Nikon 24-70mm 2.8

AchimT

AchimT

Suspended / Banned
Messages
340
Edit My Images
No
The above lens gets really good results with regard to chromatic aberrations in all reviews - except on Dxomark, where they apparently measured seriously bad results.

Everyone says this lens is really good, can anyone explain why only Dxomark thinks it is so bad with regards to CA?

Thanks in advance
 
Can only speak for real world experience, its brilliant!!!
 
Thanks! I've seen truly stunning pictures taken with that lens, I could not understand Dxomark's results at all. So I wanted to get some more opinions from real users.
 
Dxomark may have got hold of a bad copy, not that I am defending them. Can't fault mine anyway

Realspeed
 
Last edited:
Another vote for it being a fantastic lens!
 
I use the older version of this lens which is a 28-70 f2.8 and is superb, and this 24-70 suppose to be better. Friend got one and he said he uses it 90% of the time.
 
It scores 28 on there when you change it to D800. I think it's only primes that score above 30 on there.

I've never tried it on anything bar the D800, and it is a great lens. But ... have to admit that since buying the sigma 35mm 1.4 [which score a whopping 39 on DXO] , the 24-70 doesn't get used very often. It is a bit shocking to see them halve the rating for the 24-70 when tested on a D300 though.
 
Last edited:
I never even thought about the Sigma to be honest but looking at these results perhaps I'm missing something good?

Just curious, but is the Nikon 35mm weatherproofed like the 24-70mm? And is the Sigma?
 
Used this lens for an event this week and it was simply amazing.Rented it from lensforhire UK and there service was great.

I'm now saving to by one .
 
becuase theyre idiots. complete and utter idiots. nothing else to say

making my post long enough so you can see my sig. so you can see my photos and know im not a complete joker
 
Last edited:
gman said:
I never even thought about the Sigma to be honest but looking at these results perhaps I'm missing something good?

Just curious, but is the Nikon 35mm weatherproofed like the 24-70mm? And is the Sigma?
Click to expand...

The sigma 35 1.4 is a remarkable lens. Especially for the price. It's not weather sealed but - there is a rubber seal between hood and lens [ok, it's not a 'proper seal' but push any plastic against rubber and you pretty much will have seal], that nobody seems to mention in the reviews - and I think it is worth mentioning. That will prevent leakage through the connection between at least. otherwise, treat it as a non-sealed on the mount. That's the only con against this lens over a Nikon 35 1.4, which is sealed at mount, I think.

sparkoss, seriously ... we've been there a zillion times. End of day, they run tests, you either take it or leave it. But saying they are idiots is just ....
 
Last edited:
This lens is the workhorse of my camera bag and many others I'm sure. Its performance is rock solid in day to day use. DxoMark should actually spend more time shooting with it, rather than pixel peeping and fretting over charts. IMO.
 
The 24-70 f2.8 is a great lens, but it does have some problems.

It suffers from field curvature on the wide end, and CA is not the best until you stop down a bit, no. I've owned 2 of these as well, and both were the same, and I have access to 16 more of them at work... and every on of those I've used has been identical.

It's a zoom lens. It will never be as good as a prime.

It is still possibly the best zoom lens of that focal range you can buy today though.
 
Anal-ysis, mesurbating and pixel peeping.

Real photographers don't give two hoots about that sort of nonsense.

Real photographers get to know, understand and exploit the limitations of their equipment.

Real photographers take photographs. Just think back in the heyday of photography, when there was no digital, only film. An era when many great images were captured, and no time was wasted looking for problems that are not really there.

Take your camera and your lenses and get out there and take some real photographs .... otherwise, just put it all on ebay and go take up another hobby such as chemistry where infinite measurements and analysis is actually a good use of your time.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for telling us what real photographers do. We have no idea, as none of us are real photographers.
 
Pookeyhead said:
as none of us are real photographers.
Click to expand...

