Nikor 28-70 zoom on D 800 as alternative to the newer 24-70

[deanwork]

I know this must have been covered but I can't find any comments here.

I'm buying a Nikon D800 tomorrow and want to purchase the 24-70 zoom but it is just more than I can afford. But I don't want to waste my money on the Nikon 24-120 because it just isn't up to the kind of resolution and edge sharpness I'm going to need.

I'll be shooting still life and architecture (much of it black and white) and making large inkjet prints on rag media primarily, but I'll be shooting some video as well.

Does anyone have an opinion from experience as to the quality I could expect from the older 28-70 zoom on the D 800? It gets excellent reviews on the D3 and such but  they are very different cameras.

I can buy a like new 28-70 for less than a grand, almost half the price of the 24-70. I'll be on a tripod much of the time so I'm not concerned about the extra width of this lens or its weight.

john

[John Nollendorfs]

The NEW 24-120 VR is considered by Nikon to be one of their best lenses for the D800! You can always use your older existing lenses, and upgrade is you see the need to. Just because you aren't utilizing the full camera resolution potential doesn't make the old glass worse. Also consider using stitching techniques with something like a micro-nikkor, to give you wider field of view. Lot of different things you can do to achieve nearly the same results.

[deanwork]

Thanks,

I actually went for a slightly E+ rated used 24-70 G series for a little more money than the used E rated 28-70. The 28-70 has excellent test ratings also but I might as well have the most recent lens with a little more coverage for about $400.00 more.

john

[HarperPhotos]

Hello,

One lens I can recommend as I used to own one is the Tokina 28-80mm F2.8 ATX lens.

There are plenty available on EBay and the build quality is superb,plus they are cheap to buy.

http://www.pentaxforums.com/userreviews/tokina-x-280-af-pro-28-80mm-f-2-8.html

Cheers

Simon

[PhotoEcosse]

You should be able to pick up a good s/h 24-70mm f/2.8 for (just) under £1000. There are usually a few on eBay.

With my D800 and D800E I find Nikon's "Holy Trinity" of 14-24mm, 24-70mm and 70-200mm f/2.8 lenses to be a superb combination.

But don't be misled by much of the mythology that greeted the launch of the D800 last year. It is just that - mythology. None of your existing lenses will perform worse on the D800 than on any other camera you might have used them on.


.

[deanwork]

Thanks for that. That is exactly what I've concluded by studying all this over the weekend. These three lenses are exactly what I want to invest in.

I do have a number of old Nikon zoom lenses in the longer formats that I'm going to test first though. They might hold me for awhile in the telephoto range, which I seldom use anyway. I'm really excited about the 24-70 that is one the way to me and even more excited about the potential of the 14-24 to add soon. I considered the Zeiss primes but I'd rather just concentrate on these particular zooms that are much more versatile and I just don't see how the Zeiss glass could be THAT much sharper if any than the 14-24 in particular. But I'm new to the dslr...

john

You should be able to pick up a good s/h 24-70mm f/2.8 for (just) under £1000. There are usually a few on eBay.

With my D800 and D800E I find Nikon's "Holy Trinity" of 14-24mm, 24-70mm and 70-200mm f/2.8 lenses to be a superb combination.

But don't be misled by much of the mythology that greeted the launch of the D800 last year. It is just that - mythology. None of your existing lenses will perform worse on the D800 than on any other camera you might have used them on.


.

[MichaelEzra]

I use Nikon AFS 28-70 on D800e. It is a great combo. The lens is not as sharp as primes, but can be recommended as a zoom lens.
You can see a specific comparison I put together:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=75271.0;attach=75587;image

The forum thread: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=75271.40

specifics of 28-70:
28mm is sharp in the center, CA in the corners, correctable.
50mm - good sharpness
70mm sharpness slightly drops, less CA

[Rob C]

Well, I've mentioned this before - possibly ad nauseam - but my single experience of a zoom, the 2.8/24-70mm G Nikkor was a friggin' disaster.

I'll never have another zoom.

If you read the posts here on LuLa, several owners offer advice and warnings about the wider zooms and flare. And as the widest one can't take a hood nor, I think filters, it's a bit of a risky investment unless you can guarantee super-safe handling or have a good insurance company. It's tough outside.

Good luck; don't buy too quickly.

Rob C

P.S. That 24-70mm is huge!

[michael]

Sorry, but the 24-120mm, even the new one, just isn't as competent as one could wish.

Neither is Nikon's 24-70 f/2.8G. It's actually a fairly middle of the road lens.

My experience is that the Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 DI VC is a far better lens, and most technical reviews confirm this. It also is a stabilized lens, which of course the Nikkor isn't. Costs around $1100-1200 US. Excellent value, and likely the best 24-70mm f/2.8 on the market, except for the new Canon 24-70mm II, which is twice the price and regretably won't work on a Nikon.

Michael

[deanwork]

The reviews of the 24-70 are far better than the 24-120 that has real edge sharpness problems, which is why I didn't buy the latter as much as I wanted to have that focal ability. I wouldn't lump them in the same category.  There a tons of people, also on this list that love theirs. People that don't like hauling around a bag full of primes. I'll find out soon enough.

