First Nikon AF-S Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8E ED VR lens review now online

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 24-70mm f:2.8E ED VR lens review 2
Nikon AF-S Nikkor 24-70mm f:2.8E ED VR lens review 4
Nikon AF-S Nikkor 24-70mm f:2.8E ED VR lens review 3 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 24-70mm f:2.8E ED VR lens review
Foto-info.si published their full review in English of the new Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8E ED VR lens that includes full resolution photos (incl. sharpness and distortion samples):

The lens is large, the weight doesn't represents such a great problem, as the fact that it is necessary to get used to almost 180mm long lens. News by Nikon installed in the lens are welcomed, in particular, a great and incredibly fast autofocus system, as well as excellent image stabilization system. The picture quality is excellent, especially the sharpness is excellent at all focal lengths, only slightly decrease in 70mm.

Vignetting may be less, optical curvature of the image is also a great corrected for zoom lens with such range. Surprisingly slightly worse sharpness in close-ups, but this lens anyway not intended for use in macro photography.

The Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8E ED VR lens is currently available for pre-order at B&HAdoramaAmazon and WEX (UK). Shipping is scheduled to start on August 27th.

Update: here is a quick comparison between the 24-120mm f/4 lens and the new 24-70mm f/2.8E.

 

This entry was posted in Nikon Lenses and tagged . Bookmark the permalink. Trackbacks are closed, but you can post a comment.
  • T.I.M

    82mm filter sucks….

    • Ken Elliott

      Darn near every Nikon lens I own is either 52mm or 77mm. The 35/1.4 is the bastard of the group – 67mm. Man, that still annoys me every time I deal with it. Screw on an adapter and you can’t get the hood on. Or off, if you install the hood first.

      • T.I.M

        That new 24-70mm f/2.8 is a looser.
        82mm filter
        Big and heavy
        Expensive
        70 mm is too short (85mm would have been better)
        You can get an excellent 24-120mm f/4 VR new on Ebay for only $500-$600

        • Ken Elliott

          I’d rather use the older 24-70/2.8 than the 24-120/4.
          I can get one by reaching in my bag. ;D

          • T.I.M

            I had the 24-70mm f/2.8 for a while, I did not really like it, too soft in the corners and too much fall off.
            The new 24-120mm f/4 VR is ultra sharp, even at f/4 and the VR works very well, I can get good shoots at 1/8s !
            The only negative about the 24-120 f/4 is the distortion, a lot of distortion, it’s fine for people or nature, but for architectural pictures I use my 24mm PC-E f/3.5

            • Ken Elliott

              Thanks for the feedback.

            • vriesk

              24-120mm f/4 is very sharp on the wide end, but kinda sucks on the long end.

            • T.I.M

              mine is sharp all the way, you may need to adjust the AF fine tune, is your camera made in Japan ?

            • It is not just an AF problem, as a landscape shooter I shoot 100% from a tripod using manual focus, and even then with / without VR I get mixed results from 85 to 120. So far I’ve chalked it up to either faulty technique or bad conditions, (wind on my ultra-light backpacking tripod, or VR needing to be serviced) …but who knows. Some reviews (SLRGear for example) do show it to be a failure at 85mm and f/4, though it is improved quite a bit at 5.6 and 8.0.

            • T.I.M

              Then you must have a lemon, mine is perfect (so perfect that I wonder if it’s not better than it should be !).
              I have 9 primes lenses to compare with, including the ultra sharp AF-s 200mm f/2 VR
              And I bought that 24-120mm f/4 VR on Ebay for only $700 (new, pulled from a camera+lens kit)

            • Unless we were to compare shooting conditions, shutter speeds, tripod support, etc. I’m going to hope that sharper results are possible by way of BOTH better technique on my part, and maybe a bit of optical calibration or VR repair/tune-up.

              I’d be curious to hear how your 24-120 f/4 performs at f/4 and 85mm; comparing to the potentially bad results from reviews like SLRGear.com. I have the 85mm f/1.8 G and even wide open or at f/2 there is a noticeable advantage in the prime; by f/4 the difference is laughable.