A real photographer wouldn't come on here worried about buying a Nikon 24-70mm 2.8 because of some mesurbating results.

That lens has a pretty good reputation on its own. If there was ever proof of someone getting distracted by unnecessary anal-ysis, mesurbating and pixel peeping it was that question.

But a real photographer would also simply go to a shop and try one, or even rent one for a few days.
 
My point is you're being patronising in the extreme. For some people, £1300 is a great deal of money, and isn't a tax write off like it is for "real" photographers.

Going into a shop is not as easy as it used to be either these days. Renting one costs a reasonable amount of money. Some people just like to get a hands opinion from someone who actually uses one rather than be swayed by popular opinion.

When you buy a car, do you just buy whatever a "Professional" advises you to buy?

Your opinion of what real photographers want is obviously clouded by your own opinions too.
 
Renting one costs a reasonable amount of money.
Click to expand...

Fixation will rent you a 24-70 for £30 a day. Won't exactly break the bank will it !

Whether £1,300 is hard earned cash or a tax write-off is irrelevant. It is counterproductive in the extreme to waste your time mesurbating and fretting over some random numbers or graphs on a page. Photography is an art, not a science. You need to treat it as such. For example, certain lenses may work great for some types and styles of photography but not for others.

Whether £1,300 means a lot to you or is just a business expense, you should be making your purchasing decisions based on real-life scenarios, not numbers and graphs that don't really mean anything.
 
f99bokeh said:
Fixation will rent you a 24-70 for £30 a day. Won't exactly break the bank will it !

Whether £1,300 is hard earned cash or a tax write-off is irrelevant. It is counterproductive in the extreme to waste your time mesurbating and fretting over some random numbers or graphs on a page. Photography is an art, not a science. You need to treat it as such. For example, certain lenses may work great for some types and styles of photography but not for others.

Whether £1,300 means a lot to you or is just a business expense, you should be making your purchasing decisions based on real-life scenarios, not numbers and graphs that don't really mean anything.
Click to expand...
So what if you end up with a crap copy, there are some you know.
 
So what if you end up with a crap copy, there are some you know.
Click to expand...

A crap copy when renting from Fixation ? That won't happen.

A crap copy when buying ? If there is a real (not just mesurbating) demonstrable fault then you can get it replaced or repaired under warranty (if you're buying as a private individual you also have the benefit of consumer rights, even more so if you buy using your plastic friend).
 
Last edited:
f99bokeh said:
you should be making your purchasing decisions based on real-life scenarios, not numbers and graphs that don't really mean anything.
Click to expand...

Which is probably why he's here. Read the post.... he has read the numbers, and seems to be either confused by them, or has decided (quite rightly) that they're all a load of [PLEASE DON'T TRY TO BYPASS THE SWEAR FILTER]..... so he comes on here to ask more experienced people their real life, real world opinions.... to be greeted by a hugely patronising statement about "real" photographers not being bothered about such things.

If you have an opinion about the lens... give it. If not... don't.

You can't define what a "real" photographer is anyway.
 
Pookeyhead said:
If you have an opinion about the lens... give it. If not... don't.
Click to expand...

Its one of the lenses I use most for all sorts of applications.

Hence I am somewhat justified in when I tell it how it is about analists, measurbators and pixel peepers.

There is good reason why the lens has obtained the reputation it has.

Pookeyhead said:
You can't define what a "real" photographer is anyway.
Click to expand...

I offered a big hint.... they are the ones who don't give a toss about anal-ysis, mesurbating and pixel peeping.... they are the ones who make their living from photography rather than the hobbyists who are the ones who spend more time mesurbating than taking photos.

Anyway, you enjoy your graphs and charts Pookeyhead... I'm off to take photos. See ya.
 
Does this mean I'm not a real tog unless I have one

While we are at it, what else do I need
 
The universe would be a much better place if DXOMark just disappeared from the face of the earth.

