24-70 f2.8?

[Mach0]

Use primes? Have you ever shot an event and had to change lenses only to miss the shot? I'm not a noob, brother. I'm aware that primes for te most part are optically superior. But when you need to shoot fast in low light, switching primes is for the birds. I was just wondering if there really was a good alternative to the Nikon 24-70 2.8. That's all. I want it all in one lens and I think the 24-85 2.8-4 will be the winner of this contest. Though the new 24-85 is a nicer sharper lens, it's not fast enough for events and live performance.

Carry two bodies.

 

[Derrel]

Use primes? Have you ever shot an event and had to change lenses only to miss the shot? I'm not a noob, brother. I'm aware that primes for te most part are optically superior. But when you need to shoot fast in low light, switching primes is for the birds. I was just wondering if there really was a good alternative to the Nikon 24-70 2.8. That's all. I want it all in one lens and I think the 24-85 2.8-4 will be the winner of this contest. Though the new 24-85 is a nicer sharper lens, it's not fast enough for events and live performance.

I grew up shooting prime lenses in a photojournalism background, carrying an 18-pound pack with two motorized 35mm bodies and 28,35,50,85,105,135,and 200mm primes, plus a 300 occasionally. I can remove a Nikon lens from the body hanging around my neck in less than one second. press button, wrench off, slam on other lens twist. It takes 3 seconds to change a lens. It takes 13 to 15 seconds to power rewind and re-load a roll of 35mm film. What is your point? There's no need to reload a camera with a 16-gig memory card, and you're fretting over the time it takes to swap a LENS? Come on...that is a strawman argument if I ever heard one. Put the right lens on FIRST. Or learn how to swap lenses FAST.

What's your point again? If you miss the shot, your problem is not that you have the wrong lens on, it's your own inability to anticipate, or your inexperience and inability to see that you have a modern, high-resolution camera; SHOOT the image and crop-in later, or learn to better anticipate the situation.

LOW light and f/2.8 zooms? Sorry pal. In really low light, I reach for my FAST primes...you know, the ones that let in twice, or four, or eight times as much light. I'm, sorry I wasted my time trying to help you.

 

[DCerezo]

Use primes? Have you ever shot an event and had to change lenses only to miss the shot? I'm not a noob, brother. I'm aware that primes for te most part are optically superior. But when you need to shoot fast in low light, switching primes is for the birds. I was just wondering if there really was a good alternative to the Nikon 24-70 2.8. That's all. I want it all in one lens and I think the 24-85 2.8-4 will be the winner of this contest. Though the new 24-85 is a nicer sharper lens, it's not fast enough for events and live performance.

I grew up shooting prime lenses in a photojournalism background, carrying an 18-pound pack with two motorized 35mm bodies and 28,35,50,85,105,135,and 200mm primes, plus a 300 occasionally. I can remove a Nikon lens from the body hanging around my neck in less than one second. press button, wrench off, slam on other lens twist. It takes 3 seconds to change a lens. It takes 13 to 15 seconds to power rewind and re-load a roll of 35mm film. What is your point? There's no need to reload a camera with a 16-gig memory card, and you're fretting over the time it takes to swap a LENS? Come on...that is a strawman argument if I ever heard one. Put the right lens on FIRST. Or learn how to swap lenses FAST.

What's your point again? If you miss the shot, your problem is not that you have the wrong lens on, it's your own inability to anticipate, or your inexperience and inability to see that you have a modern, high-resolution camera; SHOOT the image and crop-in later, or learn to better anticipate the situation.

LOW light and f/2.8 zooms? Sorry pal. In really low light, I reach for my FAST primes...you know, the ones that let in twice, or four, or eight times as much light. I'm, sorry I wasted my time trying to help you.

Really? Why would I fumble with different focal length primes if I don't have to? That's my point! It has nothing to do with my ability. You're quite presumptuous aren't you? And yes, a 2.8 is fast for a zoom in low light... Again, I have primes... The point is I don't want to be like you "back in your photojournalism days" switching primes when I don't have to. I shoot bands and parties, and it's 2013, If I don't want to be burdened with gear I don't think I should have to be just because you did back in the 70's or 80's or whenever you had your presumably glorious photojournalism career. If I miss a shot, I want to blame it on myself, not my gear. I think with the useless information you gave me and the rude, presumptuous nature of your comments, you may have wasted your own time and mine. Thanks though.

 

[2WheelPhoto]

Seems like there is a lot of unsubstantiated opinion available. Here's a look at "the three best" current choices in the wide-to-short telephoto zoom category on high-resolution Nikon bodies.

DxOMark - Nikon D800 and standard lens choices

Please note this passage: "Standard Zoom lenses

If you prefer the versatility that a standard zoom lens provides, the labs have tested six different models to choose from.Within those tested, it is clear that the Nikon AF-S Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8G ED is the best choice for image quality. For a zoom lens to score 28 is pretty impressive, especially given the high resolution of the camera, where flaws caused by compromises in optical design are more obvious. At $1800 it is expensive though.​

Below this Nikon lens, there are three models that all score 23. They are the Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di LD Aspherical (IF), theSigma 24-70mm f/2.8 IF EX DG HSM Nikon and the Nikon AF Zoom-Nikkor 24-85mm f/2.8-4D IF. Of these three, the Sigma lens comes out on top in the sharpness test, managing a very respectable 16P-Mpix that even beats the Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8G ED mentioned above. Sadly, it is let down by its chromatic aberration, which is a very poor at 26µm. At $899 it is also the most expensive of these three."

So..the current, NEW Sigma 24-70 is actually a very,very good zoom lens. However, there are some earlier variants Sigma made, which were priced very low, which have I think, tarnished their reputation.


