The Nikkor 24-70 mm f/2.8 has no VR. If you are NOT shooting on tripod or monopod, and only use ambient light, can you use D800 plus this lens to produce satisfactory large prints (say, indoor wedding, indoor concerts, etc)?
Only reason I asked is because after paying off the D800 and the 70-200mm f/2.8 VRII, I can only afford either the 24-70 mm f/2.8 or a couple primes for that range. Any advice is appreciated.
Certainly. The 24-70 is a fantastic lens. It will all come down to how good your handholding technique is for the conditions you're in. The 24-70 isn't that much different weight and size-wise from the 70-200 so if you're good at handling the 70-200 you should be just fine with the 24-70.
I owned the 24-70 and loved it, BUT I find a good 50mm is much better for a lot less money and to zoom I move forward or backward. 50's are much sharper than most zoom's. With that being said I sure need to get me a good 85.
>I owned the 24-70 and loved it, BUT I find a good 50mm is >much better for a lot less money and to zoom I move forward or >backward. 50's are much sharper than most zoom's. With that >being said I sure need to get me a good 85.
Thanks for the inputs, everyone!
Instead of paying for the 24-70mm f/2.8, I was indeed thinking about getting a Nikkor 50mm f1.8G + maybe a Nikkor 24mm f/1.4G or 35 mm f/1.4G. However, these couple primes actually cost MORE than just the 24-70mm f/2.8?
Purely from image quality (sharpness, distortion, ...) point of view, how do you rank your 24-70mm vs. your 50mm (1.4G, I suppose?) mounted on a D800 (simply because the 36MP makes every blur more apparent on large prints)?
>Instead of paying for the 24-70mm f/2.8, I was indeed thinking >about getting a Nikkor 50mm f1.8G + maybe a Nikkor 24mm f/1.4G >or 35 mm f/1.4G.
My 14-24 is literally a mind-expanding lens and is my all-time favorite Nikon lens -- and that's over my 50 years of Nikon photography. You are trying to compare lenses that are simply not comparable -- each serves an entirely different purpose.
Gator Bob in Gainesville FL D700 & SB800 * D800 on order Nikkors: *14-24 * 28-300 * PC-E 85mm *50mm 1.8 Tamron 90mm Macro
>I owned the 24-70 and loved it, BUT I find a good 50mm is >much better for a lot less money Sorry, knowing that the 24-70 is one of the best Nikon lenses out there, this sounds like a sweeping statement to me without evidence:what criteria make you say that? Jean-luc
>>I owned the 24-70 and loved it, BUT I find a good 50mm >is >>much better for a lot less money >Sorry, knowing that the 24-70 is one of the best Nikon lenses >out there, this sounds like a sweeping statement to me without >evidence:what criteria make you say that? >Jean-luc >
What I see in the pictures I take!! In my gallery flowers 2012 I've shot a lot of pictures this spring with the D800 and a 50mm 1.4. The color and detail are as good as I've ever seen, In fact all of my high dollar lens are down the road. That might be making it to simple. But why carry a bag full of high dollar lens when I can get done with just 2 lens. I do have one tele lens but I won't tell you what it is because you would laugh.
Hi Mike, Ok , now I know which 50mm you've got. Yes the 1.4 is a very good lens and of course you can play with very shallow DOF especially on flowers or objects (like rings or other objects shot at a wedding), which you cannot do with the f2.8 zoom and this can make a difference indeed. Otherwise even wide open I find the the 24-70 very sharp and fast focusing (of course on my D700, I do not have a D800 yet, until NAs will convince to get it!) Jean-luc
I own this lens also and use it on my D7000... Love the lens... Will be using it also on the D800E when it shows up.... The D800 and D7000 have more or less the same pixel size on the sensor, so I know from my experience that getting sharp images w/ the D7K in low light with the 24-70 f2.8 is do-able at iso 3200... this lens is so sharp that it has caused moire' on my D7K... here is the thread I posted pics in...
