Nikon 24-70 Review

Check Latest Lens Prices for the Nikon 24-70mm

The Nikon 24-70mm 2.8 is a perfect fast lens for all mid-range shooting… from people to landscapes, sharp and fast!

The 24-70 – A great lens for all occasions

This is a very handy lens, and it is one of the lenses that I use the most! In recent years, I’ve begun using the Nikon 28-300 quite a bit. For more information on that, see my Nikon 28-300 review.

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.

Merry D3Xmas from Trey and Stuck In Customs!


This is Nathaniel (by Stuck in Customs)

Hindu Ascent (by Stuck in Customs)

This is Sujatmi

Across the Line (by Stuck in Customs)

It's Summertime for Little Girls

Morning Mist at the Lagoon (by Stuck in Customs)

On the way to the deep jungles of Cambodia

This is Ranjit (by Stuck in Customs)

Any questions about the nature of these reviews? Visit my Ethics Statement. It’s all quite simple!

  • Pingback: Stuck In Customs» HDR Tutorial - A Step-by-Step Guide to my Style of Photogrpahy()

  • 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.

  • Scott Belt


    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.


  • Mike Cloud

    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?

  • Robert Benner

    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.

  • Chris

    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.

  • Phillip


    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?

  • 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.

  • Phillip

    Thanks Charles 🙂

  • Nicolas Gervic

    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!


  • 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 ( 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.

  • Nicolas Gervic

    Hey Beeveedee I really appreciate those comments! thank you!!

  • Pingback: Autumn Sunset at Walden Pond at North of Normal()

  • julie

    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.

  • JohnS

    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.

  • D3 user

    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!

  • Eleanor Maw

    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.

  • Sue

    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?

  • Alan Radecki

    This is the workhorse lens for me at work (use with a D3s)…can’t say enough good things about it!

  • joe

    Help, I need to know how good the tamron compares to the nikon for indoor sports shot?

  • Mark


    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

  • Bryan

    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.

  • Marcus

    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

  • Billy

    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?

  • Aurea Hernando

    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.

  • Pingback: A Night with Harley()

  • 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.

  • Jessica C.

    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?

  • ” Marcus
    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″

    I agree w/ what Marcus said.

    I would go further as to say for the majority of people out there who can’t afford to buy every great lens Nikon releases and don’t like carrying around extra weight, a 50mm f/1.4 lens and walking back and forth is a better option than having this lens if you already have a wide angle and telephoto.

  • Ravee

    Mark, Works fantastic with the d90. Upon comparing the photos with the d90 using this lens, and the d300s using this lens, we really couldn’t see a difference in anything but megapixels… this lens is an extraordinary piece of glass, and really amplifies your camera… Highly recommend it if you’re willing to spend the money

  • ???

    I understand the 2concern,I am very p glad to hear that you got your Supra fixed. I remember reading about some of your problems5x !.

  • Very usefull article can i have your permision to translate into Italian for our sites subscribers? Thanks

  • While I do not have the 24-70 2.8, I have the prior model (28-70 2.8). I did have the Tamron equivilent before the Nikon 2.8 and I got rid of it for the Nikon after I lost a host of images because it would not focus in the low light situation and mine did not have a manual over ride. I do second an earlier poster that it is worth purchasing the higher quality lens. My 80-200 2.8 and my 24-70 2.8 have lasted from my film days prior to my Fuji S2 (and 4 later DSLR bodies) purchase over 9 years ago.

  • Nice work….all contrast adjusted in post I assume with LOTS of HDR changes made. I too love working with HDR post as it is just plain FUN to use .
    It gets a bit bothersome though when ALL images in a review are HDR enhanced.
    Your review on the 24-70 was spot on. For those considering another brand….certainly budgets are important but NOTHING gets you greater value than a Nikon lens. Nada !! If you need to sell it, you can easily. The images and durability are second to none.
    Personally, I’d wait till I saved enough to buy only Nikon. As a matter of fact….that is indeed what I do, and I take over 75,000 “clicks” each year !!!

  • Brian

    Hi, first of all i would like to tell you your photographic style is unique and astonishing, second i have a question for you and though you might help me out making better decision in my future purchase. i am interested in buying d700 along with 24-70mm 2.8 from nikon, how would you rate the bokeh on that lens? i like silky and creamy bokeh like the 85mm 1.4, i know its not to that standard but it’s even close to it? what is the overall score out of 10 for bokeh? many thanks. Brian

  • While I always carry a fast 50mm prime for those occassions when I need a razor thin depth of field or when usinf availble indoor light, the 24-70/f2.8 is my preferred lens for weddings, partys, etc…

  • Some of these photographs are stunning1 My favorite is the wild horse with the mountain backdrop – is that scotland?

