Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8 Review
The Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8 is Nikon's top-level professional mid-range zoom preferred by wedding and event photographers worldwide for its amazing sharpness, rendition, focus speed and genuinely professional build quality. Unlike lesser professional zooms such as the Nikon 24-120mm f/4 VR (which I now own), the Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8 handles like a true gem, the construction is superb and the mechanics are fantastic.
If you have never owned a top class Nikon professional lens (e.g. the 14-24mm f/2.8, 70-200mm f/2.8, 105mm f/2.8 Macro), then you've never felt a lens like this before. The build is all metal, with the focus and zoom rings having a smooth, yet tactile feel. It's not the resistant "plastic on plastic" feel of a kit lens or even a lesser professional lens. This lens is built to take a beating and daily use and it really shows. It'll allow you to make the best pictures in all but the dimmest lights and covers an extremely versatile zoom range from a wide 24mm, which is great for an establishing shot or venue shot, to 70mm, which is great for portraits.
If you have never owned a top class Nikon professional lens (e.g. the 14-24mm f/2.8, 70-200mm f/2.8, 105mm f/2.8 Macro), then you've never felt a lens like this before. The build is all metal, with the focus and zoom rings having a smooth, yet tactile feel. It's not the resistant "plastic on plastic" feel of a kit lens or even a lesser professional lens. This lens is built to take a beating and daily use and it really shows. It'll allow you to make the best pictures in all but the dimmest lights and covers an extremely versatile zoom range from a wide 24mm, which is great for an establishing shot or venue shot, to 70mm, which is great for portraits.
The reason why I haven't discussed the sharpness or optical quality of this lens is because you don't pay over $1,500 for this lens to get the best image quality. If you're not making mural sized prints for exhibitions, most modern lenses will give you indistinguishable sharpness. If you make large prints, regularly view your images at very large crops or you like to account for every single pixel, get yourself a Nikon 50mm f/1.8G. For around 15% of the price and less than a quarter of the weight, it's equally sharp at f/2.8 and with the 50mm, you even get better low light performance. Don't pay $1,500+ for this zoom if you're after pure image quality, you're overpaying. I put that in bold because many photographers seem to think this Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8 lens is going to make their images 'sharper'.
If you don't believe me, check out DxOMark's ratings (Nikon 50mm f/1.8G - rated at 22P-Mpix & Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8 - rated at 21P-Mpix). Their P-Mpix rating measures how many of the Nikon D810's 36 megapixels is the lens actually capable of resolving. The 50mm f/1.8G resolves more detail.
The reason why you pay so much for this lens is because of convenience. If you carried primes, you'd probably have to carry a 24mm, 35mm, 50mm and an 85mm. I'd honestly drop the 35mm, because it's too close between the 24mm and 50mm. On top of that, you'd be perpetually changing lenses. That's fine for landscapers on a tripod, but for wedding pros who are paid for the 'moments' they capture, you'll have a tough time keeping up. You pay a price penalty and an aperture penalty (this is only f/2.8, compared to many f/1.4 primes) for the convenience of this zoom.
As you'll see below in the Examples section, this lens is great. It goes pretty wide for nice interior shots that make your houses look bigger than they actually are. It has nice bokeh for portraits with its f/2.8 aperture. It's a nice reportage lens for photographing people. It's plenty sharp and it focuses extremely quickly. It's also extremely convenient. The truth is, if you want wide lenses, get a real wide angle like the Nikon 16-35mm f/4 VR. If you want a lens with nice bokeh, get the Nikon 85mm f/1.8G. If you want a nice reportage lens, get a 35mm. If you want a sharp and fast lens, get a 50mm. What this Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8 lens does that none of the others do is offer all of that in a single package, with the flick of the zoom ring.
This lens features Nano Crystal Coat, aspherical elements, ED elements and is Made in Japan. Nikon's Nano Crystal Coat helps with flare and transmission and is what gives Nikon lenses their characteristic look. This lens has slightly more contrast and saturation than lenses without Nano Crystal Coat. Aspherical elements help this lens minimise spherical aberrations and help to keep it lighter. ED elements help to minimise chromatic aberration (often called colour fringing), by reducing the secondary spectrum (the amount red and blue wavelengths bend differently). It is a G (gelded) lens, so it only works on all DSLRs or film SLRs that can control the aperture internally.