​

I'm amazed at the Samyang lens score

 

[2WheelPhoto]

Dear OP, don't settle for a second best lens because of the second best price!

 

[DCerezo]

Dear OP, don't settle for a second best lens because of the second best price!

Thanks... I feel the same way, but I need something to get me through it for now. I had a 28-80 3.3-5.6 that I was going to suck it up and use until the funds for proper glass arrived but its just too slow and too soft to produce marketable images. So until I can drop the $2K on the nikon glass, I'm going to have to spend a little and get something usable. Only good to come of this is that at least when I do get that 24-70mm f/2.8 ill at least have a backup for it in case anything goes wrong

 

[Vtec44]

Use primes? Have you ever shot an event and had to change lenses only to miss the shot? I'm not a noob, brother. I'm aware that primes for te most part are optically superior. But when you need to shoot fast in low light, switching primes is for the birds. I was just wondering if there really was a good alternative to the Nikon 24-70 2.8. That's all. I want it all in one lens and I think the 24-85 2.8-4 will be the winner of this contest. Though the new 24-85 is a nicer sharper lens, it's not fast enough for events and live performance.

I prefer to shoot prime lenses especially at weddings, even though I have both Nikon 24-70 f2.8 and 70-200 f2.8 VR2 I also own a Nikon 35-70 f2.8D. It is very sharp and you can buy it for around $300 used.

 

[Ballistics]

You could always finance one from bestbuy with free interest for 18 months

 

[DCerezo]

You could always finance one from bestbuy with free interest for 18 months

Best buy doesn't have the lens... I was thinking of financing it for six months no interest at b&h or Adorama though... Just can't convince the wife yet

 

[Ballistics]

http://www.bestbuy.com/site/Nikon+-...8087014632&skuId=9336284&st=24-70mm&cp=1&lp=3

AND 18 month financing is available.

 

[Patrice]

DCerezo,

If your camera has a focus motor you could try one of these:
Tokina at x AF Pro 28 70mm F 2 8 Lens for Nikon Excellent from Japan?02 | eBay

The first versions with the screw on lens shade is the one you want. These are pretty darn good mid range FX zooms for the price. This would get you a quality lens that will not offend the CFO in the kitchen and will hold its value until you can get what you really want.

Pat

 

[DCerezo]

http://www.bestbuy.com/site/Nikon+-...8087014632&skuId=9336284&st=24-70mm&cp=1&lp=3

AND 18 month financing is available.

Well... There it is! I just have to get the ok from the boss lol. Gotta love married life. She's fine with the 24-85... But that's a $400 lens

 

[dearlybeloved]

Sorry if it's been mentioned thought I havent read all the replies but I use a Tamron 28-75 2.8 and it is a really sharp lens from what I can tell and what I have read on reviews and other feedback from the forums. If youre not looking to spend the money for the top quality then I would suggest this lens. I have it and love it but I am looking to pick u a 24-70 myself.

 

[DCerezo]

And it's finally over! I got the Nikkor 24-85mm f/2.8-4!!! Very excited too!!

 

[DCerezo]

A few options seem to exist. I'll quickly run through some.
1. Primes. 24,28,35,50 primes.
2: Older lenses: 24-85 2.8~4 AF_D, or 24-85mm f/3.3~4.5 AF-S. Also, the 28-70 f/2.8 AF-S Nikkor is widely available around $950.
3: New lens, 24-85 VR Nikkor, LOADS available that have been parted out of D600 kits...low prices due to super-abundance.
4: Reassessing the actual NEED for a 24-70. What I mean is this: these things are soooooo damned big and heavy, that frankly, I do not even want to have a zoom, when I have better,smaller,lighter primes with significantly better optical quality. Secondarily, I find the 24-70 and 28-70 Nikkors to be very threatening to "real people"...most people do not appreciate or enjoy a big-a$$, 48-ounce lens pointed at them especially at social photography distances. Results you get are, in my experience, more natural and less-forced with SMALL lenses. The 24/2.8 or 35/2 or 50/1.8 or 85/1.8 are much smaller, and lower-profile than the monster 28-70 or 24-70 Nikkors.
5: Older AF-D model,specifically the 35-70 f/2.8 AF-D for $350. GOOD quality and construction, wide availability. Supplement it with a 24mm/28 AF-D or 28/2.8 AF-D, or go for the future-proof 28/1.8 AF-S, one of the better new wide-angles.
6: 24/50/85.
7: TAMRON 28-75/2.8 + 24/2.8 AF-D NIKKOR.

I dunno...to me the most-critical thing is having the correct focal length(s) for the conditions/subject matter/environment/location. There are a lot of ways to accomplish that. The sheer size and weight of the 24-70 Nikkor means that a kit of the 24,35,50,and 85 probably weighs in at less than that one,single monster zoom, and it is possible with the 4-prime lens setup to LEAVE BEHIND ones not needed. Also, this 4-lens kit can be bought one or two lenses at a time, or in any combination; start wide and move up (ie 24 and 35mm) or start wide and fill in the long end (24 and 85), or go 24 and 50, then add the low-cost 35mm f/2 AF-D later, etc.

Last thought: the 24-70 AF-S is quite possibly going to be replaced by an updated lens, sooner rather than later...I have heard that, and I think that's true. So...keep the future in mind.

Buying already-used lenses means there is seldom any loss in value....you can sell a Nikkor for what you payed for it, or if you keep it for 3,4,5,6,7,8,9 years, it will often go up in resale value over time.

I've decided to take your advice and build a collection of primes. I think in the long run they'll make me a better photographer. Then, when business picks up, get the zooms...