  • Sofia


    Than you for some interesting reading! I live in sweden and I am just about to buy my first proper camera. I think I will buy the Nikon 1300 an I also plan on buying an extra lens because the one you get with the camera has a very bad zoom. I am no professional but I love taking pictures of people, flowers, landscape, sunsets, the city especially evening/night photos by the water and I want them to be really good. This lens 24-70mm 2.8 is a bit expensive, what would you recommend as a cheaper option? I like zooooming 😉 I have heard good things about this one: AF-S VR 70-300 f/4.5-5.6G IF-ED

    Thankful for answers!

    Best regards Sofia

  • Sofia

    Sorry, I meant the Nikon d3100. So many numbers in my head right now…

  • William

    I really like your review. However, I’m a fan of Canon and have a plan to switch to Nikon. I plan to buy D300s or D3s but I’m not a pro. I know that D3s has more function than D300s. However, I only take family, nature, animal and micro photos. So, I just wonder than Nikon 24-70 mm 2.8 works best on both cameras for my purpose or only D3s? I do really care about the quality of picture rather than the camera function. Thanks for helping me !!!!

  • William,

    I currently shoot with a D3s (not a pro either) and love it. But why wouldn’t you! I can’t say I know too much about the D300 but it is a DX series body which means it has a cropped sensor. In laymen terms your camera is zooming in before you even do anything.

    What this means is if that body has a crop of 1.5x then if you were to use this lens you would essentially have a 36-105mm lens (35mm equivalent), where as the full frame (FX Body) D3s will stay true to the lenses focal range.

    So it’s probably best to take that into account with your decision making process.



  • William

    I know that they will be different on focus length in crop and ff sensor. However, if I take a photo with D300s at 24mmm, and with D3s at 36mmm in the very normal condition while other setting is same. Will two pictures be different in quality? I love taking close up pictures, so I do not need to buy FF sensor if the quality of two pictures are same. Thanks for answering my questions !

  • Peter

    I have both the Tamron 28-75 f2.8 (on canon 20D) and the Nikon 24-70 f2.8 on D700.

    Here is what I list when I am selling lenses at work as to why I would buy the Nikon:

    1. Has better contrast/colour then Tamron (Tamron req. more post-process)
    2. Autofocus speed and accuracy is tonnes better
    3. Build Quality is a lot better
    4. Bokeh is far better then Tamron
    (how many reviews ignore 1 & 2, esp 2!)

    Here is what I list that’s good about the Tamron:

    1. At about 1/3 the price or less than the Nikon (Or any brand equivalent), it is bloody cheap f2.8 and
    2. Is really really sharp
    3. Although build quality is not up to the Nikon, it is pretty good for the price (I have had 2 of them over 5 years and mistreated them and the only thing that killed one was mould, which is a big issue for any lens where I live)
    4. If you are just starting out or are not camera crazy yet (camera crazy = will only buy the best of everything), the Tamron is excellent value and a great performer.

    Also, sometimes high-end lenses bokeh is too buttery, sort of distracting cause it makes shots look too smooth/perfect.

    Here’s a couple of samples from my Tamron on 20D:

  • Your review is great. I have bought a D90 and I would like to buy a nikon 24-70. I know it is not the right combination but I hope to buy a FX body in the future.

  • PS. Your HDR photos are AMAZING!. Congrats 🙂

  • Thank for the review!!!

  • Bozz

    I was recommended this lens by Eleanor Maw, who has reviewed this lens on this site and told me that I should come on here and recommend this lens myself, I have always tended to stay clear of wide to short telephoto zoom lens and use 24mm,50mm & 85mm instead, but on trying the Nikon 24-70mm for a few days I just had to get myself one, everything about this lens is great, build quality, handling and optical performance is brilliant, it works on both well on my DX Nikons, D200, D2xs & D90 and also on my Nikon FX D3s.

  • Dennis Hernandez

    Thank you for the review and the sample photos you have provide us all!! Quite inspiring actually!! I’ve owned Nikon 24-70 only for a short period of time and one thing I can tell you. This lens is magic!!

    Ok ok, we all agree that this lens compared to Tamron 28-75 is equally sharp (apparently) but have we all considered the quality of Pictures? I tried the Tamron at the shop, it was sharp but when I tried the Nikon I started to freak out because I thought I was actually stealing art works. That’s right, when I shot a few shots to try I thought I was producing pro work. I had to double-check on my computer just to check that I wasn’t dreaming. the Nikon 24-70 is SHARP and amazing. Can you feel the excitement???

