Advice please on the 24-70....

N

newtonikon

Senior Member
HI I am new to Nikon moved across from Pentax. I am getting the 810 and i am not sure what lenses to get. I do newborn photography with general portrait added in too. I am looking to branch into stock landscape photography, i live in Scotland, and i need a relatively wide angled lens.
The dilemma i have is... i think the 24mm-70mm lens would be good for both types of photography and i would also add a 50mm prime, at the moment that is my staple lens.

I can't wait for the new 24-70 model or really stretch to it's price but is it worth buying the old model right now? It's selling SH for around £900, will the price drop after the new model comes out? And is it as good as i am hoping it is?

Many thanks for your help

Jay
 
Last edited:
W

WayneF

Senior Member
The 24-70 f/2.8 is an amazing lens, an extremely good lens.

24mm is moderately wide angle for FX cameras, but is hardly wide at all for DX bodies. DX needs 16 mm to match what 24 does on FX.

A "normal" lens view is 45 to 50mm FX, and 28-30mm for DX.
 
Last edited:
R

rocketman122

Senior Member
newtonikon said:
HI I am new to Nikon moved across from Pentax. I am getting the 810 and i am not sure what lenses to get. I do newborn photography with general portrait added in too. I am looking to branch into stock landscape photography, i live in Scotland, and i need a relatively wide angled lens.
The dilemma i have is... i think the 24mm-70mm lens would be good for both types of photography and i would also add a 50mm prime, at the moment that is my staple lens.

I can't wait for the new 24-70 model or really stretch to it's price but is it worth buying the old model right now? It's selling SH for around £900, will the price drop after the new model comes out? And is it as good as i am hoping it is?

Many thanks for your help

Jay
Click to expand...

yes the price should drop a bit. dont think by much. youre in europe and they dont really have good sales like in the US. the lens is good. ive seen 3 of 4 lenses suffer from the noted zoom stiffness from various wedding photogs. its the reason I never upgraded from my 28-70 AFS. landscape ,newborn, and portraiture has no need for VR. if you say weddings..then I may say..eh, maybe. but for video, yes. it would be a feature to have, but if youre shooting video then the tamron would suit you just fine since video is less demanding and itll be 50% of the nikon VR coming in october.

if youre focusing on portraiture, nothing beats the look of an 85mm. I have a 50mm in my bag and never use it. for full body shots of adults it will fit the bill. its not aesthetically pleasing for anything tight above the chest line. the 24-70G will be a good all arounder lens for now. its not a specialty lens. its a lens for flexibility and convenience. you can use it at 70mm for portraits but 1-better to have more compression and 2-youll be quite close to the subject which might make them feel uncomfortable, and 3-you may not have space to work if youre doing tight face shot since youll be so close and the light modifiers might be behind you. and almost always the umbrellas/softbox are in front of me when I shoot. a 70-200 f/2.8 would be much more suited for portraiture/newborn.

dont forget flashes/umbrellas/light stands/softbox/reflectors
 
W

wornish

Senior Member
Have a look at the Tamron 24 -70mm. I have one on my D810 most of the time. It is superb.


Oh, and welcome to Nikonites !
 
Last edited:
N

newtonikon

Senior Member
Thank you for that loads of great info.

Sorry i should have said i mainly shoot in natural light so maybe the 2.8 wouldn't be okay in all sessions. Would you recommend anything else? I was using the 50mm for parents and child shots, waist up. So many things to consider i am just going round in circles i'm afraid :D
 
W

wornish

Senior Member
newtonikon said:
Thank you for that, would you say it's as good as the Nikon one and would it be good enough for stock images?:D
Click to expand...


It beats the original "holy trinity" Nikon 24 -70mm in every review.
I have not seen any reviews on the new Nikon just released so can't compare to that.
It actually beats many Nikon primes as well.

In real life its more than adequate for stock photos.

Did I tell you I really like it.
 
B

Blade Canyon

Senior Member
If you are shooting newborns, and if you want that trendy close up shallow depth-of-field as in the pic below, you might think about the 85mm 1.4. The 24-70 2.8, even shot wide open, might not produce the same result.

Cape-Town-Newborn-photographer_010.jpg

This is not my pic, I just grabbed one from a Google search...
 
S

singlerosa_RIP

Senior Member
I agree with rocketman that for portraits, the 85 and 70-200 are preferable to the 24-70. But, if you can afford just one zoom, you can't go wrong with the 24-70.
 
R

rocketman122

Senior Member
Ill agree with wayne regarding the 24-70 tamron vs nikon. both are great but the nikon is superior in sharpness to the corners shot open. the tamron suffers from vignetting wide open. but thats not an issue for portraiture at all. I even add a light vignette to pictures anyways. usually I never shoot at 2.8 so if I stop down from f4-5 then its already gone. I have to add a very light vignette. not perceptible to the untrained eye. the tamron is very good. and for the money it gives an excellent performance. personally if youre low on the dough, consider the tamron 24-70/70-200 or maybe the tamron 24-70 and the nikon 85 1.8g which will equal the price of the nikon.
 
W

wornish

Senior Member
WayneF said:
I've only looked at one review, but that was not true of it.

Nikkor AF-S 24-70mm f/2.8G ED (FX) - Review / Test Report

Tamron AF 24-70mm f/2.8 SP Di USD VC (FX) - Review / Test Report


Interesting reviews done in 2009 when the Tamron was first released. but .... it still says the Tamron is better.

Don't understand your comments .

Nikon Weight 900gm
Tamron Weight 825gm

Nikon VR No
Tamron VR Yes


DxO mark overall score
Nikon 14
Tamron 29 !!!! thats a huge difference, and as I said beats many primes.