If you don't believe me, check out DxOMark's ratings (Nikon 50mm f/1.8G - rated at 22P-Mpix & Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8 - rated at 21P-Mpix). Their P-Mpix rating measures how many of the Nikon D810's 36 megapixels is the lens actually capable of resolving. The 50mm f/1.8G resolves more detail.
The reason why you pay so much for this lens is because of convenience. If you carried primes, you'd probably have to carry a 24mm, 35mm, 50mm and an 85mm. I'd honestly drop the 35mm, because it's too close between the 24mm and 50mm. On top of that, you'd be perpetually changing lenses. That's fine for landscapers on a tripod, but for wedding pros who are paid for the 'moments' they capture, you'll have a tough time keeping up. You pay a price penalty and an aperture penalty (this is only f/2.8, compared to many f/1.4 primes) for the convenience of this zoom.
As you'll see below in the Examples section, this lens is great. It goes pretty wide for nice interior shots that make your houses look bigger than they actually are. It has nice bokeh for portraits with its f/2.8 aperture. It's a nice reportage lens for photographing people. It's plenty sharp and it focuses extremely quickly. It's also extremely convenient. The truth is, if you want wide lenses, get a real wide angle like the Nikon 16-35mm f/4 VR. If you want a lens with nice bokeh, get the Nikon 85mm f/1.8G. If you want a nice reportage lens, get a 35mm. If you want a sharp and fast lens, get a 50mm. What this Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8 lens does that none of the others do is offer all of that in a single package, with the flick of the zoom ring.
This lens features Nano Crystal Coat, aspherical elements, ED elements and is Made in Japan. Nikon's Nano Crystal Coat helps with flare and transmission and is what gives Nikon lenses their characteristic look. This lens has slightly more contrast and saturation than lenses without Nano Crystal Coat. Aspherical elements help this lens minimise spherical aberrations and help to keep it lighter. ED elements help to minimise chromatic aberration (often called colour fringing), by reducing the secondary spectrum (the amount red and blue wavelengths bend differently). It is a G (gelded) lens, so it only works on all DSLRs or film SLRs that can control the aperture internally.
Specifications
|
How I Use This Lens
Well, I don't - because I no longer own this lens! I sold it for $1300 and replaced it with the great Nikon 24-120mm f/4 VR for $850. Both of these lenses are excellent. The optical quality on the 24-70mm f/2.8 is definitely higher and the build quality is much higher. Every time I take my 24-120mm f/4 VR out on an assignment, I do miss how nice the 24-70mm f/2.8 felt in my hands. I'll get onto why I decided to make this switch later, I'll touch on how I used this lens when I did own it first.
The Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8 lens was always best when shooting people indoors. If you're shooting anything from a wedding to a child's birthday party to just any family gathering, the 24-70mm f/2.8, if you own it, is probably the lens that you'll find on your camera. Its focal range is great. Down at 24mm, you're really wide enough to be taking large group photos. In at around 35mm, it's perfect for a journalistic style shot, placing subjects into a setting. Out at 70mm, it's long enough to really blow out the background and draw attention to a subject, i.e. a portrait. It's a great do-it-all lens for wedding and event shooters. Plus, with its great construction, you won't have to worry about it banging into things. If somebody decides to run headfirst into this lens at a wedding reception, they'll go away with a sore head and this 24-70mm f/2.8 will keep shooting like nothing happened.
I sold this lens because I'm not a wedding photographer. I don't shoot indoor events all that often and the Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8, as great of a lens it is, it's not a great walking around lens because it's so heavy and the zoom range isn't all that practical for outdoor use. I shoot mostly portraits, so my lens of choice for indoor (e.g. studio) assignments is the Nikon 85mm f/1.8G and Sigma 50mm f/1.4 ART. Outdoors, I prefer the Nikon 70-200mm f/4 VR. When I shoot cityscapes, landscapes and architecture, I'll use a real wide angle, e.g. the Nikon 16-35mm f/4 VR. I simply don't need a 24-70mm f/2.8 as part of my arsenal. I let it go for the 24-120mm f/4 VR so that I'll have a nice walking around lens. The 24-120mm f/4 VR is much longer (120mm is significantly longer than 70mm) and when paired with a 16-35mm f/4 VR covers a very practical and useful zoom range. The 24-70mm f/2.8 always had me wanting more reach at the long end when I did take it out to use on my walks.