            • T.I.M

              I did shoot farm animals last week for several days and the 24-120mm f/4 (on D800) gave me great results (I use day light fill-in flash with SB-900) and high shutter speed flash.
              I can count every single hair on the animals face !

            • Carleton Foxx

              You’ve discovered the secret to getting amazing detail from Nikon….I find that ALL Nikon lenses are beyond sharp when you shoot them using a Nikon Speedlight and a high shutter speed.

              I don’t know why that combination is so effective, but even from my D200 I would get almost limitless detail and very little noise.

              I know part of it is the extremely short flash duration, but there must be something in the camera algorithms…or witchcraft.

            • T.I.M

              using fill-in flash improve the sensor’s contrast range capability.

            • Justtakethepicture

              Feel free to post examples.

            • vasu94

              Mine is! Could there be any issues with it?

            • T.I.M

              yes if your Camera is made in Japan and your lens made in a country with 50hz power frequency (China/Thailand) then you need AF fine tune.

            • Nikon1isAwesome!

              Why would this make any difference on items that run on battery power?

            • Justtakethepicture

              Holy c**p, that’s one of the oddest theories I’ve ever heard.

            • Alyosha Karamazov

              I don’t get it: Sendai is 50 Hz.

            • vasu94

              My D750 with the 24-120 both come from japan

            • Justtakethepicture

              Way to patronise dude.

            • I’m struggling with the long end of my 24-120 f/4 VR a little bit as well, but I can’t yet tell if it is due to shutter/mirror shock, tripod wind factors, faulty VR, …or the lens is just darn soft. I do get pretty incredible results some of the time at 85-120mm, however as review sites like SLRGear show, it is possible to get a horribly soft copy of the lens.

              More testing is needed, but I think you’re right- there is no free lunch with zoom sharpness, not even when you make the tradeoff to f/4. I wish Nikon had made 24-105 f/4 VR that was tack sharp through the entire range, than the two “slightly better than mediocre” 24-85 and 24-120.

            • Les Scott Aston

              The Vr must be switched off when used with a tripod or you will get blurred images.

            • I have found this to be a completely lens-to-lens, situation-dependent issue that is more often NOT an issue than it is. Most modern lenses know exactly when you’re on a tripod and the VR doesn’t cause any problems.

              Having said that, if it is a calm day with no wind then I obviously don’t hesitate to turn off VR. On the other hand, even when using a tripod, if there is a slight breeze it can actually help to leave VR on, in my tests. It really depends on the lens, the focal length, and the amount of “tripod leg vibrato” you’re dealing with.

              Even still, the 24-120 is often un-sharp at 120mm even when using a super-fast shutter speed in broad daylight, when stabilization should not be a factor.

              What I was referring to when I mentioned “faulty VR”, actually, was the fact that I have owned multiple lenses that simply had a bad VR motor, and the images were actually more blurry when using VR in normal hand-holding conditions; switching VR off actually yielded sharper images even at shutter speeds where VR could have been a help.

            • VR useful for stabilizing your hand held shots, but I would much rather have my f/2.8 to also allow me to capture moving subjects, like my kids, in lower light situations. F/4 is often too slow for such work.

            • T.I.M

              you are right, for that kind of pictures I use my
              AF-s 35mm f/1.4
              AF-s 50mm f/1.4
              AF-s 85mm f/1.4
              AF-s 200mm f/2 (+VR)
              The D800 is clean up to 400 ISO

            • sickheadache

              TIM ..haters hate and complain over nothing. yssup.

            • T.I.M

              Grandma, did you take your medicines today ?

            • CERO

              did they refresh the 24-120mm?

            • T.I.M

              yes, the only good one is the last one, with F/4 constant aperture and VR

        • For a landscape photographer who shoots everything at f/11 or f/16, yup the 24-120 f/4 VR is a dream lens.

