Congratulations Sideways, welcome to the club :-)

I thought it only fair to check back in and let you all know that your opinions made a difference - even those that I didn't choose to follow.
I weighed up the comments and now have a very nice new 24-70 in hand.
No problems at all with this one, the mechanics feels just like my 70-200 and it makes a serious fistful on the front of the D800 :-)

So far I haven't had time to photograph anything more than coffee cups, friends and a little stuff for work but I'm happy that this was the right choice.

Thanks again everyone. No excuses now ...

SkintBrit said:
I have never heard the word "Fragile" & "24-70 2.8" used in the same sentence before! I must have a good one because I don't recognise any of the characteristics described by Sideways. As others have said, it's also one of my stalwart go to lenses, that I have used professionally with great success for years.

+1

I have never heard the word "Fragile" & "24-70 2.8" used in the same sentence before! I must have a good one because I don't recognise any of the characteristics described by Sideways. As others have said, it's also one of my stalwart go to lenses, that I have used professionally with great success for years.

Quick mention of a horror story and a good news story. I once had a Sigma Macro lens. Was doing some work with the lens hanging on the FM2 on a tripod. The adjusting clamp on the tripod was a bit too loose and the pole, lens and camera donked onto the carpet from a height of about 14 inches. Result- the Sigma Macro broke internally - endex, scrap. (Immediately replaced with a superb Nikorr 105 Micro.)
Contrast another near horror - was walking along with a glorious 180 f 2.8 Nikkor ED glass jobby attached to a teleconvertor and on the FM2 at the end of an extended Benbo Monopod - hoisted over my shoulder as I moved position. Unfortunately I had not locked home the teleconverter properly and off popped the lens and tele , dropping from a height of about 5 ft onto hard compacted gravel. Result - tears for a few seconds until wiped the dust off the Nikkor to find it unscathed, now that is an engineering beauty!
Robin

There is a perception of quality which comes from weight, heck it is not unheard of for marketing a*****les to add cheap weight (different plastics etc.) to an object to make it feel 'better quality'. I'm not saying that is the case here, because earlier lenses did weigh more than recent lenses and do have a better reputation for lasting.

When my 18-105 went wrong earlier this year, I was surprised because I too baby my gear but it felt like a ribbon lead had come loose and was catching when I zoomed. That lens is light in weight and so does feel 'cheap'! They fixed it for free and it works great so it's all good.

I am not certain about the idea of a "fragile" lens. Although I am pretty tough on lenses in that I will have the camera in a blanket on the floor of my car, or even just sitting on the floor of the motorhome in travel, I am careful to keep the lens clean, not drop it and attempt to control its motion and protect from inadvertent bumps. In another thread on a 70-200 breaking off the front of a D600, I think in a fall, extremely large forces may be presented to a lens in an accident. Tough or fragile, this cannot be good for any lens.

Maybe if one is purchasing the pro lenses, an insurance policy to cover "all risk" is advisable as this can be obtained for about $10 per $1000 value per year for non-professional use. And this allows the performance of the lens to be the primary deciding factor.

I got a very simple solution for you: Buy an immaculate copy of the previous 2.8 zoom-- the 28-70/2.8 ED. It's supposed to be EXTRA HEAVY, EXTRA DURABLE, and very similar to the 24-70 in sharpness.

I've got the 24-120, and while I love it, it's certainly not durable. I baby it...something not done with the 80-400 I own. BTW, I think the 16-35VR and 24-70 are very similar in construction. They look like twins IMHO.

Nikon 24-70mm is fantastic. I rented one and it was very, very difficult to return it. Any copy that would give you pause most likely has issues.

That said, Tamron just came out with a 24-70 with stabilization. Not quite as sharp but WAYYYY cheaper.

4-way review by WOMP:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xat-cF1Aess

I would go with the Nikon 24-70 f2.8. It is still one of the best lenses you can buy but have concerns with the version you looked at. The zoom and focus rings should be nice and smooth. It is possible the guy was trying to sell you a dodgy copy so check all lenses before buying. If the lens was second hand then it might need re- alining as there do if there is any kind of friction when zooming after years of use. I have had my 24-70 for about five years now and bought the D800 in August this year (2012) and still get great results.

@Sideways: thank you for giving us that info. Given that weight has not been an issue for you, the 24-70 2.8 will service your needs quite well. I'm pleased to hear you are going to move forward with it As for primes, the 50 1.4G is a great lens to have, it is a bit soft when shot wide open but for the price it too is a must have. As for other primes, 24 1.4G & 105 2.8 Micro, I have the pleasure of having both. They are both amazing lenses with each there own unique usage. First the bokeh and pure image sharpness of these two are fantastic. Both are fast as well...not like the 70-200 but not far behind. The 105 will allow you to use your 1.7TC with it as well...nice bounce in addition to macro photography. The 24 1.4G, well by dear friend, that lens is just: ahhhhh. It does require a bit of getting used to when shooting wide open give the very, very shallow DOF...I have found that 2 out of 5 shots are acceptable to me in getting what I want. The more I play with it the better I'm getting.

Looking forward in seeing some of your work on PAD. Happy shopping :D

Cheers

Sideways, as others have said, the metal on metal feel of that particular 24-70mm lens you tested didn't sound quite right. It should be smooth. I think you've made a good decision to get one. To me, the 24-70 f/2.8 on the D800 feels like a perfectly balanced tool when I hold it. I like the weight. Like a carpenter who's found that perfect hammer. The way the lens snaps into focus is amazing. I've missed images due to the slower focus speeds of other lenses.