Whilst the 24-120mm f/4 VR is certainly a downgrade in terms of both image quality and build quality, for me, it's an upgrade in usability and I use my 24-120mm f/4 VR much more than I ever used my 24-70mm f/2.8. I could honestly skip the 24-120mm f/4 VR altogether, but it's nice having a useful walk around lens and something I can pull out to shoot small family events, such as birthday parties and gatherings.
The Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8 lens was always best when shooting people indoors. If you're shooting anything from a wedding to a child's birthday party to just any family gathering, the 24-70mm f/2.8, if you own it, is probably the lens that you'll find on your camera. Its focal range is great. Down at 24mm, you're really wide enough to be taking large group photos. In at around 35mm, it's perfect for a journalistic style shot, placing subjects into a setting. Out at 70mm, it's long enough to really blow out the background and draw attention to a subject, i.e. a portrait. It's a great do-it-all lens for wedding and event shooters. Plus, with its great construction, you won't have to worry about it banging into things. If somebody decides to run headfirst into this lens at a wedding reception, they'll go away with a sore head and this 24-70mm f/2.8 will keep shooting like nothing happened.
I sold this lens because I'm not a wedding photographer. I don't shoot indoor events all that often and the Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8, as great of a lens it is, it's not a great walking around lens because it's so heavy and the zoom range isn't all that practical for outdoor use. I shoot mostly portraits, so my lens of choice for indoor (e.g. studio) assignments is the Nikon 85mm f/1.8G and Sigma 50mm f/1.4 ART. Outdoors, I prefer the Nikon 70-200mm f/4 VR. When I shoot cityscapes, landscapes and architecture, I'll use a real wide angle, e.g. the Nikon 16-35mm f/4 VR. I simply don't need a 24-70mm f/2.8 as part of my arsenal. I let it go for the 24-120mm f/4 VR so that I'll have a nice walking around lens. The 24-120mm f/4 VR is much longer (120mm is significantly longer than 70mm) and when paired with a 16-35mm f/4 VR covers a very practical and useful zoom range. The 24-70mm f/2.8 always had me wanting more reach at the long end when I did take it out to use on my walks.
Whilst the 24-120mm f/4 VR is certainly a downgrade in terms of both image quality and build quality, for me, it's an upgrade in usability and I use my 24-120mm f/4 VR much more than I ever used my 24-70mm f/2.8. I could honestly skip the 24-120mm f/4 VR altogether, but it's nice having a useful walk around lens and something I can pull out to shoot small family events, such as birthday parties and gatherings.
Samples
The good news is that this lens is sharp. But for over $1,500, it had better be sharp! It doesn't disappoint, its images are great. What I can't convey to you, however, is how this lens handles and how well made it is. This lens costs $1,500 not because it's sharp (the Nikon 50mm f/1.8G is sharper for 15% of the cost), but because it is an extremely useful and versatile focal length. These samples cannot convey your ability to 'get the shot' with this lens whilst the photographer next to you is busy fumbling and trying to change his lenses. That said, I've picked out a selection of shots at different focal lengths to show that this lens is capable of.
This first image was shot at around a 35mm focal length, which is very close to a journalistic perspective. The reason why this 35mm focal length is so well loved by all photographers is because it can tell a story. Here, we can see my younger brother holding a Christmas present, but we can also see much more than that, we can see the setting - that it's in a house, that there's a Christmas tree in the background, with heaps of presents underneath. The 35mm focal length is very good at telling a story. Go any more telephoto and you lose the background. Go any wider and you'll have too much background. Of course, it goes without saying that this lens is perfectly sharp, focus is perfectly locked on (as it always is) and the colour and contrast rendition are spot on.
Out at 70mm, this lens makes a fine portrait lens, whether you take pictures of people or of objects. The amount of compression and bokeh you're able to get helps to isolate the subject from the background. Even though the boxes behind the subject were only a short distance behind (less than 1 m (~ 3 ft) away), the bokeh and compression allows the foreground to be more separated than it really is. Of course, images are tack sharp as expected, look at the kinks in the paper! Due to all the great optical technologies (e.g. Nano Crystal Coat, ED elements, Aspherical), we see a complete absence of any noticeable chromatic aberration on the sharp, high contrast transitions.
