Which 24-70 would you recommend?

[adamhiram]

The 24-70 is the most boring lens I've ever owned.

the 24-70 is a compromise lens, with compromised optics and a not very useful compromised zoom range.

While I agree that 24-70 is not a particularly exciting focal range, I would argue it is often the most useful, particularly for things like events and weddings. It is also worth noting that whether or not it is a "compromise lens" depends on the particular model. The Z-mount 24-70 f/2.8 lens is notable for being as sharp or sharper than equivalent primes at many focal lengths, with fairly pleasing bokeh, which definitely impacted my decision to opt for a normal zoom in lieu of multiple primes. The trade-off is that I don't get the wider apertures that come with primes, but I have longer portrait lenses for those situations anyway.

Also, glad to see you shooting (and sharing) again!

 

[photoflyer]

Yes, it's versatile, but I always find myself pegging 70mm -- especially for things like portraits or other shots where compression can help isolate. It's not quite enough range to be a single lens solution. Shooting a 28-105mm, imho, was a much better compromise.

I get that. I was at an outside gathering recently and shot the entire thing with the 70-200 f 2.8 L. I suspect much of the time I was between 70-100 or more as I could stand further back and get more candid shots with a bit of compression. I had the 85 f 1.8 with me but never pulled it out.

 

[RAZKY]

The 24-70 is the most boring lens I've ever owned.

A boring person can make a boring image with ANY lens!

 

[ac12]

3.15lbs. ROFL.

Yes, it's versatile, but I always find myself pegging 70mm -- especially for things like portraits or other shots where compression can help isolate. It's not quite enough range to be a single lens solution. Shooting a 28-105mm, imho, was a much better compromise.

You appear to be looking primarily at the issues with the 24-70 lens, from your PoV.

I love a boring lens. I just want it to do the job.
As you said, it's versatile.

If I need the optics of a prime, I would use a prime, rather than a zoom.
If I need speed, I would consider the f/1.8 primes for more speed, over the f/2.8 zoom.
But you use the primes at the cost of losing the FL flexibility of the zoom. Do I need the FL flexibility of a zoom, or can I live with the fixed FL of the prime? If I NEED the FL flexibility, then I have to use the zooms, and live with the lesser optics and 1 stop slower speed.

If I have a need to go past 70, in a single lens, I would use a lens that can go past 70. Like the 28-105 you mention, or the Tamron 35-150/2.8-4.
Having a 24-70 + 35-150 + 70-200 kit with the considerable overlap may seem unreasonable, to some. However, I have a similar overlapping kit and it works, for me. Each lens has a purpose that the other overlapping lens cannot meet, or cannot meet well.

There is no ONE lens that will do everything you want it to do. A Jack-of-all-trades, is a master of none.
A lens is simply one of many tools in the photographer's tool box.
It is the photographers job to select the best tool for the job.

The practical issue for that tool box of lenses is cost.
You can't afford every lens for your tool box, so you will have to compromise when building your tool box.
The 80/20 rule comes into play. If I will use lens A 80% of the time and lens B 20% of the time, I would put my limited $ to lens A. For lens B, I would consider renting, for the few times that I would use it, or just do without.
If I NEED that 20% lens, then I have to budget for it.

 

[photoflyer]

This is an interesting discussion with many good points. Noobs who run across this will be well served to read it. I wish I could have back then.

 

[ntz]

unfortunately in the FX universe the 24-70 lens is irreplaceable .. everything else is crutch when we're talking about zoom lenses and covering the holy trinity focal range 16-200 .. in DX universe are notably more options imho

 

[ac12]

unfortunately in the FX universe the 24-70 lens is irreplaceable .. everything else is crutch when we're talking about zoom lenses and covering the holy trinity focal range 16-200 .. in DX universe are notably more options imho

In DX, not if you want fast f/2.8 lenses. The only DX f/2.8 lens is the 17-55/2.8.
Below the DX 17-55/2.8, you have to use either the DX 12-24/4 or the 10-24/3.5-4.5.
Above the DX 17-55/2.8 you have to switch to the FX 70-200/2.8.

As I've said before, for lenses, DX/APS-C is a stepchild for both Nikon and Canon.

For the "trinity." The closest (in production) DX equivalent to the FX 70-200/2.8 is the Tamron 35-150/2.8-4. The Tamron is a FX lens but when used on a DX camera, gives you a coverage angle of a 53-225 on an FX camera. But with a variable f/2.8-4 aperture, rather than a fixed f/2.8.

The only DX GP prime is the 35/1.8 normal lens.
There is no DX equivalent to the FX 35/1.8 moderate wide. You have to get a FX 24.

 

[Braineack]

You appear to be looking primarily at the issues with the 24-70 lens, from your PoV.

what other POV would I care about?

IMO, the 24-70 is simply a crummy range for a standard zoom lens. It's advantage is speed alone. You simply wouldn't be able to manufacture a wider-ranged zoom and keep the constant 2.8 -- the Nikon is already bonkers huge as is. Unless you gave up the wide end, which I'd be totally good with.