    I currently own (all Nikon) 28-300mm vr, 35mm Prime 1.8G, 50mm prime 1.4D, 18-200mm DX VRII and 105mm Micro VR. This 24-70 pretty much superseeds most of these in terms of quality. This one has produced for me so far using my Nikon D7000 superb images, with vibrant colours and fantastic DOF (when I have it between 2.8 and 3.2/F)and nice Bokeh.

    I had to save money to buy one of this beauty and I can confirm this is money well spent!! I’m no pro but I’ve been taking alot of photos and people are noticing my work and they’re level of appreciation has lifted from great to amazing!!

    The type of photos I’ve been taking are sunrise, sunset, general night club shots, and lots of family shots. I’ve tried 17-55 DX 2.8 in the past and I found it to be ok because wide shots didn’t really get me excited so I sold it for a couple of prime lens with the hope of capturing sharp images with great colours. This lens definitely fits the bill. I’m now in the process of getting rid of 3 lenses (at least). Next aim is Nikon D800???

  • Pingback: Mad Cowboy – Documentary Part 4 of 6 | Dead Bodies - Over Her Dead Body()

  • Curt

    Although the pictures in the review are stunning, why, oh why must we see HDR in the context of a lens review?

    The objective should be to show the lens’ native characteristics, untouched by extensive post processing. Otherwise this becomes more of an HDR review than a lens review.

    A bit of levelling, crop, and perhaps a round of USM should be enough post-processing to actually see what this kens has to offer.

    Repeat: the images are stunning. Just not helpful in this context.

  • Rebecca

    Hi Trey,

    I am contemplating in purchasing an additional lens. Read your review on the 85 f/1.4. Would you recommend that one or this one? I already have the 50mm… What are your thoughts? Thanks!

  • The 85 is better, for me, for portraits… but, if you are already happy with the 50 and want sometime else, try a zoom perhaps?

  • Pam

    I am going to Machu Picchu next week and have procrastinated in finding a lens. Would you recommend the 24-70 for this trip? Or is there a different lens you would suggest? I am a novice photographer (but still want great quality shots). I plan on renting from Lens Pro To Go and need to get on my purchase el pronto.
    Any tips you could recommend I would appreciate.
    Thanks .

  • Pingback: Genialer FotoBlog !!! |

  • Chris


    Thanks for a basic review without all the hype, and for giving photogs the chance to comment (and hopefully help better one another). Personally, I’m tired of all the stats, graphs and charts that really don’t mean a whole lot. I’ve been shooting for 20 years and and have used a lot of different equipment and lens (mostly Nikon). On one website the creator (whom appears very pompous) listed a lens I had used for hundreds, if not thousands, of pics, in his Top 10 Worst Nikon Lenses. Funny thing is, the brides who were paying thousands of dollars for my work never seemed to complain. Another comment on this site was that Pros don’t use midrange zooms, they carry wide, tele and a 50mm for in between. Over the years, I’ve shot models, weddings, events, nature and sports, and the fact is, you can’t just make a cart blanc statement like that. I’d like to see the Pro who runs that site use a wide zoom at a football game (for what, I don’t know… maybe a shot of the stadium before the game, like that’s gonna sell)

    This comment actually does have something to do with the Nikon 24-70. I just put one on my camera for the first time and used it at a football game. The focus is lightning quick, colors are vivid and the contrasts really pops. I had several plays that cames right at me, and didn’t miss a shot. The weight may be an issue to some, but weight means quality in my book. Next weekend I’m shooting a wedding and some event stuff. I can’t wait to see how it performs there, but at least I won’t have to worry about any 300lb+ linebacker coming at me.

  • am so much in love wit 24-70 lens nikon or sigma really want to be playin wit it.

  • Arnel Macababbad

    I own a D700 and this 24-70mm 2.8g lens. Lately I’ve noticed that if a take a picture ( full body) in portrait orientation, the subject appears to be smaller in heght. I mean they will look like short people even if in real life they’re tall. Any fix or suggestion to correct this one?



  • Pat

    Your review is great. I have Nikon D60 and I would like to buy a Nikon 24-70. I know it is not the right combination but I hope to buy a FX body in the future.
    What do you advise? I buy it?
    Thank you very much !

  • Great review…

  • Jenn

    I shoot with a Nikon D90 and I am looking in purchasing the Nikon 24-70 or the Nikon 17-55 lens. Any advice on one over the other? Also…
    What is the difference? I know one is Nikon and one is Sigma, and one is a VR and one is not. But are there any other difference I should really know about it? Price is always an obstacle and I’m wondering if it is worth it to splurge if I get the 24-70. Thoughts? Thanks for your help!

  • chaim meiersdorf

    I find this to be a problem and the enable profile correction in LR3 helps to some degree.

