Brent Ferree wrote:
I find the 24-70 to be an amazing lens, I never knew how much I would enjoy using it before I purchased it. I would not trade or sell it!
...until the new version w' VR comes out. Then the current version would clearly be sub-par.
Brent Ferree wrote:
I find the 24-70 to be an amazing lens, I never knew how much I would enjoy using it before I purchased it. I would not trade or sell it!
have you ever shot with primes? nothing beats a nice wide open f1.4 lens.. dont get me wrong the 24-70 is kick ass and my wife really enjoys using it at weddings but it just does not compare to my 50 1.4 and 85 1.4
I love the slightly different "look" of the 24-70 versus the older lenses. I appreciate the hell out of nano-coating and the flare resistance. I think it's a better investment in the future than the 28-70 (although I can't quantify that).
If you're going to do weddings and want the best kit you can get, then I think you'll make up the cost difference eventually. Those additional 4mm translate into a field-of-view difference that is very significant to me.
Yes, I'd get the 24-70 without question and feel happy that it was going to be worth every penny.
From 2.8 and above primes are usless when it comes to this lens. Don't get me wrong I love primes and we all need them at some point but the flexibility of this zoom with prime like 2.8 aperture is nice.
paparazzinick wrote:
...the zoom is heavier and after a long day of shooting it kills ya.
i went back to carrying my 20, 35, 50 and 85 instead of a 24-70 and 70-200
How heavy are those primes compared to the lens they replace?
I realize the 70-200 is not light either, but you are carrying a 20-85 range in primes to replace a 24-200 range with zooms? Do you not need 85-200 anymore? Surely the 4 primes you use are heavier than any zoom they replace. Of course if you need 1.4, then the zoom argument makes no sense for you. 2.8 is fine for me, and I prefer the versatility of a zoom, so I only have the 50 1.8 as my only prime.
I can't speak for Nick here, but as far as weight attatched to my D700 goes, it's much easier to carry it with an 85 1.8, or a 35 f2 or a 50 1.8 than it is to carry a 24-70 on it.
But my point was, you may only be "carrying" the 24-70 ON the camera, but if you are worried about weight, surely you are carrying all the other primes, adding weight to your bag.
Those who say it's too heavy. Are you using the OEM camera strap? I find using just about anything other than the OEM strap allows me to carry my D700 and 70-200 or 24-70 longer. I use a UPStrap and something similar to the LowePro.
I hiked 22km and climbed over 3500 feet over 8.5 hours on Wednesday with a D3+24-70 and was shocked at how well it carried! I wasn't using the OEM strap though - which probably helped.
The D3 really balances out the 24-70mm perfectly. If you think the Nikon 24-70 is heavy / big you should try carrying around the Sony Zeiss 24-70 f/2.8 some day!
As a wedding shooter when it comes to weight at least from my view it’s not the carry weight that kills me, its being in a constant shooting stance that affects your trapezoids. When you’re shooting for 8hrs or more a good % of that time your holding your camera up in a shooting stance. I have to strength train every other day because of shoulder surgery from years back. The 24-70 gets to me only when Im on bracket with SB900 for a long duration. Most of my shooting is done with SB900 on camera with SB800 or Qflash off camera. It’s a tough call, primes vs. 24-70. That’s why I carry (my assistant carries, ) a nice set of primes along with the 14-24, 24-70 and 70-200VRI. On higher end weddings I use more primes and off camera flash. It really depends on how much a Bride or client sees your work? Most of the Brides out there are not looking at the same things we photogs are looking at or are they? One never really knows from bride to bride? For me primes are nice for subject isolation and getting a bit more light when you need it. The lower weight is nice to. Ive come close to dumping my zooms but they are too valuable. I learned this when my 70-200 had to go in for a service repair. In the end most brides care more about you getting the shot than the art behind it. It’s a balance that I find my self fighting every time I shoot. Our art driven eyes can sometimes get in the way of why we are hired in the 1st place. I would get the 24-70! It is a chunk of glass but worth the weight and price. If you don’t feel that way sell it, there are plenty of buyers out there and your loss is nothing if you solve a critical question. I do feel your pain though as our bodies grow old. My issue has more to do with tendonitis. BTW I hand held a 200-400 for a job while my 70-200 was gone and was surprised at how well my shoulders did. This lens is not that bad for its size.