At 24mm, this lens does have some barrel distortion, but corrected in Lightroom as I have here and straight lines stay straight. It's wide enough to take interior shots of your home if you're looking to list it on the market, but of course, a real wide angle such as the 16-35mm f/4 VR will make your house look even bigger. At such a wide focal length, everything is in focus. Even with the bright light shining in from the outside windows, there's no flare apparent at all, expected for a lens of this quality. For most people making a shot like this, take two exposures so the outside doesn't look too overexposed, then merge it in Photoshop. I was just lazy because this is a test shot.
Just another shot outdoors at 24mm. You get the point now I think, the pictures are great from this lens, just as you would expect if you were paying this much. Colour rendition here is great, distortion removed in Lightroom too.
Compared to Nikon 50mm f/1.8G
The Nikon 50mm f/1.8G is a generalist lens, the 24-70mm f/2.8 is a specialist lens. This might feel a little strange, as people would rarely call a prime lens generalist, but the 50mm focal length is such a versatile and useful focal length and the Nikon 50mm f/1.8G is such a cheap and lightweight lens that it really deserves a place in the camera bag of any photographer, beginner to professional. If you don't do weddings or event photography seriously, grab the 50mm f/1.8G, it's lighter, it's cheaper, it'll be much more useful to you than a 24-70mm f/2.8 which will mostly sit unused in your bag.
If you're a wedding pro or you want to get into a related genre, such as event photography, you'll want the 24-70mm f/2.8 at some point in your career, so it's one to keep an eye on and definitely a good investment for you. For people who shoot outdoors and can move around, a 50mm f/1.8G is a better choice, but for wedding pros and event shooters, you don't really get that luxury.
If you're a wedding pro or you want to get into a related genre, such as event photography, you'll want the 24-70mm f/2.8 at some point in your career, so it's one to keep an eye on and definitely a good investment for you. For people who shoot outdoors and can move around, a 50mm f/1.8G is a better choice, but for wedding pros and event shooters, you don't really get that luxury.
Compared to Nikon 24-120mm f/4 VR
I compared the 24-70mm f/2.8 and 24-120mm f/4 VR above, but to say the least, they're quite similar lenses. The 24-70mm f/2.8 is less versatile. It doesn't go out to 120mm and it's heavier, meaning you'll want to take it less places and you'll end up making less pictures with it.
Sure, if you need f/2.8 or if you need the indestructible build quality, get the 24-70mm f/2.8 and you'll be happy. Wedding pros and event shooters will love this lens, its autofocus is fast and sure, it handles extremely well and its built to last. For most normal people, however, the 24-120mm f/4 VR is arguably a better lens for less money. If you shoot outdoors often, going out to 120mm can be useful. VR is great if you do video (it shows less hand shaking) or if you shoot static subjects in low light.
Sure, if you need f/2.8 or if you need the indestructible build quality, get the 24-70mm f/2.8 and you'll be happy. Wedding pros and event shooters will love this lens, its autofocus is fast and sure, it handles extremely well and its built to last. For most normal people, however, the 24-120mm f/4 VR is arguably a better lens for less money. If you shoot outdoors often, going out to 120mm can be useful. VR is great if you do video (it shows less hand shaking) or if you shoot static subjects in low light.
Compared to Tamron 24-70mm f/2.8 VC
The Tamron 24-70mm f/2.8 VC is as sharp as the Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8 for around 2/3rds of the price, but it has a very inconvenient 82mm filter thread, is made of plastic (rather than metal) and is a Tamron lens. Some of you might not really worry about all that and just want to save several hundred dollars - that's fine, just grab the Tamron and be happy with it - it even has VC (Tamron's equivalent of VR) and it takes the same pictures.
If you're iffy about Tamron's quality and you prefer your lenses to be Nikon (I know some people do), then grab the Nikon, you won't be happy compromising with the Tamron and if you're going to eventually get the Nikon anyway, then pony up now and don't pay twice to end up with the same lens.
If you're iffy about Tamron's quality and you prefer your lenses to be Nikon (I know some people do), then grab the Nikon, you won't be happy compromising with the Tamron and if you're going to eventually get the Nikon anyway, then pony up now and don't pay twice to end up with the same lens.