  • chaim meiersdorf

    This happens to me all the time. The enable profile correction in LR3 helps a little.

  • I am planing un buying a new lens my options are a  14-24mm or a 24-70mm i shoot lots of product shots i mostly use muy 50mm or my 24-120mm what lens will work out better for some product shot, landscapes and sports? will the 14-24 or is it a lanscape only len  and is the 24-70mm more diverse?

  • Tom McGill

    Why would you want a wide lens for product shots?  I’d think you would want a 105mm Prime if you’re using an FX or 85mm prime if you’re shooting DX, or something along those lines.  

    If you can fix your object and move around, control light, etc… you need whatever lens will give you high clarity and fill the frame.  I’m not sure what kinds of “products” you’re taking pictures of but unless they are the size of a house I don’t think either of the 14-24 or the 24-70 would be great choices.  I’d lean to the ones I mentioned if not the 70-200.

  • Sam

    Hi Trey!
    Love your HDR work!

    I will be traveling to Tibet next week and will definitely be taking the 24-70mm f2.8 lens along with the D700 with me.

    I’m not a pro, just an enthusiast. I also notice that Tibet isn’t on your “list” yet 😉 

    My inventory of lenses are: 24mm f2.8D, 50mm f1.4D and 200mm f4 micro (old version).

    I’m contemplating of adding either a 14-24mm or 16-35mm  — I may also be missing on the ‘long’ end — thoughts?

  • Joce Aphoto

    I totally agree with you. The Nikon 24-70 2.8 is pure magic, vibrant and razor sharp.  Me too I’ve owned many lens (primes and zooms like 28-300 VR, 18-55 VR, 18-70, 70-300 VR, 80-200 f 4.5 AI,  no zoom in my book stands like this lens for the amount of light that goes to the sensor. I was always missing something, the ”ahhh” factor before..  Now I can get the ‘Ahhh’ when I show my pictures without post processing, this is something!

    This shot was the first photo I took after opening the box!  Nothing complicated, just framed and then hit the shutter.

    ISO 100
    D7000 + Nikon 24-70 2.8 + flash SB400 set at -0.7EV

    As an update when you look at the benchmarks from DXO, they confirm that it’s a superior lens all over the range (2012) compared to all the above… ;-)All the best.Jocelyn Auger, Winnipeg, Canada.

  • From what I have read, the 24-70 has superior optics so I went with it and have not been disappointed. I thought I would miss the wide end, but I haven’t. Sometimes, if I need a wider shot, I take two or three photos and then photomerge them in CS5 after. Here is an example of a photomerge turning my 24-70 into something like an 8mm: 

    And some more shots with my 24-70 on a D7000: 

  • Cline

    I have a question!! I currently have a Nikon D3000 and am really interested in the Nikon 24-70 lens, can anyone give me some advice on the matchup of these two products!?

  • Pingback: Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8, a Circular Polarizer, and a Valentine’s Day Rose | Aaron Priest Photography()

  • You really ruin your pictures with that awful effect.

  • HDR should never be used, it’s awful, fake, cheap and stupid. Amateur effect IMO.

  • Eye of the beholder and all that.

  • gdff

    the little elephant is so cute,like a baby!

  • I’m not a fan of HDR either. For some photos with this lens without HDR see:

  • Pingback: Kata Mutiara()

  • Pingback: The Place in Texas Where They Found the 17 Bodies | Fu Hot Post, Pin, Repin, Like and Comment()

  • GuestusMaximus

    HDR Nightmare

  • George

    Please. These are technically outstanding. They were taken specifically for HDR, so take them for what the intent was.

  • Mike

    £12000 lens ruined with HDR, honestly, word of professional advice, tone it down! HDR puke.

  • John

    I fail to understand why someone would use a $2000 lens on a $300 camera. IMHO, I do not think this will do any justice.

  • I wish we had read this before the photo was taken! The repair shop is now going to charge us £12000 to get all the HDR out of it … live and learn.

  • Chrystie

    Gosh your work is just amazing!
    I shoot indoor and outdoor and I’m trying to do some homework..
    I have d610 body and the glass I use is 50mm for newborns and children(indoor)
    I notice that you said the 28-300 would cover the 24-70
    So in my case would you recommend the 28-300?? And why is it so much cheaper then the 24-70?

    Thank you and again.. Beautiful work!
    [email protected]

  • Vasily Sosnovsky

    Damn! Nightmare shoots! That village boy with a hat will be chasing me in my nightmares….brrrrrr…

  • Sheriff12345

    sorry but I think they look fine.

Newsletter Sign Up

The most beautiful newsletter ever!