          However the minute you’re thrown into a pitch-black reception hall or church, you can barely see through the viewfinder on that thing, let alone shoot a sharp shot without adding extra light or cranking up another stop of ISO. Oh, and those wedding / portrait photogs love their creamy bokeh too.

          I say that party sarcastically as a wedding photographer myself, who previously owned the 24-70 2.8 and now owns the 24-120 f/4. (I do shoot landscapes in my spare time)

          TLDR: this lens is worth buying, if you need what it offers. Otherwise, yup, stick with the existing 24-70 2.8, it’s already incredibly sharp even on 36 MP. Or get an f/4 zoom instead, with ISO performance these days most shooters really don’t need as much light as they think they do…

          • T.I.M

            with the 24-120mm f/4 on my D800 I see clear, maybe your camera’s viewfinder is not as bright and big as the one on the D800/F6

            • In daylight it’s fine, but when you’re pushing ISOs and shutter speeds to their shootable limits in a pitch-dark reception hall, f/4 is no fun. It’s doable, but it’s definitely harder to see through the viewfinder compared to a good 2.8 zoom. And I’ve used the D750, D810, D800, D600, D700, etc….

          • T.I.M

            when I shoot weedings I use my primes lenses (from 18mm f/2.8 to the 400mm f/2.8) for portraits and I use the 24-120mm f/4 for the ceremony shoots where speed (not aperture) is important.

            • Ditto. I love my primes, and I use them as often as I can, but a few times during a wedding day require a zoom. If the ceremony is outdoors, I’m fine. But if it’s a pitch-dark church or reception hall, I reach for my primes again.

            • NewsCamera

              I also have the AF Nikkor 18mm f/2.8D. It’s claimed to be one of Nikon’s least-sharp lenses (I tend to agree). What is your experience with your copy?

            • T.I.M

              I love that lens, I find it sharper than the 14mm f/2.8 (especially in the corners).
              Built quality is excellent, and it takes 77mm filters.

            • Juan Santos

              I believe this is going to be a great wedding lens, it has the range which is most commonly used when shooting weddings.

        • Aldo

          Yeah you could buy both the old 24-70 and 24-120 for the same money

          • CSIROC

            I can pick up a 24-120 F4 for $600. Please point out a 24-70 F2.8 at that price, I will buy it now.

            • Aldo

              “same money” (as nikon 24-70 VR)

            • CSIROC

              Ah…got it.

          • T.I.M

            wen you’re a pro, money does not count, you will spend $10,000,00 for a 400mm f/2.8 or only $450.00 for a 50mm f/1.4 but you will use BOTH because they give you the results you need.

            • Aldo

              I’m a professional photographer but I’m also in the business of making money. Perhaps I make less than those who have the luxury of spending mindlessly… thus I have to choose and buy my tools adequately without breaking the bank.

            • T.I.M

              @ Aldo
              So if you’re a pro what are you doing on NR ?
              Go back to work, NR is for retired photographers (like me)
              :o)

            • Aldo

              @TIM The events I cover are mostly during weekends… I get to make my schedule during the week… right now I get to have my two year old jump on me as I type this response.

            • T.I.M

              make sure you take plenty nice pictures of your kid, they grow fast…

            • Aldo

              @Tim … no kidding. I try my best… even if it is with a cellphone.

            • NicP

              24-70g is a far better lens than 24-120VR at f/4 but with less useful range. For wedding photogs on budget a used 24-70g with 70-200 f2.8 or f/4, or even 24-70g with an 85mm or 105macro are good choices.

            • Aldo

              @ NICP … I worked with the old nikon 24-70 for a long time. It is a fantastic lens, but ever since I inclined to prime lens usage it saw very little action… I sold not because I didn’t use it… but because it was gonna need maintenance soon. Now that I need to replace it… I wanna go with something cheaper.

