Nikon 24-70 Review
Check Latest Lens Prices
- Nikon 24-70mm 2.8 – A perfect fast lens for all mid-range shooting… from people to landscapes, sharp and fast!
- Approx Cost: $1,740-$1,799
- See Latest Prices on Amazon – Nikon 24-70 2.8
- See Latest Prices on B&H – Nikon 24-70 2.8
- Approx Cost: $1,740-$1,799
The 24-70 – An ideal all-around lens
This is a very handy lens, and it is one of the three lenses that I use the most!
I don’t know anyone that doesn’t like this lens after they have tried it. It serves me in 80% of the cases when I am not needing a super-wide angle for landscape. For that, I use the 14-24 (see my Nikon 14-24 Review for more info).
I know I have all levels of photographers that come visit these reviews, so here is something for the beginner side of things that will help. Why would anyone want to spend over $1,000 on a lens with limited range when you can get one with a wider range for less? Well, the big answer is in that f/2.8. Remember, the LOWER that number, the better. What that essentially allows is you to take very nice looking photographs of people (or things) where THEY are the only ones in focus, and everything else is all blurry. (yes, pros out there rolling your elitist eyes… there is more to it than that, but that’s all beginners need to know.) After you get the lens, you’ll start to notice all the other advantages of having such a low f-stop.
I used this lens all the time back on my D2X and I currently still use it on my D3X. It will continue to stay with you as you upgrade cameras. I can still see myself using it for the next 3-5 years, so it really is an investment if you plan on doing a lot of shooting.
Here is a list of situations in which I use this lens a lot. Parties, children, people, pets, holiday cheer, cars, sports (as long as I am kinda close), architecture (as long as you are not TOO close), friends, and family. If you are someone that ONLY shoots landscapes or ONLY shoots wildlife in Africa, then I do not recommend this lens… It’s a mid-range lens for all those mid-range events that you may or may not want to capture in your life.
Often times, when shooting landscapes, I find that the wide-angle lens is just too wide. I pop this one on, and then the landscape suddenly starts to look a lot easier to compose. If you shoot with wide angle lenses, then you may know what I mean. The problem with wide-angle lenses is that if there is a particular structure or mountain you want to feature, the wide-angle can make it look too small. The 24-70 can help you feature that bit in a more prominent manner.
Below are a few shots that I have taken with this sweet lens. You might notice that I have a special post-processing technique. If you would like to find out more about that, you are welcome to visit my HDR Tutorial.
Any questions about the nature of these reviews? Visit my Ethics Statement. It’s all quite simple!
[...] Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8 Review – Perfect for mid-range stuff like birthdays, families, close-up sports, events, holiday cheer, swinger parties [...]
Trey, nice basic review. Especially do like the pictures taken with the lens to help give everyone some idea. My question (or concern that may be good to note, if it isn’t already pointed out in another comment!) is the DX vs. full frame lenses. This one appears to be a full frame so it is was good on your D2X (even if there is was technically a 36-105 or so) due to the DX sensor size and is now great on your D3X. The DX version of this guy wouldn’t be as great as you move up cameras from the DX sensor to the full frame of the D3X or D700.
Trey,
I shoot with the Nikon D3, and the 24-70 f2.8 is my “go to” lens about 75% of the time. The quality appears extremely close whether shooting in DX or FX format. I would say that the 24-70 is extremely close in quality to the 105 f2.8 macro. The 70-200 f2.8 VR is close behind. I would rank the 12-24 f2.8 about the same as the 70-200 in terms of lens quality. Thanks for your suggestions on HDR and the other areas you comment on.
SB
I like your non-technical approach to reviewing. And, I have a question: why would I want to buy the Nikon 24-70 f/2.8 vs. the similar tamron? Actually of course this question goes to any pair of comparable lenses. One bit of lore that seems to not make it into reviews is why people spend 2-3x as much for the Nikon vs. the tamron. Care to comment?
Because you never know what your getting from 3rd party lenses. The build quality of Nikon lenses is also much better than Tamron, Sigma etc. One more thing, the resale value of a lens like this is great. YOu could probably sell it in ten years for about the same price you paid for it new.
Trey,
Are some of these photos older than the date the 24-70mm 2.8 came out? Didn’t Nikon announce the 14-24/24-70 around November 2007?
Aha – good question.
Some of these are taken with the 28-70mm 2.8 – which is pretty much the exact same lens. I can detect no difference in the two (other than the obvious 4mm on the leading edge). Do you know of any big visible difference?