It's a great lens.
 
f99bokeh said:
Anyway, you enjoy your graphs and charts Pookeyhead... I'm off to take photos. See ya.
Click to expand...


LOL.

Pookeyhead said:
he has read the numbers, and seems to be either confused by them, or has decided (quite rightly) that they're all a load of [PLEASE DON'T TRY TO BYPASS THE SWEAR FILTER]
Click to expand...

Learn to read boy.

I'm sure we'd all like to see the photographs a "real" photographer makes. All us pretend photographers can probably learn a thing or two.
 
Last edited:
Don't feed the trolls.
 
f99bokeh said:
Buy the kit you need based on your requirements.

If you need one, buy one. If you don't, don't. Only you can answer that question.
Click to expand...

How will I know unless you tell me, that's what this place is for... advice ?

I don't want people thinking I'm not real
 
Last edited:
seriously..... don't feed the trolls.

He'll undoubtedly reply with "If you need to ask whether you need one, you don't need one".


[edit]

The only sensible answer I can give to this, is that a lens like the 24-70's only real advantages are optical quality, durability, and speed. In real life, practical use, as f99bokeh said, the results will be roughly the same no matter what lens you use unless you "pixel peep". Where his logic breaks down somewhat is when you factor in what you do with the images you take, so quality may not be required... If all you do is put images online, and never print them, then there's no real point in spending £1300 on this lens. If however, like me, you often exhibit, and print very large, then quality DOES become a factor... even for "real" photographers.

What YOU do may require quality... or it may not. Do you print big r need to display the images at full resolution? If not, then sharpness is probably not something to worry about.. However... there are other aspects to quality that are apparent at any resolution, such as contrast, flare control etc. However... the vast majority of hobbyists probably do not need to spend the £1300 actually. Leave durability out of the equation, and it's debatable whether most "real" photographers actually need it.

Durability speaks for itself. The 24-70 will not break unless you really abuse it. So if you get into the rough and tumble of press and sports... it may be a non-issue.


The other factor is speed. Having a zoom lens with a fast aperture allows more flexibility in low light without having to rely on higher ISOs.... but again, in reality, unless you need to do this to earn a living, going up a stop in ISO is not a deal breaker these days.. and also, again, if your images are never going to be printed beyond A4, it's an irrelevance.


The 24-70 has some downsides too. Weight. It's nearly 1Kg. Stick it on a D800, and you've got 2Kg around your neck. Do you need quality enough to put up with that?


f99bokeh just seems to be saying "you poor little amateurs don't need it". Depending on what he himself shoots of course, he probably doesn't need it either. As usual with blowhards.. no pics, no links... just attitude.
 
Last edited:
You're becoming a bit of a broken record Pookey.

I'm not a troll. Just telling it how it is. I've no time for anal-ysis, mesurbating and pixel peeping.... people should be capturing great shots, not making mountains out of [frequently non-existent] molehills. I came to Talk Photography in a hope from finding sanctuary here from the sort of nonsense found at DPReview... obviously I was wrong.

Why not call Tim a troll too... he also uttered the words "spend more time shooting with it, rather than pixel peeping and fretting over charts. IMO".
 
Last edited:
Thank you David for a sensible reply

H
 
Pookeyhead said:
The other factor is speed. Having a zoom lens with a fast aperture allows more flexibility in low light without having to rely on higher ISOs.... but again, in reality, unless you need to do this to earn a living, going up a stop in ISO is not a deal breaker these days.. and also, again, if your images are never going to be printed beyond A4, it's an irrelevance.
Click to expand...

Hmm The other day I had a 30x20 print done of a photo taken on my D5100 18-105 ... 62mm crop (film 93mm) 1/320 ISO 100 f9 IT WAS WICKED sharp as a pin and the lady was well pleased
Just luck ?
 
Last edited:
f99bokeh said:
I'm not a troll. Just telling it how it is. I've no time for anal-ysis, mesurbating and pixel peeping.... people should be capturing great shots, not making mountains out of [frequently non-existent] molehills.
Click to expand...