            • NewsCamera

              I initially had a huge internal debate with myself when choosing my mid-range “everything” zoom. I chose the AF-S Nikkor 24-120mm f/4.0 VR over the 24-70mm for its longer focal length, and it’s since become my primary (strobe-fired) event lens (for available-light, I still count on f/1.4 primes: 24mm, 35mm, 50mm, 85mm). Overall, I’m very happy with the 24-120’s performance (but, again, it’s only used with strobes), since shooting anything other than a single, wider than f/4.0 is dangerous anyway.

              So, I was initially excited to hear of the new VR-stabilized 24-70mm, but I think the added weight, bulk and expense isn’t really worth it (especially since my handheld technique os pretty solid). Still, it’s a very enticing lens.

            • Juan Santos

              I hear people complain about the weight of the lens, I used to shoot weddings with a Hasselblad ELM because I wanted the best image possible, if you are critical about you work, you will get the best lens you can afford and won’t worry about weight. VR is just a tool to assist to take better photos, whats important is the resolution and the sharpness of the lens.

            • Nikon1isAwesome!

              When you’re a pro money counts a lot. Maybe more photographers need to go to business school….

            • T.I.M

              you’re right money count a lot that’s why you’re not afraid to spend $$$$ if it can get you the right tool to do the job right.

            • Nikon1isAwesome!

              If one is a pro, he already has equipment to do his current work. So, you’re talking about an equipment upgrade or venturing into new work. Both of which require a cost-benefit analysis. A pure pro will not change equipment that works for him without seeing some dramatic benefit that will translate into improved cash flow. How many man-hours are required to recoup the cost? Can you really take that hit to your income when you have tuition due for two kids in college? Am I loosing business because my gear is obsolete? Can I produce my art on the equipment that I have? Am I satisfied with my art? Am I a gear-head?

              Of course the story is different if this is a part-time gig to pay for equipment, or if you are mostly an enthusiast that does not depend on profits to live. I mostly want my tools to get out of my way which I why I still shoot the D700. I really won’t upgrade that body until it fails or another camera comes out with similar controls and tremendous improvements.

            • T.I.M

              I think you’re right, my brother is doing car racing, he still have his Ford model T and sometimes he even pass the finish line !

            • Nikon1isAwesome!

              Wow. I’m pretty impressed that he is not losing revenue nor is dissatisfied with the results he’s getting. In fact, I wonder if he’d be a pro at all – unless of course he races in some sort of niche antique car races.

              Are you really this dense?

        • EarlFargis

          The question for most folks: Is it worth an upgrade? Everyone has to answer this for themselves but at the introductory price I can’t see many taking the plunge. I have the Tamron which will have to be good enough. Maybe some years down the line I can think used or even refurbished.

        • sickheadache

          TIM..haters hate. Go on and buy that sloppy bs 24-120vr mess…I will be glad to provide you links to the not so good reviews. BUT that lens is perfect for you. It is crap.

        • Tomas Ramoska
    • sickheadache

      TIM Haters Hate.

  • Ken Elliott

    I’m not a huge fan of VR, except with longer lenses. Otherwise, there seems a bit of a mixed bag. Heavier, longer, less sharp up close, and that weird filter size are concerns. I’ve not seen anything showing optical superiority over the previous version.

  • Russell Ferris

    Buddy didn’t complain about the price enough, 2400 euros must be peanuts.

    • T.I.M

      if that new 24-70mm f/2.8 VR is made in China then it does not worth more than $1500

  • Hans Bull

    Distortion at 24mm is really bad

    • Ken Elliott

      Yeah, I thought it bad as well. The old one is not that bad.

    • Mike Gordon

      Based on what? A big reason Nikon went 82mm was to fix the distortion at 24mm…

      • Hans Bull

        Did you see the brick wall sample image? “We don’t care about distortion any more, you can fix it in post” seems to be the new strategy for Nikon lens designers.

        • vriesk

          With even more megapixels arriving, distortion is less and less of an issue if the lens delivers resolution.

          (you lose some resolution on distortion correction done with software, but with a lot of sharp pixels is not such big of a deal)

        • If it can be corrected using a “lens profile” without significant loss of sharpness, I’d take distortion any day instead of coma, severe vignetting, fringing / CA, or general softness. You can’t correct any of those (except vignetting, at lower ISOs) in post-production.