Mike – I think the Nikon lenses are better because the glass is better, there are more metal parts, they last longer, and usually they have better aperture ratings at various zoons. At least, this is my opinion.
Trey
I am also thinking about a lens like the 24-70 but its a little to expensive so I was also looking at the Tamron 28-75 2.8.
Is that a bad lens? On my D90 I have the 18-105 nikkor. Is the Tamron better than that? Will I see any difference?
Thanks
I own both the Nikon 24-70mm and the Tamron 28-75mm 2.8. As far as image quality, I think I got a great copy of the Tamron, as it looks exactly the same (Color, clarity, brightness, sharpness. they are both sharp wide open.) Reasons why I got he nikon 24-70mm to replaces my tamron 28-75mm are not because of image quality. First and formost is the focus speed and low light aquisition of subjects. The Nikon 24-70mm is blazing fast. On the Tamron, I found it often hunts in low light and I often miss the shot. Two, I love shooting at 24mm. It gives me that little extra wideness I need so I don’t need to use an ultrawide. Three, I tend to get more consistent exposures with my flash with the Nikon 24-70mm. My tamron 28-75mm would often times over expose or underexpose without any rhyme or reason sometimes. I kept my tamron, because, it’s light, disposable, stealthy and unobstrusive, can’t say the same about the nikon.
I used to also own the 18-105mm vr. Great sharp lens, until the lights go low or shooting indoors. With the flash, shots come out nice, but the lens I found is too slow for indoor photography without a flash. I would have kept it if I could’ve afforded it, but I needed faster low light lenses, since I shoot events and weddings.
Thanks Charles
Trey,
Please help me on this:
NIKKOR 24-70mm or 17-35mm lens….if you guys would only have the chance to get one of these lenses, which one would be????
I`m saving for a Nikon d700 and for one of those two lenses, I know that their focal length is quite different, but both seem to be superb.
And the thing is that I live in Chile, and Nikon equipment is really really expensive down here, plus I`m not a pro, I just love to take pictures…
So for now I could only afford just one these lenses, I`m really having a hard time at picking one, especially since last weekend I went to a Nikon store at a Mall and they didnt have any of these 2 lenses… so you can see it`s kind of hard to make up my mind. So what I need is a walk-around or multipurpose lens that I would be using for a lot time (by the way I love landscapes shoots, that could be the main reason why I can`t decide yet..I wouldn`t know if 24mm will be wide enough).
PLease Plase help me!!!!!
Thank you All!
Gracias!
Yes, I’m sure this is an excellent lens but for those of us who really can’t squeeze out the money for it, such as Nicolas from Chile, I would second the above-mentioned alternative of the Tamron 28-75mm 2.8 lens (http://www.tamron.com/lenses/prod/2875mm.asp). I bought that for portraiture to get the fast 2.8 aperture and have been highly impressed with how sharp it is. My other lenses are Nikon (the 18-200mm VR and the 50mm 1.8). I would say when you go to that camera store in the mall, see if they have the Tamron and give it a try yourself and see what you think. I had been shown a year before the Tamron 17-50 2.8 lens and wasn’t impressed, but when I was shown a few months ago the 28-75mm 2.8 lens I fired off one shot in the store and was amazed at how sharp it is. Bought it right then and have been very happy with it.
P.S. to my above comment…. Yes, the Tamron might not be as fast and dependable in focusing as the Nikon, but it wasn’t nearly as much in cost and has not disappointed me yet. BUT it really isn’t that wide on the 28mm end, so is not truly a one-lens, walk-around and do-it-all lens. You might save some money by looking at the Nikon 16-85mm VR lens. It’s not as fast of a lens, but is reported to be a sharp lens—and much less than some other Nikon options, such as the lenses you mentioned.
Hey Beeveedee I really appreciate those comments! thank you!!
[...] with a fabulous Nikon 24-70mm f2.8 lens rented from the fabulous folks at LensProToGo across town in Concord — highly recommended to [...]
why did you strip th emeta data from the images? How do we know if these were really taaken with a nikon 24-70?
the metadata was stripped for a reason…i want to know what it s. what are you hiding?
To Nicolas Gervic:
lens choice should reflect your needs. Extra 5mm on wide side is a lot.
24-70 is better option for walk around lens. For extra wide landscapes you always can do few shots and stitch them to panorama.
