be prudent to wait a month and see what gets announced.

-mike

ps: Mike Johnston wrote an interesting article a few years ago; check the last paragraph (in italics, near the very end) where he discusses the Nikon 24-70, I think it summarizes my feelings on this lens quite well.

http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/t...-camera-le.html

Thanks mike for taking the time give the in depth feedback on this...article by Mike Johston was great btw.  Also, have you used the current Nikkor 17-35 2.8?

[HarperPhotos]

Thanks mike for taking the time give the in depth feedback on this...article by Mike Johston was great btw.  Also, have you used the current Nikkor 17-35 2.8?

Hello,

Have a look at the link below. I've found there reviews to be very good.

http://www.photozone.de/Reviews/overview

Regards

Simon

[NashvilleMike]

Thanks mike for taking the time give the in depth feedback on this...article by Mike Johston was great btw.  Also, have you used the current Nikkor 17-35 2.8?

Yes, I own the 17-35/2.8 Nikkor. Nice lens in it's heyday, but I don't use it much - IIRC, I haven't used it since getting the 14-24/24-70 pairing, which is sad, because the 17-35 was my "go-to" lens a few years ago. But the new lenses are simply better at significant parts of their overlapping range. Ironically, the 17-35 is really, really good at 24mm specifically, and at that narrow band within it's range is definitely better than the 24-70 and reasonably competitive with the 14-24 at 24mm. However, at 28-ish -35mm the 24-70 is clearly better as is the 14-24 from 17-20mm or so.

I really hope one of the rumors (that unfortunately doesn't seem to have as much "weight" behind it being actually true) that a new 16-35, perhaps even an F/4 version, would come out, because that is a more useful lens at times than the 14-24 in terms of range.

All this being said, on the lower pixel density (and thus less demanding) D3/D700, the 17-35 isn't a horrible option. It's not going to have the crispness nor the corners for a D3X or the higher resolution bodies that will inevitably come down the pike, and thus I feel it's a limited option, but ya know, for a D700 shooter, if you could pick up a good copy (watch out for AF-S motor issues) used, it's an excellent stopgap solution.

I'd still wait and see what happens in February. Maybe Santa Nikon Claus will deliver belated gifts to us!

[Dustbak]

I have a 24-70 and I love it. Excellent lens and I would not doubt buying it again. I would buy it in store, bringing a big flashlight to check out everything inside and outside the lens given Nikons latest stance on Quality Control standards.

[Rob C]

Okay Rob - so what are you using instead? Another sim. zoom, diff. brand??  Two lenses instead?  I must say I don't recall seeing any of your posts...

Amazed you missed the posts: I was chastised for taking every opportunity of airing my disgust!

No, I shall never buy anothet zoom; that one was my first and last. I bought it because I had thought it would be nice to be able to have a single lens to avoid changing optics outdoors and, worse, I allowed myself to be seduced by reading other peoples' opinions. I have reverted to using my original lenses which, in that zone, are 2.8/24mm and 1.8/50mm. As for others, I recently bought a 2.8/105mm Micro and it is wonderful for is purpose (tight crops) and the next lens up is the 2.8/135 which I'm not sure is as good as was the 3.5/135 I used to have; next in line is a 2.8/180 mm which I was sort of morally obliged to buy when I returned the 24-70mm. I hope I resist buying more - that is not the route to greater productivity. When I was working, new lenses came along as did the need; in retirement, they tend to represent question marks rather than exclamation marks.

In practice, I found that apart from is other failure, the 24-70mm was anything but a convenient alternative because it is so large and, for me, demanded a tripod. Given deeper pockets, I would like to have an M9 and that triple wide lens that Leica makes; small enough and light enough to make walkabout photography enjoyable, and not a chore that becomes less agreeable with the years and grey hair. Did I forget to mention the heart, too?

Rob C

[Jost von Allmen]

I have used my 24-70mm on a D3 with good success, but as soon as I have upgraded to the D3x, the lens disappointed, mainly at 24mm (as pointed out in some other replies).
Luckily, my dealer let me compare several of the 24-70mm he had in stock, until I found an excellent one, which I exchanged.
So it's about quality control, too:
The Nikon Service (I'm a NPS-member) claimed that after checking my combination of the D3x with the 24-70mm everything was within specs, but after the comparison with the other lenses, it turned out I had the worst example out of five!
Another very important thing will be your workflow with the (hopefully) RAW-data: If you use Capture NX2 and turn on the lens correction options (CA, vignetting and distortion), it's quite amazing, how much the results improve.
So although I don't really like NX2 because of it's slow speed and (for me) unintuitive interface, I'm perfectly happy now with the lens!
I must say that when I absolutely need to shoot at exactly 24mm and have the time to change lens I'd rather use my 14-24mm which is even better (stellar...).
I actually also use Capture One Pro more and more, it's lens corrections work very well, too.

Good luck with your selection!

[gss]

(Note that I did read the KR "report"...but I don't want just one source)

Saying this is kind of like going to your doctor and saying "Well I already consulted my witchdoctor, but I thought I could use a second opinion."

[Rob C]

Saying this is kind of like going to your doctor and saying "Well I already consulted my witchdoctor, but I thought I could use a second opinion."

If you think of Haiti, tragically topical.

Rob C

[CJL]

I think Rob C was just unlucky.

Well, I guess that makes two of us... my copy wasn't as bad as Rob's, but it was certainly worse than my Canon 24-105 f4L.