        • But is this “really” a new design? It’s starting to sound like a minor update that should have happened 5 years ago.

          • Justtakethepicture

            5 years ago? You mean only 3 years after it was released?

        • fjfjjj

          As a lens designer, you can’t optimize everything and still maintain mass-producibility and an acceptable price-point. If designers are optimizing other factors which are difficult to correct in post, at the expense of easily correctable gross spatial distortion, I think they’re making the right choice.

        • true

          distortion might be somewhat correctable in post if the area where distortion is happening has “straight lines” on which you can check whether there’s distortion or not. Simply activating “lens profile” on DXO or LR doesn’t automatically correct all of the distortion, only 30% or 50%. You have to play with the slider yourself a bit (and here’s where the visual que is important, you need to have some lines to check the distortion level).

          If that distortion happens to be happening on the face on a person that’s on the edge/corner of the lens, that face is lost, no ammount of post-process distortion correcting will correct a distorted human face. That’s why I so much prefer optical distortion correction (in-lens) and not this cheap technique “let’s leave it to post”. Correcting distortion also eat’s sharpness of the area that needs to be corrected.

          It might be early for me to say, but it’s starting to look that tamron might be better lens “overall” since it’s lighter, cheaper and prolly not that much “off” from IQ wise.

          • vriesk

            Rectilinear wide angle lenses will distort close faces in the corners no matter what you do.

            • true

              I mean like in group shot, if there’s ppl to the corner of the image / lens, their faces will look terribly bad if the lens has high distortion

            • vriesk

              No, you wouldn’t really notice barrel/pincushion distortion on people’s faces, unless it’s REALLY ABSOLUTELY BAD. Nothing that the 24-120mm f/4G is anywhere near.

              What you might be noticing is the distortion due to rectilinear field of view, which happens by design (as wide angle lenses are not really meant for shooting people, most of the time).

      • T.I.M

        82mm is more to reduce fall off.

    • akkual

      Seems quite the same than the old one. Brick wall exaggerates distortion (or is extremely not friendly for any). I’d say that is somewhere around 3% barrel.

  • whisky

    i suspect, when the dust clears, DxO will rate this as the highest mega~pickle version of this lens to date. also, given it’s size and heft, no one should be surprised the price is more in line with the 70-200mm VR. JMO. =:-/

    • VanHoff

      LOL Mega-pickle!

  • MarcoS

    oh jesus…no direct link to the review????

    • the very first link in the post, you can’t miss it…

  • My only question is, have they re-designed the rear barrel with the previous 24-70’s zoom jam phenomenon in mind? I know a fair number of 24-70 mk1 owners who had their zoom ring jam up after just moderate “abuse” as a full-time photographer; same thing with the 14-24. (It has a nearly identical rear barrel casing) Just one or two faint bumps and it’s a $300-600 repair.

    It looks like they’re reversed the concave design in that area, so hopefully this bad boy is more indestructible.

    • Yeah, been there with the old version… you almost needed two of them because one was always in the shop.

      Would someone give their new 24-70 a few good bumps to see if the zoom ring jams up please? Inquiring minds want to know.

    • NicP

      all 24-70g lenses happened to have the “jammed” zoom ring or will jam in the future depends how hard life they have, mine fixed for 60 euro after suffering for one year

  • Makes my decision to buy the Tamron at the beginning of the year even better. Way to heavy and expensive. If you’re a full time pro, this lens makes sense.

    • Alan Peterson

      Yeah, the Tamron is pretty solid. My biggest complaint about it is the distortion at the wide end, but it looks like the new Nikon has issues with that as well. I’m sure the weather sealing and build quality is better on the Nikon, but not worth double the price unless your work depends on it.

