Login or Join Now

Upload your photos, chat, win prizes and much more

Username:
Password:
Remember Me

Can't Access your Account?

New to ePHOTOzine? Join ePHOTOzine for free!

Like 0

Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8

Join Now

Join ePHOTOzine, the friendliest photography community.

Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more for free!

annettep38
annettep38 e2 Member 3186 forum postsannettep38 vcard France32 Constructive Critique Points
2 Jan 2013 - 11:56 PM

Jane, I read this thread and do not regret it thanks to you post!
Your post made much more sense than off topic discussion.. (I don't moan about people repairing their mate's car either. )
After having moved back to full format I had also found some lenses unsatisfactory and bout the 80-200 2.8 and the 14-24. But the price tag for the said zoom is too much for me so I have used the 55 1.2 for the mid range.. And that lacks in flexibility.
Will do as proposed and look for a 28-70!

Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links 
2 Jan 2013 - 11:56 PM

Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.

LenShepherd
LenShepherd e2 Member 62478 forum postsLenShepherd vcard United Kingdom
3 Jan 2013 - 7:43 AM


Quote: But the price tag for the said zoom is too much for me so I have used the 55 1.2 for the mid range.. And that lacks in flexibility.


Prices vary over time, often related to exchange rates. The UK pound has risen to 141 from 118 over the last four months, and some Nikon prices are falling as a result. The 24-70 is now down to £1220 although this is a far cry from the £800 I paid at first launch when the UK pound was much stronger against other currencies. There is a chance it could go as low as £1100 making it more affordable.
I owned the 28-70 before trading up to the 24-70. The 28-70 is a good lens. It does not have nano coating and is more prone to flare - for those who choose to point it straight into the sun. The corners to about f5 .6 are a little behind compared to the 24-70. The 28-70 may have more robust zoom and focus rings as there are few reports of their needing a repair. It gave me a first class results when I owned it.

answersonapostcard
answersonapostcard Site Moderator 1012603 forum postsanswersonapostcard vcard United Kingdom15 Constructive Critique Points
3 Jan 2013 - 12:11 PM

some comments deleted, one edited as it refers to a deleted post and wouldnt have made sense. Lets keep advice civil please, thanks.

Last Modified By answersonapostcard at 3 Jan 2013 - 12:55 PM MODERATOR POST
winger
winger  5 United States
8 Jan 2013 - 11:25 PM

I shoot a D700 and D7000. I have many DX and full frame lenses, and as good as any, if not the flat out best is my 24-70 f/2.8. Stellar throughout its range, sharp to the edge, especially on DX sensor, low to NO distortion. If there is a negative, it would be its weight. It is a heavy lens, however I'm a big strong guy and can handle that...Smile
You would love it....

kojak
kojak e2 Member 1kojak vcard United Kingdom
9 Jan 2013 - 4:14 PM

I bought this lens and a D600 in December. Brilliant. Superb. Well worth upgrading.

Frank_Reid
9 Jan 2013 - 11:12 PM

Get the lens enjoy what it brings to your photography. Trust me I use it 7 days a week so for for the past 3 years.


Regards

Frank

mediaman
mediaman  4 Scotland
11 Jan 2013 - 4:34 PM

Just a wee memo :-
With my D3, this is a well balanced outfit....but with my D800 [no battery pack attached ] the outfit is a tad "front heavy" try out the combo in a shop for weight balance, and general handling.

samueldilworth
11 Jan 2013 - 4:42 PM


Quote: With my D3, this is a well balanced outfit....but with my D800 [no battery pack attached ] the outfit is a tad "front heavy"

What does this mean? Itís a common comment, including by photographers I respect. But what does it really mean?

Are you doing this with your camera?

User_Removed
11 Jan 2013 - 5:15 PM

As handling an SLR camera is essentially a two-handed affair, it is the total weight and bulk that matter to me, rather than any "point of balance". One of the reasons that I prefer the D800 to the D3s is the lighter weight of the D800 body. But, of course, with many of my lenses, the body contributes less than half the total outfit weight. With a 50mm prime mounted, most of the weight is in the body; with the 70-200mm f/2.8 mounted, most of the weight is in the lens. Notions of "balance" are pretty well meaningless. For anything much heavier than the 70-200, of course, I tend to use a monopod, tripod or beanbag.

scottishphototours

Buy a cheaper Tamron 24-70 f2.8 and use the extra money to get yourself some insurance for doing your weddings - or you may not get into the venue. Many require PL insurance details to allow you to shoot pics at a wedding on their premises.

FatBoyfocus
13 Jan 2013 - 5:30 AM


Quote: Buy a cheaper Tamron 24-70 f2.8 and use the extra money to get yourself some insurance for doing your weddings - or you may not get into the venue. Many require PL insurance details to allow you to shoot pics at a wedding on their premises.

Sounds like good advice. How does the cheaper option compare to the nikon tho?

User_Removed
13 Jan 2013 - 11:19 AM


Quote: Buy a cheaper Tamron 24-70 f2.8 and use the extra money to get yourself some insurance for doing your weddings - or you may not get into the venue. Many require PL insurance details to allow you to shoot pics at a wedding on their premises.

Sounds like good advice. How does the cheaper option compare to the nikon tho?

On your current D3100 you probably would not see any difference at all.

However, if your next camera change was to an FX camera, especially a high-res one, then you might then begin to notice a difference, particularly at the extremes of camera/lens performance.

But - if you buy a lens secondhand on eBay (is there any other way??), you should be able to get most of your money back if you decide to re-sell it to upgrade later (unlike camera bodies).

scottishphototours


Quote: Buy a cheaper Tamron 24-70 f2.8 and use the extra money to get yourself some insurance for doing your weddings - or you may not get into the venue. Many require PL insurance details to allow you to shoot pics at a wedding on their premises.

Sounds like good advice. How does the cheaper option compare to the nikon tho?

The Tamron and Sigma 24-70 f2.8 lenses are very highly regarded - do a bit of searching online and you'll see - there's even a review of the Tamron on here I think. Neither are as good as the Nikkor though.

Cannot over-emphasise the need for insurance. Many venues now require it as a matter of course. We had a scenario up here where a tog was using a studio light on a stand, which a guest tripped over. The stand fell over, scraping the wall and tearing the wallcovering. The hotel demanded the whole wall be professionally redecorated and the tog wasn't insured - result? - a £2000 bill for redecoration of a wall with wallcovering at around £240/roll. We've been to many places too where vases are on display on shelves etc - knocking one of those over could be a real cost too...

annettep38
annettep38 e2 Member 3186 forum postsannettep38 vcard France32 Constructive Critique Points
14 Jan 2013 - 12:32 AM

Well I was hovering on the notorious auction site and bid for various 28-70s. Most of them go for a lot of money guess what, I ended buying a 24-70 for £742 still a lot but much less than I thought.

annettep38
annettep38 e2 Member 3186 forum postsannettep38 vcard France32 Constructive Critique Points
1 Mar 2013 - 3:53 PM

just another thought... did a complete wedding session with that lens, apart from 2 or three low light ones with the 55mm. Yes, it was perfect for the job.

Add a Comment

You must be a member to leave a comment

Username:
Password:
Remember me:
Un-tick this box if you want to login each time you visit.