I would say get the 24-70 F2.8 and then get a 50mm F1.4 for the shallow DOF effects... I would say the 50 F1.4G doesn't get really sharp until F2.8 to F5.6 or so anyways... so the 50mm is best for DOF effects where as the 24-70 F2.8 gives small zoom for little frame adjustments without having to take steps back and forth when some times thinks happen to fast to "get there." However the D800 will allow you to crop more just in case... The 24-70 does have some field curvature and doesn't both me much.... look here for example even though its the Canon 24-70:
Sorry if you feel this is OT, but, have you considered getting a 24-120 f/4 VR rather than the expensive and heavy 24-70 f/2.8?
It is really a good alternativ, also on a D800 - of course not quite as good at the 24-70 - but very close. Need to be stopped one down and keept inside 24-70mm to have max. res. the extra 50mm range is a big bonus, although it overlaps your 70-200. I have found that I use this lens about 60-70% of the time.
I would not buy a 24-70 until it gets upgraded, unless I really needed the abs. very best.
>Sorry if you feel this is OT, but, have you considered >getting a 24-120 f/4 VR rather than the expensive and heavy >24-70 f/2.8? > >It is really a good alternativ, also on a D800 - of course not >quite as good at the 24-70 - but very close. Need to be >stopped one down and keept inside 24-70mm to have max. res.
+1 for this idea. I sold my 24-70mm and got the 24-120mm VR but I don't buy that the latter is a compromise as such. It loses a stop but gains VR in a lighter cheaper package. You could buy this and a 50mm 1.4G together for a similar outlay to the 24-70mm alone.
Regarding IQ is it a compromise? I don't see it and neither does this review:
>Thanks for all your inputs and comments >I have until end of May to decide. So any additional >suggestion and insight will continually be appreciated.
I have had the 24-70/2.8 since it was first introduced and have used it with both the D200 and the D700. The lens is quite sharp for a zoom, has very fast auto focus and is very good for close ups. The lens has some distortion, especially at the wide end, and I use DxO to correct. After thousands of pictures I have never missed the VR capability - after all, things do move. With VR you can easily reduce shutter speed too much and you loose sharpness. When hand holding, it is a good rule to keep the shutter speed at least at 2x the focal length. IMHO, VR is useful only at focal lengths above about 100 mm.
I got my 24-70 in 2008 and it has been my primary lens since then. I use it on my D800 and it is superb. Only issue, both the camera and the lens are heavy (994g + 900g). I had it on a trip to Monterey this weekend and was using it continuously for 4 hours without a tripod. I was quite tired by the end of it.
I have the 24-70, 70-200mm and until very recently the 14-24mm which I sold on here. I sold it because of three reasons. Firstly I was always almost scared of using it because of the bulbous lens and damaging it! Secondly, but more importantly, as a landscape photographer I wanted to use ND filters but wasn't prepared to pay for the Lee adaptor etc. Finally, my 24-70mm did everything just as well in a narrower view. I bought the 16-35mm f4 VRII just to give me flexibilty at the wider end with the advantage of filter usage. It's not the lens the 14-24 is, but it isn't far off and I love it's versatility.
I nearly always used the 14-24mm on a tripod as I do the 24-70 and 70-200mm so VR is not an issue. That said, I never had an issue with the 24-70mm handheld when I did a few weddings.
As an example of what the 24-70mm on a D700 can do please see a rare non tripod handheld image taken last year.
The Nikon 25-70mm f/2.8 lens seems to be well regarded by many on this forum but the DxO Mark Labs test results are not too impressive (on a D700), especially the chromatic aberration which is off the chart for all focal lengths and apertures. Does DxO Labs have it wrong, or is chromatic aberration not that important? Does anyone have experience or an opinion on DxO Labs test results or methods?
I don't take much notice of lab reports, I prefer to see samples of peoples work here and elsewhere plus their comments. I read Thom Hogans reviews too. That is now the criteria for all my purchases of both cameras and lenses
I think it's true that the Nikon lenses 14-24/24-70/70-200 are very well regarded worldwide by Nikonians and pro's alike.
It would be nice if Nikon followed Canon's lead here and made a high quality VR lens in the range. I don't think the 24-120 VR is quite up to the IQ of Canon 24-105 IS. Maybe a 24-90 f4 with VR II would be the perfect stable mate for the D800, and hopefully a fraction of the price and weight of the 24-70 f2.8