      • Aldo

        I shot an event as a second shooter the other day. My colleague was working with the tamron and we were doing event prints with some of his photos. I noticed that on his group shots he was pulling all the way to 24mm and the people on the edges looked pretty terrible. I told him “hey man if you have the room… move back instead of pulling on the lens… It will make a big difference on the prints” He did this and the prints looked a lot better.

        Depending on what you shoot. There are ways to work around the limitations of a zoom lens. I’m eyeing the tamron myself as this new nikon doesn’t seem within my reach atm.

        • Eric Calabros

          So you should tell lens makers: if you cant get 24mm right, start with 30mm but make it sharp!

          • Aldo

            That’s right… but even if the lens isn’t all that at 24mm it is useful for other types of shots where edge quality don’t matter that much.

            • peter w

              I would consider this a very practical way of using a professional product with inconsistent behaviour: good solution for a bad problem.

          • NicP

            there are occasions that distortion is good/fan and so needed. If you dont like it, in formal portraits for example, you still can zoom in.

        • Alan Peterson

          It’s plenty sharp at 24mm (both on my own copy and in published tests) unless you’re counting on fine detail at the corners of full frame. It’s the distortion that irks me – it’s not such a big deal for still photography if you’re working with Adobe’s lens profiles, but it’s a major issue for panning and tilting in video.

          • Aldo

            We talking about the tamron? From what I recall I mostly noticed the peoples heads distorted and warped..

            • Alan Peterson

              Right. Distortion at the edges is bad at 24mm, but sharpness is very good, even wide open. Using Adobe’s lens correction profiles in Lightroom or Photoshop does a pretty good job fixing the distortion, but those tools aren’t available in most video suites.

            • NicP

              Your praise Tamron for its sharpness, but a good lens is not only sharpness but also the colors it produces the background blur the bokeh from highlights and so many other things, I dont think any other brand can deliver such lenses as a package of good characteristics at those price tags as Nikon.

            • Alan Peterson

              Sure, but a zoom with aspherical elements isn’t going to have great bokeh and focus rolloff at any price from any manufacturer. I’m sure you can get a clean-looking image with good foreground/background separation and no distracting artifacts with the NIkon, but you can also get that for half the price with the Tamron.

  • Aldo

    “Slightly decrease in sharpness at 70mm” … This is one of the things I wanted to see improved (if not the only thing) over the old version. It’s disappointing to hear this.

    • ZoetMB

      Agreed. I’m still using the 28-70mm f2.8 and I thought the new lens would be sharper.

    • JJ168

      The way i read it…the VR lens is very sharp from 24mm to 50mm and slightly decrease afterward compared to dirrent FL, not to the old version.

      • Aldo

        From using the old 24-70 extensively… and seeing the samples posted in this review… I can tell you that at 70mm this new lens has improved very little to nothing at 2.8 (sharpness wise)

        • JJ168

          I am not going to make any judgement from this review.
          I have the2470G myself for at least 3-4 years now. Its not my favorite lens,but its has been my most use lens. I wont be hesitate doing portrait shoot at 70mm, In fact i used it a lot at this FL for portrait when using this lens to maximize the background blur.

    • ITN

      It is based on a wide angle zoom optical structure so it shouldn’t be very surprising if the tele end is not its strongest suit.

  • Aldo

    So far it seems we are just getting a heavier and bigger 24-70 with VR added.

  • Patrick O’Connor

    I must have clicked on a different review link. The one I saw was mostly positive with a few neutral points and no negatives. Virtually everyone who’s commented so far has come to opposite conclusions having NOTHING but this review to go on!?

    • Aldo

      The original 24-70 was already great… They only needed to improve sharpness at 70mm and add VR… seems they couldn’t do both.

      • Patrick O’Connor

        “At 70mm in open aperture the lens is slightly less sharp than at the other focal lengths.” In my limited experience with the original 24-70, the difference was more than “slightly.” Maybe because it was a rental, I wasn’t impressed AT ALL with its sharpness at any focal length. Not that it wasn’t sharp, mind you, but no more so than the 24-85 that came with my camera.
        I’ve learned that you can’t really trust other people’s impressions of a lens, or anything for that matter. You just have to try it yourself.
        Case in point: I went back and forth on getting the 28-300 due to so many poor reviews. When I finally got one for my last trip to Japan, I could have kicked myself for waiting so long! Except for paying shoots, it rarely leaves my camera.