Also the reviews of the Nikon 17-24 show it to be a pretty amazing lens. I think the combination of these two lenses in a bag is all I will need. The only Tamron lens I ever bought was total garbage mechanically so I'll never buy another regardless of their improvements. I just don't trust their quality control, good reviews or not. Even my old cheap Nikons have held up really well, every one of them.

john

Sorry, but the 24-120mm, even the new one, just isn't as competent as one could wish.

Neither is Nikon's 24-70 f/2.8G. It's actually a fairly middle of the road lens.

My experience is that the Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 DI VC is a far better lens, and most technical reviews confirm this. It also is a stabilized lens, which of course the Nikkor isn't. Costs around $1100-1200 US. Excellent value, and likely the best 24-70mm f/2.8 on the market, except for the new Canon 24-70mm II, which is twice the price and regretably won't work on a Nikon.

Michael

[Rob C]

The reviews of the 24-70 are far better than the 24-120 that has real edge sharpness problems, which is why I didn't buy the latter as much as I wanted to have that focal ability. I wouldn't lump them in the same category.  There a tons of people, also on this list that love theirs. People that don't like hauling around a bag full of primes. I'll find out soon enough.

Also the reviews of the Nikon 17-24 show it to be a pretty amazing lens. I think the combination of these two lenses in a bag is all I will need. The only Tamron lens I ever bought was total garbage mechanically so I'll never buy another regardless of their improvements. I just don't trust their quality control, good reviews or not. Even my old cheap Nikons have held up really well, every one of them.

john

So buy it, then. You may get lucky.

Your standards may be similar to those of other happy punters, so all will be totally serene. What more can one ask?

Rob C

[BernardLanguillier]

Sorry, but the 24-120mm, even the new one, just isn't as competent as one cou
Neither is Nikon's 24-70 f/2.8G. It's actually a fairly middle of the road lens.

That's a pretty tough assessment. It is of course a zoom lens, but is far from being poor.

It was released in 2007 and is due for a replacement pretty soon, as is the 14-24 f2.8 btw. I wouldn't be surprised if they were announced together with the D4x in aug/sept time frame.

Cheers,
Bernard

[PhotoEcosse]

Well, I've mentioned this before ........

I'll never have another zoom.

That possibly says it all!! Sounds a bit like an anti-zoom extremist.

For someone who shows:

 

Posts: 10194

 

then perhaps that also tells a story. Are you going to take lens advice from someone who perhaps spends far more time on internet chat rooms like this than actually out in the wilds taking photographs?

[deanwork]

Wow, 10,194?

I wonder how many of those are positive helpful posts?

The one issues that DOES worry me about that 14-24, not the 24-70, is flair. It seems like the lens hood is just not adequate and the way the lens protrudes out is problematic. After all this is not a lens you use in the studio for the most part. Is there some way of  constructing a workable lens shade that doesn't vignette? Outdoors you are going to run into some really awkward situations with that flair compromising tonality and color clarity it seems.

How do you guys deal with that? I hope I'm not forced into the Zeiss 21 prime. Although I wouldn't cry about making that decision.  There are certainly great points about it too. Still that 14-24 range is fantastic.

john



------------------
That possibly says it all!! Sounds a bit like an anti-zoom extremist.

For someone who shows:

   

then perhaps that also tells a story. Are you going to take lens advice from someone who perhaps spends far more time on internet chat rooms like this than actually out in the wilds taking photographs?
[/quote]

[Rob C]

That possibly says it all!! Sounds a bit like an anti-zoom extremist.

For someone who shows:

   

then perhaps that also tells a story. Are you going to take lens advice from someone who perhaps spends far more time on internet chat rooms like this than actually out in the wilds taking photographs?

Hey, Mr Anon, how many shots do you imagine I've made over my entire professional career starting in 1960?

Rob C

[Rob C]

Wow, 10,194?

I wonder how many of those are positive helpful posts?The one issues that DOES worry me about that 14-24, not the 24-70, is flair. It seems like the lens hood is just not adequate and the way the lens protrudes out is problematic. After all this is not a lens you use in the studio for the most part. Is there some way of  constructing a workable lens shade that doesn't vignette? Outdoors you are going to run into some really awkward situations with that flair compromising tonality and color clarity it seems.

How do you guys deal with that? I hope I'm not forced into the Zeiss 21 prime. Although I wouldn't cry about making that decision.  There are certainly great points about it too. Still that 14-24 range is fantastic.

john

Well, john, you could always try reading them to find out for yourself, or, perhaps, would you prefer to take the word of somebody else instead? Save you lot's of trouble and actual experience of whether or not they represent any value... be a devil - do it yourself!

;-)

Rob C

[deanwork]

I wish I had the time to read all those posts, but I'm busy making photographs and printing, not talking about equipment until I need to add something.

[Rob C]

I wish I had the time to read all those posts, but I'm busy making photographs and printing, not talking about equipment until I need to add something.

That seems perfectly reasonable; you see where a sensible post takes you?

Better yet: you've just ratcheted up your score, which apparently seems an important thing to you.

Rob C

[deanwork]

That makes 10,196

[OldRoy]

Tee hee.
It can be pretty amusing when these threads start to come off the rails.
BTW for the edification of the community, some of it anyway, there are photographers who exhibit  "flair" and there are lenses that exhibit "flare". These two attributes may or may not be found in combination.
Roy