Once I get around to it I want to do a comparison of my 28-300mm VR at 120mm vs. the 24-70mm at 70mm then cropped to the same image size as the 120mm image. I feel that the 70mm image taken with the D800 and cropped should be totally satisfactory.

Mine may well be a minority opinion.....I have the D800 and both lenses. Optically as observed the 24-70 is superior...but the 24-120 works very well with my D800 probably because i am more of a casual shooter, the 24-120 stays on the 800 about 80% of the time. The D800+24-120 combo also has a weight advantage which becomes more apparent whenever i switch to the 20-70 (to get the added stop and quality advantage)....it is more comfortable as a walk around lens and better range.. My 24-70 has been very very well used...always used to sit on my D300 and has served me very well...great lens...no regrets....but i'm very pleased with my 24-120 and it remains my first choice whenever i grab my camera!

Sounds like your company should be buying you these lenses.....

@PaulR: Yup ! I'm going to have to up my game a little - no excuses now :-)

@golf: OK, but remember you did ask :-) My work takes me all over the world managing projects in an engineering company - often visiting the same place repeatedly over several months. Basically I do travel photography, grabbing the camera and exploring on my weekends away. I like to mooch around cities but love to hike and to explore the wilds when I can.
The reason for picking up the camera was originally to share all this with my family but I also find the hobby is a good way of connecting with people when I get invited to social events in the companies I visit. A 70-200mm is a great tool for sitting back a little and capturing candid people pictures to share.
I've analysed the mix of photos I take and 50% are covered by my 70-200mm. I have a 1.7TC and don't see myself every carrying anything longer. If they update the 80-400 I might be tempted by the extra reach.
The other 50% of my shots are skewed towards the wide end.

I have the 50mm f/1.4 G so I did consider completing a set of primes instead of going for the 24-70mm, but the zoom offers great quality across many of the focal lengths I need without having to change lenses.
If I did choose primes, the additional focal lengths I would want are 28 and 20mm. In the film days 28mm was my standard lens, 24mm gives a little more but I don't find the difference that great. On the other hand, I have a Lumix LX-3 compact that is unusually wide (20mm equivalent) and like that perspective. For whatever reason, I rarely dial my DX zoom in to the equivalent of 35mm.

So - with all your reassurances it will be a 24-70 next, a used 20mm AF-D when I find a good deal, and my nice-to-have's when I win the lottery will be the 24mm 1.4 and the 105 micro.

I feel like I should ask to borrow @skintbrit's username this year !

Cheers

@Sideways: I second Adamz comment on the build quality and ruggedness of the 24-70 2.8. The 24-70 is my all time favorite Nikon lens....I never leave home without it.

With respect to primes, would you mind telling us what type of photography you are into so we can give...lead you in the right direction.

Cheers...

I use this lens 90% of the time with a Nikon FX camera. You are moving into the professional equipment level and using a D800 with a 24-70 lens will show any inferior photographic habits you may have, these two items show immense detail and therefore you need to make sure that you are getting a 100% return on your investment and reach the total quality they can produce.
The teamwork that the D800/24-70 lens and your good self will astound you

Thanks Adamz, it's very reassuring to hear that I should be able to find a better copy of the 24-70 if I hunt around for a while. I'm relieved by that.
And msmoto - I've followed the thread you mention with interest - after using an 18-200 as a travel lens, I was sorely tempted by the extra zoom range and the VR that the 24-120 offers - but had settled on the 24-70 as the better choice for me and the better match to the D800. I'm happy to know that I was looking in the right place for advice :-)

Thank you both.

yup - I would love to see the N24-70/2.8 with VR and more rigid body

Mmm... take a look at this thread and the examples.... While the VR is great on the 24-120, I think I might go with the 24-70/2.8 if I were to choose again. I will be doing a retest of my 24-120 sometime soon as I was disappointed in a couple shots this past summer.

And, if a second generation of the 24-70 comes out, I will no doubt grab it and sell the 24-120.

http://nikonrumors.com/forum/topic.php?id=2423&page=3

@sideways - no, that's not the normal feeling. I have the 24-70/2.8 and though it is in fact the most fragile from my lenses - it's still able to survive a 1m fall on concrete floor. the zoom should be smooth (no difference here between N70-200/2.8). as for the sharpness it's sharper than the 1st gen of N70-200/2.8 vr, though little bit behing the 2nd gen of this lens.
as for N24-120/4. well, it's a decent lens, though neither as sharp nor fast as N24-70/2.8. I would say, good alternative for d600, but I will rather not recommend to use it with d800 (I don't believe it has the optical power needed for this body, though I might be wrong or the examples I was using were defected).

A question for our experienced members please and if i've missed a previous discussion of this in my search just point me along ...

I've recently moved from DX up to a D800 and need to get hold of a wide-medium FX zoom to suit. I'd not handled the 24-70 before but have the 70-200 VR1 and have taken some time to decide on the 24-70 rather than the 24-120 that seems to be the other popular choice or a set of primes.

Headed off to the dealer yesterday ready to buy and ended up walking out of the shop once i'd had the lens in my hands.
I know that these have a reputation for being fragile but I was surprised at the raw metal-on-metal feel of the zoom ring and so disappointed in the end that I just couldn't bring myself to buy it.

Salesman was no use - just said that "it's the best, and the one most people choose" - so I didn't ask if they had any more in stock.

I have no doubts about the optical quality of the lens, it's more than solid, I like the relatively slim barrel, the brightness and snap of the focus but does the action of this model normally feel much worse than the 70-200 ?

And can they be improved by a service ? Thanks ...