I've recently upgraded to an R-strap, and I'm blown away by how much more comfortable and useful it is to carry a D3x with 24-70, 80-200, or 200-400. No fatigue at all, faster to bring from waist to eye-level when shooting, simply delightful.
I guess the weight of a heavy camera never bothered me. My walkaround setup is the D700 with grip, and 24-70, standard D700 strap. I've shot with it all day many times, and I guess I don't think about weight that much. It certainly wouldn't affect any gear purchase either way.
Sorry if this out of topic. I've read a lot of good feedbacks about 24-70.
My question is, is there any difference in picture quality if the lense is used with D80 and D300? Is the quality better if the body is D300?
On a DX camera the lens will have less vignetting, distortion and color fringing and better resolution wide open at the sides. Otherwise resolution may be insignificantly lower lower .It is the best zoom in its range also for DX.
Here a link where you can compare perfomance on D3 vs.D200 (click on the interactive charts to use them:
PeterTan wrote:
is there any difference in picture quality if the lense is used with D80 and D300? Is the quality better if the body is D300?
Unless I'm mistaken, any lens designed for FX should perform at its absolute best on a DX camera, since the DX sensor is smaller and only gets the light output from the center of the image circle that the lens produces.
But between two DX cameras, the difference will not come from the lens in any way, only from the sensor, the software, and the processing. I don't think you'd see any real difference between the images from the D80 and the D300. The D300 might allow you to capture shots that the D80 could not get, due to other factors like the better AF engine, the weather sealing, the faster burst rate, or something else... but if you managed to get the same image from both cameras, I don't think that there would be a significant difference in the end result once it has been captured.
Kaj E wrote:
It is the best zoom in its range also for DX.
I disagree with Kaj. The best midrange zoom for a DX camera is the 17-55. The build quality, handling, image quality, AF speed, and other factors are just as good -- meaning both of them are incredibly good -- but the range of the 17-55 is much better suited to the DX sensor. The extra 15 mm of reach on the long end are not really that big a deal, but the 7 mm difference on the wide end are a much bigger deal and have a greater impact on the images you can capture.
The 17-55 can capture a field of view from 28.9° to 79°, while the 24-70 can capture a field of view from 34.3° to 84°. A first superficial glance at the numbers would seem to show a very similar five-degree difference at both ends of the range, but if you actually look at those angles and what they can do to your shooting possibilities, then you understand why Nikon created both lenses instead of simply offering one.
) a nice set of primes along with the 14-24, 24-70 and 70-200VRI. On higher end weddings I use more primes and off camera flash. It really depends on how much a Bride or client sees your work? Most of the Brides out there are not looking at the same things we photogs are looking at or are they? One never really knows from bride to bride? For me primes are nice for subject isolation and getting a bit more light when you need it. The lower weight is nice to. Ive come close to dumping my zooms but they are too valuable. I learned this when my 70-200 had to go in for a service repair. In the end most brides care more about you getting the shot than the art behind it. It’s a balance that I find my self fighting every time I shoot. Our art driven eyes can sometimes get in the way of why we are hired in the 1st place. I would get the 24-70! It is a chunk of glass but worth the weight and price. If you don’t feel that way sell it, there are plenty of buyers out there and your loss is nothing if you solve a critical question. I do feel your pain though as our bodies grow old. My issue has more to do with tendonitis. BTW I hand held a 200-400 for a job while my 70-200 was gone and was surprised at how well my shoulders did. This lens is not that bad for its size.