        • Aldo

          In the end what’ matters is a lens that you are happy with. I’m glad the 28-300mm is working great for you.

          I was always conscious of my 24-70mm being soft at 2.8 past the 50mm mark and tried to stay away from that range… If I shot at 70mm I stopped it down to 3.5. I sold because I noticed it was going to need maintenance soon and decided to replace it with the same lens. In the absence of it… I quickly realize I didn’t really need it that much… It was only needed for the ‘transition’ parts of events. I was considering this new 24-70mm VR… but after hearing the price… weight, size, I’m sticking to my primes and picking up a cheaper zoom.

          • Patrick O’Connor

            I’ve been thinking about this lens, as well, but shooting mostly landscapes, industrial, and wildlife, it could easily be replaced by a 50mm to transition between wide and long.
            Still, there are times…

  • Carleton Foxx

    Thank the gods, finally a reviewer who is not too “professional” to give us photos of a brick wall. I always find them extremely useful because those square grids people always use don’t show the distortion as well as rectangular bricks. So bravo for them!

    • nwcs

      Unless the bricks weren’t laid level on each layer.

  • saywhatuwill

    Never saw this reported by my Norton anti-virus before, but before you click on the link to read the review be careful. You’ve been warned.

    “Scam Insight: Personal Information Risk

    http://foto-info.si/review-of-nikon-af-s-24-70mm-f2-8e-ed-vr/No known threats were found on this site, but…

    It asks for personal information and is not well established with the Norton Community. Use caution about entering any of your information on this site.”

  • TheAwfulTruth

    But what of the new Tokina 24-70 2.8? No VR, but I don’t need it. 82mm filter as well BUT . . . only US$1000. If it is optically anywhere near the Nikkor, it will be my buy. Rumors of a Sigma “A” in the same lens are flying around too.

    • AYWY

      Considering the design considerations of all the released Sigma Art lenses, a 24-70 f/2.8 A will probably weigh 2kg. 😛

      Didn’t own a Tokina but spent a lot of time going through their reviews. A common trend appears to be that they perform extremely well WRT sharpness and resolution, but are flare-and-ghost-prone.

      • KnightPhoto

        Aren’t the Sigma Art line exclusively primes at the moment? Oh, just remembered the 24-35 f/2, is that an Art?

        I think (from what I’ve read) the Arts have the res/sharpness but sacrifice some on the bokeh. The equivalent f/1.4 Nikons are the opposite.
        I’d like to have the f/1.4 Nikons for their bokeh (particularly the 58mm and 85mm) and the odd Art. Sure in Theatre the Art’s would be better for me but in that venue zoom is so highly important, for which the new 24-70 looks great. For people photography and artistic use of f/1.4 aperture, I’d rather have the Nikon primes and for event and landscape I’d rather have the 24-70VR.

        I’ve already commented my 24-70 is sharp at 70 and I expect the new one is as good if not better. And clearly at 24 the new lens is better. All in all, aside from price, the new lens is “just exactly what we asked for” 😉

  • sickheadache

    IT is a Handsome Lens. Too Bad TIM reviewed a lens he has never owned or used. Failure.

    • nwcs

      But he used it on the D900 so give him props for that!

  • Lee Myers

    If you had to shoot 2.8 at 24mm, would you use your 12-24 or 24-70?

    • TheInfinityPoint

      The 12-24 is a DX lens, 24-70 is an FX lens so not the same. The 12-24 also has a max aperture of f/4…

      • Lee Myers

        I meant to say 14-24. Thanks for the correction.

        • Russell Ferris

          The 14-24 is flawlessly corrected at 24mm as far as my amateur eyeballs tell.

