Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8G ED AF-S

[lBlOlSlSl]

Hi~ I just wish to ask this before investing even thou it might seems a stupid question - Would anyone have any reason nt to get this lens?(besides the weight) Did my fair bit of research and so far so good to date. A good friendship price was quoted by John. But still thinking between this and Sigma 24-70 f2.8 HSM.

Many thanks~

 

[zac08]

For me... the biggest reason is the cost... :sweat:

No dough to put down for this lens yet.

 

[Squid]

Nikon AF-S 24-70mm F2.8 lens is known for its need of a larger filter diameter, depper camera bag as it is longer than similar lenses of other manufacters, ability to shoot at F2.8 aperture (as compared to Tamron 28-75 based on my personal experience) and at much higher price as compared to Sigma or Tamron

So the reasons for NOT this getting this lens would be higher filter cost, bigger (or deeper) camera bag, no necessity to shoot at F2.8 and higher lens cost.

 

[kcuf2]

as long as i m still using a crop sensor cam, i will NOT get the 24-70. i will get 17-35 anyday i feel and i am indeed rich

 

[chewed]

Hi~ I just wish to ask this before investing even thou it might seems a stupid question - Would anyone have any reason nt to get this lens?(besides the weight) Did my fair bit of research and so far so good to date. A good friendship price was quoted by John. But still thinking between this and Sigma 24-70 f2.8 HSM.

Many thanks~

as a owner of this lens, all i can say is no regrets.

and you have the body to extract the best performance off the lens & vice versa

 

[lBlOlSlSl]

Tks guys for all ur feedback on this. Appreciate it~

I ain't some rich man son, saved for an entire year for this and so abit KS after reading a comparison report here:

Sigma24-70 VS Nikon 24-70

However tried both the lenses and my hearts still goes out to Nikon. Just thinking should I get it now or wait...Lords, AP and John all out of stock...due to F1 I guess...maybe some will be selling once F1 is over.

Anyway tks guys...ur comments are very objective and assuring for me to take this leap~ :thumbsup:

 

[chanzdad]

I own the 24-70 w a D700. while nowadays i do feel that my 50mm AFS is more than suffice to replace the 24-70. Take a step forward for "70mm" and a step back for "24mm". Thus if I was in ur position, i may instead go for a 70-200 f2.8.

Of cos the 24-70 is damn nice lens.

 

[Cactus jACK]

the only reason not to get it is the cost (not weight)!!

for events with a D700, it is almost irreplaceable... the 50mm gets to nice shots, but sometimes, you cannot afford the time and space to move forwards / backwards. i don't like its distortion at the wide end of the zoom, other than that, i cannot complain much about this lens... aside from the price.

i'm not even going to start on the 70-200VRii... although that's going to be on my "what to buy with me 2010 bonus" list :bsmilie:

 

[kosasih]

the only reason not to get it is the cost (not weight)!!

for events with a D700, it is almost irreplaceable... the 50mm gets to nice shots, but sometimes, you cannot afford the time and space to move forwards / backwards. i don't like its distortion at the wide end of the zoom, other than that, i cannot complain much about this lens... aside from the price.

i'm not even going to start on the 70-200VRii... although that's going to be on my "what to buy with me 2010 bonus" list :bsmilie:

I second this thought...happy owner. ED colours, AFS speed, N coating and resell value of this lens is uncomparable to any third party lenses

 

[hacknet]

honestly, id go for the older 28-70 if you're looking for some good glass on a thinner budget. otherwise, i'd go primes anyday. its too heavy and f/2.8 is really nothing when you start looking into cheaper and lighter primes. unless you're a zoom die hard, i'd steer clear.

 

[Omega23]

The cost and the weight are the only reasons. I would probably get the tamron 28-70 or the older nikon 28-70 instead.

 

[.Hack]

I would choose a 3rd Party over the Nikon due to pockets not deep enough.
This is the reason when i went for the Tamron 17-50 instead of the Nikon 17-55.
Of cos, if you have the dough, go for the Nikkor.

 

[Numnumball]

Get it, u wun regret it.. for the below reasons more than suffice for nt holding u back.
1. IQ
2. Praticable zoon range (most ideal for events, weddings and walk abt) - makes a really gd general purpose lens
3. Amazing color constrast
4. f2.8
5. Compliment FF really well.

The only reasons u shd nt be getting it
1. U r on a crop sensor (DX) - wastage and throw off the balance of ur setup given its length/dimensions.
2. Cost
3. Weight

i own the 50mm as well, it's as sharp or i dare say it's even sharper than 24-70mm. I used both, and i must say there are equally gd for different situations.
But u can't get the best of both worlds without giving up ur zoon capability becos of cost
its crucial when r constraint by space and composition matters. tats where 24-70mm coem in.

js my 2 cents worth.. hope it helps

 

[markyen]

Hi Bro saw your post was wondering since you have the D700 I would go for the NIkon. I use this combo as I prefer zooms than primes of 24mm/ 50mm etc.

I used to own the Tamron 28-75 f2.8 but not the sigma. FYI I decided to get the Nikon due to its color, Saturation of color and IQ.

I also used to own the Canon 24-70 and I must say from my personal opinion Nikon 24-70 is a great lens.

 

[luntut]

However tried both the lenses and my hearts still goes out to Nikon.

Sigma cheaper. Nikon more ex.
Nikon you love more, Sigma you love less.

I am sure you already know the pros and cons of each lens. I am sure you already know what you want inside you. Its just the cost stopping you.

I will vote for Nikon. I have been getting Nikon lenses all this while. I made 2 painful purchases, but I NEVER looked back, and after I got those 2 painful purchases, I never looked around for other lenses anymore. because I know I already got what I wanted.

I compared
Tammy 17-50 vs Nikkor 17-55.
Sigma 70-200 vs Nikkor 70-200.

1 Nikon can get 3 of the other one.

I went for Nikon. not that I am rich ( i starved for many months too ).

Go with your head. get something that you know, that after getting them, you will not look around for other lenses anymore. I am sure that after getting the sigma, you will still yearn for the nikon. and you juz end up wasting $$$.

 

[An drew]

I am a prime diehard but if you are on FX, then this is THE lens to get.

The main reason not to get this lens would be the price. And it does not have VR.

 

[wucy24]

I will go for it if you are having ff body...and don't look back. ;p

 

[Kit]

I bought this lens after the 14-24mm f2/8. Though the 14-24mm f2/8 is my bread and butter lens, the 24-70mm f/2.8 is on the camera(D3) most of the time now. The range is more useable for walkabout. The only nitpick is the elongated body which can be a little cumbersome as I have to re-configure the bag to accommodate it. Prefer the short stout design of the old 28-70mm f/2.8 actually.

 

[alantkh]

I bought this lens after the 14-24mm f2/8. Though the 14-24mm f2/8 is my bread and butter lens, the 24-70mm f/2.8 is on the camera(D3) most of the time now. The range is more useable for walkabout. The only nitpick is the elongated body which can be a little cumbersome as I have to re-configure the bag to accommodate it. Prefer the short stout design of the old 28-70mm f/2.8 actually.

I have the 14-24mm and I am really impressed with this lens. How would u rate the 24-70mm compared to the 14-24mm? If it is just as good, I may be tempted to get it.

I already have the afs 50mm and 105mm though...

 

[talisman]

top notch lens! colours, contrast, sharpness all superb! Focusing is also very prompt.

u get used to the weight after a while.
only thing is the long body of it..if only it was shorter.

I don't know of anybody who regretted after getting this lens.

also, spend within ur means