I have both the Nikon 24-70 and the Tamron 28-75 (as well as Nikon’s 17-35 2.8, 50 1.4G, 85 1.4, 70-300 VR 4.5/5.6 and 80-200 2.8). My Tamron 28-75, without a doubt, is as sharp as my Nikon 24-70. The Nikon weight (and additional $1200) may not be worth it to some. I have taken numerous photos with both and find that the biggest advantage of the Nikon is it’s quality of build and the 24mm vs 28mm. The Tamron made a wonderful walk-aroun lens when touring Europe – I am not sure I would want to carry the weight of the Nikon around my neck. The photos were tack sharp. A few test shots with the Nikon were not as sharp as the Tamron. Additionally, using the correction profiles in DxO, the vignette that occurs on the Nikon at 24mm is automatically fixed. Unless you need the extra 4mm at the low end (and I sometimes I do), the Tamron lens is an excellent choice and you will not be sorry.
@Julie: The metadata isn’t relevant to the composition of the shot. It’s obvious these are shot on a mid-range zoom. The unusual lighting and vibrancy are due to the HDR technique Trey uses. And P.S., you’ve got some nerve coming onto a pro’s website and demanding explanations. Rude move.
@ Trey: Stunning work man, that HDR technique is pretty amazing!
This is a great walk about lens, weight or price should not be a factor when you want the best.
the image quality MITE be close to the tamron,.not that i think it is,. but IMO i paid the extra without ONE regret and will never have ay regrets,. the fact that tamron/sigma etc isnt dust and moisture resistant shows what your paying for,. you normally get what you pay for unless its a 50mm prime etc as i have found out,.having a ultra fast and quiet focus paired with dust and moisture resistants are just a few things i love about this lens,. if your using D2′s D3 or D3x/s with dust and moisture resistant body then why pair it up with a lens thats not,. anyways,.nice basic reveiw and the 24-70mm /f2.8 rocks !!!!!
I have found this to be a fabulous lens. It is the lens that I use 75% of the time. And I find it totally adequate for the landscape work that I do.
just want to add what a superb spectacular lens this is!
I bought a Nikon D700 with a Nikon 24-70 last october and apart from using my Nikon 70-200 for a bit of sports photography I use the 24-70 for every thing else, I have had the Nikon 24-120 VR for just over two years which I used on my D200 but although this lens took great portrate photos it was rubbish for landscapes, but the 24-70 is truly amazing, sharp, great colours and have an almost 3D effect both used on my D700 & D200. For just going out & about I use a lighter Nikon D5000 fitted with a Nikon 16-85mm VR that is just as good on a DX body but is slower, But for FX Nikon Camera bodies a Nikon 24-70 is a must.
I use my Nikon D300 for travel photography–about 50% people/cultural trips and 50% nature photography. I have a 70-200 and 12-24. Thinking about replacing my 24-120 (all Nikon lenses). Obviously the 24-100 is slower than the 24-70 but it does have VR. What is best for potentially low light people photography where a tripod is not always possible?
This is the workhorse lens for me at work (use with a D3s)…can’t say enough good things about it!
Help, I need to know how good the tamron compares to the nikon for indoor sports shot?
Hi,
I have the Nikon D90, i suppose this lens would still be great for this camera right, or should i stick to the tamron ? i am prepared to pay the extra amount for Nikon
Trey,
Thanks for the plain language you use on your reviews. I am in love (or lust) with my 24-70. It stays mounted on my D700 and I can’t say enough about the results!
Off the subject, I miss the 18-200 I used with my D300 (had to sell to buy the new stuff). Have you heard and rumors of Nikon producing a full frame lens of that focal length? That was the perfect “one body, one lens” setup for travel and snapshots.
Thanks again for great straightforward reviews and fantastic photos!
I treated myself to this lens a couple of months ago and am in love with it. Like all the fast Nikon pro lenses, it’s built like a tank – solid, heavy and very well engineered. It’s as sharp as a tack and it focuses faster than any lens I have used before it. You pay for all this but I’m delighted even at the price I paid for it.
This is a great lens if you need to move from wide to long quickly.At 2.8 it’s amazing up close and for infinity 4 is required. But if you are looking for low light quality, get a 24 mm f2, a 35 mm 1.4 a 50 1.8 or 1.4 and an 85 1.4. These lenses at their widest are still sharper than the 24 to 70 at 2.8
Hi, I love your reviews, but how would you compare this lens to the 17-55 or 17-35 which are also f/2.8 but allows you more of that wide angle but less zoom?