Their shots will be essentially the same regardless of lens. It doesn't necessarily mean they can't ask the question. Clearly some people have a need for it.. you included. Why did YOU pay £1300 on a lens then if "pixel peeping" is such a stupid thing to do?

f99bokeh said:
Why not call Tim a troll too... he also uttered the words "spend more time shooting with it, rather than pixel peeping and fretting over charts. IMO".
Click to expand...

Because Tim didn't bolt on a supremely patronising and condescending statement on the end of his comment.

You've no more idea of what a "real" photographer needs than anyone else has, because not all "real" photographers have the same needs.

In essence I agree with you. No amount of gear will make your photographs any better, but some people have a real need to have the best optical quality possible... ironically, that could well include you too.. being an owner of the same lens.


Hell on earth said:
Hmm The other day I had a 30x20 print done of a photo taken on my D5100 18-105 ... 62mm crop (film 93mm) 1/320 ISO 100 f9 IT WAS WICKED sharp as a pin and the lady was well pleased
Just luck ?
Click to expand...

Not at all, no. Plenty of non-pro lenses perform brilliantly. As I said above, optical quality is only one reason for spending that amount of cash, and for most people, probably not the most important one.

Incidentally... if I wanted to make a point about how equipment doesn't matter, and "real" photographers don't "measurbate", I'd be posting up some of my astounding work taken with basic equipment. Being such a real photographer who values the image above all else, you've no doubt got an extensive folio of really excellent images you can make your point with. Why not educate us?
 
Last edited:
See to me and I guess many, I really need to know that a lens will deliver more than one I already have, the gap in price has to match the gap in quality

People get snobby about camera/lens often with little to match the hype
 
Hell on earth said:
See to me and I guess many, I really need to know that a lens will deliver more than one I already have, the gap in price has to match the gap in quality

People get snobby about camera/lens often with little to match the hype
Click to expand...

In all honesty? Is it worth the extra? I'd say no... not unless you earn a living from it, and need it to perform flawlessly every time without fail, or you need a faster zoom lens because you find yourself constantly on the limit of ISO.

As for optical quality, you're unlikely to see a difference between the 24-70 and cheaper, slower lenses unless you print really big. Stopped down, "lesser" lenses often perform superbly. What your also paying for is the ability to perform quite well wide open too. Lenses, especially zooms, that can perform well wide open are hard to design and manufacture.. and hence more expensive.

You're definitely into diminishing returns with lenses of this ilk.

However.... if you merely WANT it? Go for it... who the hell am I to tell you you shouldn't unless you need it? :)
 
Last edited:
Want or need.... that's the one that catches many out

A friend of mine yesterday got a D7100, he already had a D7000 and a D800, I'm pretty sure he has never used any of them other than in Auto :D
 
Hell on earth said:
Want or need.... that's the one that catches many out

A friend of mine yesterday got a D7100, he already had a D7000 and a D800, I'm pretty sure he has never used any of them other than in Auto :D
Click to expand...

Pedant mode on.....

Bet he has, no auto mode on a d800

Mode off
 
No wonder he always leaves it at home :lol:
 
Pookeyhead said:
Why did YOU pay £1300 on a lens then if "pixel peeping" is such a stupid thing to do?
Click to expand...

Because I did the obvious and sane thing that I'm suggesting others do rather than pixel peep and stare mindlessly at meaningless graphs and numbers.

I determined I had a need for a mid-range zoom that would fit my new requirements better than what I had at available the time.

Based on fundamental specs extrapolated from my requirements ( i.e. f/stop, focal length) I took a look at the Nikon website to see what was on offer.

The 24-70 looked like it would fit quite well. I rented one, found it to be just what I needed, so I bought one. End of story.

No pixel peeping, no mesurbating, no over analysis of random rubbish. Just pure, hard facts.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top