Price
Tamron a lot less than Nikon

Reviews since 2009 confirm that Tamron have sorted their prior quality issues. Not seen any reviews criticising the quality of this lens.

Just saying.

Had one for over a year and still a happy user.

But choose what you feel happy with, Nikon makes great kit.
Click to expand...
 
R

rocketman122

Senior Member
If I was in the market for a 24-70, id get the tamron no hesitation. id put the rest of the money I saved towards the new sigma 85 1.4 art that was announced in my mind when I was fantasizing hahaha
 
W

WayneF

Senior Member
wornish said:
DxO mark overall score
Nikon 14
Tamron 29 !!!! thats a huge difference, and as I said beats many primes.
Click to expand...

DxO? :) You have to understand that I'm one of those that totally ignore DxO. I think I would prefer actual real tests... with meaningful numbers that can be compared.

Here's a summary of people that think like me:

dxo reliability - Google Search

It should not even be a question, much less a popular opinion.

I'm speaking of DxO, and I have nothing against the Tamron, I even own one different Tamron. I imagine they are all a good deal for the price. But I'm really pleased with my Nikon Trinity.

But not imagining that the DxO test really could actually be that bad, I had to check for myself. I see very different numbers than you mention. They are just DxO numbers, and yes, they do still see things no one else does, and we really don't know what those things are, or why they do it, but perhaps you put the Nikon version on a DX body with few megapixels, or something? They are not really testing lenses.

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8G ED on Nikon D800 versus Tamron SP 24-70mm F2.8 Di VC USD Nikon on Nikon D800 - Side by side lens comparison - DxOMark
 
Last edited:
N

newtonikon

Senior Member
Hi all
I am going to go for the 85mm 1:4 and a 50mm too. I need a good lens for stock landscapes and also group portraits too.

Would the 24-70 still be a good option or another?
Thank you in advance
 
A

Ad B

Senior Member
wornish said:
WayneF said:
...
DxO mark overall score
Nikon 14
Tamron 29 !!!! thats a huge difference, and as I said beats many primes.

Price
Tamron a lot less than Nikon
...
Click to expand...

WayneF said:
...
DxO? :) You have to understand that I'm one of those that totally ignore DxO. I think I would prefer actual real tests... with meaningful numbers that can be compared.

But not imagining that the DxO test really could actually be that bad, I had to check for myself. I see very different numbers than you mention. They are just DxO numbers, and yes, they do still see things no one else does, and we really don't know what those things are, or why they do it, but perhaps you put the Nikon version on a DX body with few megapixels, or something?
They are not really testing lenses.
...
Click to expand...

Hi,
Wornisch, you have very, very strange testing numbers from DXO.
With the camera the topic starter wants to buy, the 810, the numbers doesn't differ much. As with other Nikon cameras.
Tamron SP 24-70mm F2.8 Di VC USD Nikon on Nikon D810 versus Nikon AF-S Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8G ED on Nikon D810 - Side by side lens comparison - DxOMark

Wayne, it's your choice to ignore DXO. But to write DXO isn't testing lenses???
Push the tab "cameras tested with this lens" ...
I can link 3 more sites, if you want. They have about the same conclusions as DXO.
Nikon a tiny bit better, but is it worth that it will cost you a lot more?

The Tamron is a good choice if you have to choose.
You always can buy a lens with your eyes closed, you always can buy the "Holy Grail" of Nikon. But will cost you a lot more.
And don't even think about the newest version from Nikon, the VR version... That will cos youre marriage... :D
Enthusiastic fans of the Nikon 24-70 mostly don't like comments on their "Holy" Nikon... Others have to live with that.
Click to expand...
 
R

rocketman122

Senior Member
Ad B said:
wornish said:
Hi,
Wornisch, you have very, very strange testing numbers from DXO.
With the camera the topic starter wants to buy, the 810, the numbers doesn't differ much. As with other Nikon cameras.
Tamron SP 24-70mm F2.8 Di VC USD Nikon on Nikon D810 versus Nikon AF-S Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8G ED on Nikon D810 - Side by side lens comparison - DxOMark

Wayne, it's your choice to ignore DXO. But to write DXO isn't testing lenses???
Push the tab "cameras tested with this lens" ...
I can link 3 more sites, if you want. They have about the same conclusions as DXO.
Nikon a tiny bit better, but is it worth that it will cost you a lot more?

The Tamron is a good choice if you have to choose.
You always can buy a lens with your eyes closed, you always can buy the "Holy Grail" of Nikon. But will cost you a lot more.
And don't even think about the newest version from Nikon, the VR version... That will cos youre marriage... :D
Enthusiastic fans of the Nikon 24-70 mostly don't like comments on their "Holy" Nikon... Others have to live with that.
Click to expand...

and your back. its huge and heavy.

pretty impressive those numbers at the link. im not a fan of dxomark. I prefer images and let me see the untouched raw files.

I agree with Wornish, sigma tamron tokina are putting out some excellent gear that not only rivals nikon/canon gear but easily surpasses it. price build performance. its all there.

a pro can build a full lineup of gear from 3rd party lenses. I have to get a video of my friends gear. he has everything. his 14-24 AFS gave up on him so he bought the tamron 15-30 VC lens. hes in awe. beats the 14-24. he has 2. yes TWO 70-200 2.8 VR II lenses and he bought the tamron and uses those. 2xd4s/ D750/ 135DC/ 85 1.4G/ 24-70 2.8 which has very bad build quality. completely falling apart. Ill get a video showing his gear.
Click to expand...
 
Top