I currently own the D70 and will purchase the 24-70, which means I should upgrade my camera. Should I buy a used D300 or a new D700? Which one will I be happy with for a very long time? I love to shoot landscape and night time. I am not a Pro. Thank you for your suggestions
Bryan: You can get a great lens that Nikon made some years ago for the 35 mm cameras, the 28-200 mm AF-ED-IF, if you loved the 18-200, this will work as a great travel all in one lens. It is super light and small (all be it plastic), but it has served me superbly well for over 15 years and still putting out great shots. Before the 18-200 VR, I used it on my D50, then on my D200. I bought the D300 with the 18-200 VR and forgot about the 28-200 until I bought my D700 and found I needed full sized glass fast. I got the 80-200 2.8 when I purchased my D200, so I could use that on the D300 and D700, superb quality and sharp as a tack. I also used my 50 mm AF-D 1.4 from my 35 mm and it is superb too. I recently bought the Nikon 70-200 2.8 VR and love that monster. I own a Tamron 28-105 2.8, and while I love the size, build and constant 2.8, I can’t deal with the soft focus. I will be getting a 24-70 mm 2.8, within the next month or so, as I also sprang for a D300s and sold my D200. As soon as I sell my D300, I will be getting the 24-70, then my target will be set on the Nikon 12-24. Finally, I think I will stop purchasing bodies and wait to spring for a D3s or it’s successor if improved when I can. You can’t go wrong with the top end equipment. It gives you the best tools to work with, provides the most bang, speed and quality, and keeps the most value at the time of sale. Anything less doesn’t hold up, with few exceptions. I love my Nikon 28-200 AF-D-ED 3.5-5.6 even though it’s over 15 years old. They don’t make it any more and the one’s I’ve seen for sale in perfect condition are priced close to what I paid for mine 15 years ago. My Nikon 50 mm AF-D 1.4 is worth more today than what I paid for it. I love Nikon’s pro glass and think they are worth the price. I have compared the same photos taken with the 18-200 VR and the 80-200 AF-ED-D 2.8, and the 70-200 VR, ED, 2.8 and it is night and day. The quality is visible, the shots are totally different, both of the pro lenses are superior to the 18-200 VR and the 28-200, even though I love the lower end lenses for travel, but if I were traveling on assignment, or on a once in a lifetime trip, I’d rather carry the extra pounds and have the superior shots for the price. But that’s just a simple wedding photographer’s point of view.
Aurea: If you have a choice and can get either the D300 or the D700, you can’t go wrong with either, but you will be happiest for the longest with the D700. The D700 is like a mini D3. It is superb in everything it does. The D300 is no bum, but it can’t match up to the D700. I own both and use the D300 extensively, and it’s been my second body and back up to the D700 for a while. I mainly do weddings. But given the choice I would only shoot with the D700 all the time. The price difference is not nearly as far apart as the features, quality, and capabilities are from each other. I love the D300, but you will make the D700 an extension of your hand.
Trey: Love your reviews, the web sites, your photos, and your choice of equipment. you Rock Dude. Keep up the good work. I hope to learn your HDR techniques. They are a bit trickier than they appear to be at first. I also loved your HD video with the Casio. It was superb. I was inspired by the Nikon web site to get the D300s (affordable for me now, although I would have preferred the D3s), to start practicing video shots. I love the idea of getting the right shots with the D300S at weddings with my second shooter and being able to concentrate on the bride and groom with the D700 and then merging the two into a DVD presentation. This should be fantastic in the end. Can’t wait to get up to speed on it. Thanks for the sites and info. Regards.
[...] Nikon 24-70 Review [...]
Lovely pics. i am looking arround here to buy the 24-70 2.8 myself. So far i only ussed my 70-200 with my new D700, but few weeks later, i am sure this is the one i need.
greetings from Amsterdam
Dave Travel Photography
I definitely would get the 24-70, on the lighter side, the Canon L lens. The images are really stunning.
So I was reading some of the reviews about the 24-70 on this site.
I just got my 24-70 new from an actual camera store, and am beginning to think that maybe mine has a defect in it. The reason is that even at f/2.8, my images come out way too sharp.
I have seen several example pictures taken with the 24-70, and the depth of field at 2.8 is much more than on mine. I don’t know why that is though. There is almost no bokeh/dof/blurryness, etc at the lowest f stops, and I am disappointed that I am not getting that with my lens…
Do any of you have the same problems? When you are shooting with your 24-70 at 2.8, and even at 70mm, about how blurry is the background?
I’m wondering if I should return it, but I don’t know if it actually has a problem, or I just think it does. Any advice?