I've used it plenty for event photography and it always falls short - literally. If I review my event images with it, I'd say a majority of them are between ~45-70mm. Like I said I'm always pegging 70mm, to the point where I always shoot with a 70-200 on a second body -- I can't just get away with having a single lens/camera solution.

i've had very good experience shooting with a 35mm on one body as the primary lens and a 85 or 105 or 70-200 on the second. At most events, zooming between 35 and even 85 is easy enough to frame using your feet.

But, the 24-70 Is really your only choice in FX for a standard fast zoom. what else is there? Nothing really (just a legacy focal range because that's the way it's always been, and dinosaurs never like to change or innovation until they are forced). So that's what every one uses and suggests.

Again IMO, since sensors are so good anymore, I'd rather sacrifice speed to gain extra necessary reach to actually be a usable and versatile lens. This is why I prefer general shooting with the 28-105 or alike.

I'd, personally, like to see a fast FX zoom starting at 35mm and reaching to the ~120mm range.

But manufactures are now just--rightfully--producing really good useable zooms for mirrorless cameras now, since dslrs are living in the past.



But to answer the OPs question: just get whatever 24-70 2.8 you can afford. They all are good in the three options you have.

 

[ac12]

what other POV would I care about?

IMO, the 24-70 is simply a crummy range for a standard zoom lens. It's advantage is speed alone. You simply wouldn't be able to manufacture a wider-ranged zoom and keep the constant 2.8 -- the Nikon is already bonkers huge as is. Unless you gave up the wide end, which I'd be totally good with.

I've used it plenty for event photography and it always falls short - literally. If I review my event images with it, I'd say a majority of them are between ~45-70mm. Like I said I'm always pegging 70mm, to the point where I always shoot with a 70-200 on a second body -- I can't just get away with having a single lens/camera solution.

i've had very good experience shooting with a 35mm on one body as the primary lens and a 85 or 105 or 70-200 on the second. At most events, zooming between 35 and even 85 is easy enough to frame using your feet.

But, the 24-70 Is really your only choice in FX for a standard fast zoom. what else is there? Nothing really (just a legacy focal range because that's the way it's always been, and dinosaurs never like to change or innovation until they are forced). So that's what every one uses and suggests.

Again IMO, since sensors are so good anymore, I'd rather sacrifice speed to gain extra necessary reach to actually be a usable and versatile lens. This is why I prefer general shooting with the 28-105 or alike.

I'd, personally, like to see a fast FX zoom starting at 35mm and reaching to the ~120mm range.

But manufactures are now just--rightfully--producing really good useable zooms for mirrorless cameras now, since dslrs are living in the past.



But to answer the OPs question: just get whatever 24-70 2.8 you can afford. They all are good in the three options you have.

Tamron 35-150/2.8-4
Almost exactly what you asked for.
But it isn't a small light lens.

 

[mrca]

A 24-70 has made more money for photographers than any other lens. You won't see a photojournalist without one. I use all primes... except that lens. It is a work horse. Perhaps it doesn't have the character of the primes, but for events, weddings, photojournalism, it is invaluable. Buy good glass and it doesnt depreciate to nothing like a camera. I just sold a 70-200 I had purchased over 10 years ago. Paid 1400 sold for 800. Meanwhile the camera I paid 3 grand for is now worth $350.

 

[mjcmt]

Prime is not easy to use on an event where you constantly need to move and be fast. I have a 50.

So what have you decided? The Nikon 24-120 is so versatile and reasonably fast for lower lighting. Covers everything from very wide group/environment to tight portraits.

 

[Braineack]

A 24-70 has made more money for photographers than any other lens. You won't see a photojournalist without one.

If you have a FF and want a fast general shooting lens, you get a 24-70.

But, is it because it's a great lens and you can't leave home without it? or is it because there's never been any alternative?

I was planning a Spain trip for 2020, and was committed to buying a cheap ~$200 Nikon 28-105/3.5-4.5 D AF to travel with as my only lens.

 

[Braineack]

Tamron 35-150/2.8-4
Almost exactly what you asked for.
But it isn't a small light lens.

It's smaller and lighter than my 70-200 I carry around. MTF looks really good too. If I was in the market for a general lens, I'd be considering it for sure.

But right now I've been considering dumping all my camera equipment for a mirrorless of sorts.

 

[adamhiram]

It's smaller and lighter than my 70-200 I carry around.

I rented a 70-200 for an event in the spring and now everything seems small and lightweight by comparison.

 

[mrca]

Adam , I sold my 3 lb 70-200. With 46 mp, I can crop the heck out of a shot with a 135 2.0 dc that has incredible bokeh and weighs much less over my shoulder with that 24-70 on the other body. For $ 400 I picked up a 180 2.8, 8 elements not 22. What do extra lens do. Hold you glasses up to the sun and see the shadow where the lens is. It is reflecting and sucking up light, now multiply that times 22. All that blocked light doesn't reach the sensor/film.