    • Aldo

      I think you mean the 14-24… if that’s the case, this lens is ‘perfect’ in all aspects from what I hear… it would be the choice to shoot at 24mm

      • fjfjjj

        The 14-24 has major focus-shift issues.

        • PhotoJoe55

          I have absolutely no complaints at all about the AF-S 14-24mm f2.8 …it was worth every penny!

          • fjfjjj

            It was worth every penny to me also, but the focus shift is very real. You might never notice it if you only shoot stopped-down and/or distant focus.

            • PhotoJoe55

              Yes, I see. 45 Years in this business, and using this lens since it’s introduction in 2007, it took a little girl like you to explain my mistakes to me. The only real mistake I made, was making a comment to someone that reads about gear, more than they actually use it. I’ll tell you what; You go back to your Spec. Sheets, and I won’t send any comments your way ever again. Is that fair enough? I know several people who shoot Nikon just because of this lens, and I hope that they don’t make the mistake of conversing with you either. Good luck in your studies!

            • fjfjjj

              I didn’t think you made any mistakes, but now that you’ve called me a “little girl” you’re well on your way.

            • PhotoJoe55

              Is that not your picture?

            • outkasted

              DUDE You better step away from my girl before i give you the virtual smack down!

            • PhotoJoe55

              She was offended when I called her a Girl, but don’t you have anything better to do with your time, than threaten me? I’ll turn my notifications off, because I’m a little busy right now. Also, that comment was like a week ago. Do you search for conversations to enter, just to make threats?

            • outkasted

              its a joke you moron!

            • PhotoJoe55

              You’re sticking your nose where it doesn’t belong, and I’m the moron? You should think about that! The Girl, Woman, or Person …what ever?? is apparently a lens Designer, who knows much more than all the Photographers that comment here, so I think we should just mind our own business, and leave (her?) alone! This was a place for conversation, but it has become much to hostile for people that were just talking friendly. I forgot about the recap that they send out weekly, so have your last word and lets end it, okay? I’m done here now. … Good Luck to you.

            • outkasted

              GTFO!

    • TheInfinityPoint

      It would have to do with what your main use for the lens is…

  • TheInconvenientRuth

    Got to play with one very briefly today, but no chance to test it properly.. Yes, it’s bigger and slightly heavier, but I think it actually feels better to hold. Funny thing is that the 24-70/2.8E is now BIGGER than the 300/4.0PF 😀

  • fjfjjj

    The old 28-70mm f/2.8D AF-S ED-IF (my copy anyway) still leaves nothing be desired on a D810, except perhaps for 24mm.

    • outkasted

      I have this lens too and it needs to be serviced. I guess one of my main question is what is the color comparison between this and the 24-70mm/2.8 (which i had many years ago but dropped overboard, I’ve been using primes since)

      • fjfjjj

        The old 28-70 does have a strange warmth about it. The color of the 24-70 is more neutral.

  • PhotoJoe55

    The Tamron doesn’t even come close. I think I’ll be trading up for the new Nikon version. I’ll wait a month or two, just in case they have any bugs to work out. We should know by then.

  • peter w

    Mcafee doesn’t like the site and advises to avoid a visit. So, no 24-7 F2,8 VR for me at this moment. I’ll just have to keep using the 35-70 F2,8 AF-D.

  • br0xibear

    Don’t know if anyone’s posted this article from amateur photographer yet…

    Hands-on with the new Nikon AF-S Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8E ED VR lens
    http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/latest/photo-news/hands-on-with-the-new-nikon-af-s-nikkor-24-70mm-f2-8e-ed-vr-lens-58713

    • KnightPhoto

      Thanks Broxi. As she mentions, at least us low light event people can consider the new Beast in town 😉

  • Hans Bull

    Get rid of that useless Norton stuff and switch to Linux

    • saywhatuwill

      Okay.

  • Chris Bilodeau

    I never really felt my 24-70 f/2.8 was in need of an update, certainly not VR. Now we have a bigger lens with weird filter size and something else to break.

  • Back to top