New 24-70 Arrives

I'm genuinely excited! My new Nikon 24-70mm F/2.8 AFS FX lens just arrived. The first thing I did was put its 77mm UV filter on for protection. At $1700 the $50 filter protects my investment.

This glass is huge! With the lens hood attached it's wide, long and heavy. On my present D7000 it feels really good in my big hands. I've always held SLR cameras with the barrel of the lens cradled on my left hand so the setup is balanced. The zoom ring being so close to the camera body is different but I'm sure it won't take me long to get used to. The lens focused really fast, so much so that it surprised me. I'm going to love the extra speed of this glass at F/2.8.

By luck we're supposed to have a sunny day tomorrow so I'm going to take the gear out to shoot some test shots. I took two shots inside my apartment, one at 24mm and the next at 70mm and checked the Exif data on the shots for focal length on the DX body. To my surprise it indicated 24mm and 70mm. Why was there no 1.5X multiplier?

I look forward to the arrival of the new D800 I ordered for this lens. I know my friends are shocked at the money I just spent on the new gear, nearly $5,000 with all the filters and memory cards. I have a 16Gig 600X CF card and an 8 Gig Class 10 SD card for the new camera. All is ready as I can use the 77mm CPL from my Tokina 11-16mm zoom on the new 24-70mm.

Very nice lens, I'm jealous! And I'm also jealous that your 800 will arrive a month earlier than my 800E! I've already been asked by Bill Claff to help fill in the stats on the "E" model. Btw, I'm thinking of greeting my 800E with either a 14-24mm lens or a 70-200mm. I'm leaning towards 14-24mm to take advantage of the wideness of both the lens and the full-frame.

DWPhotos said:

Very nice lens, I'm jealous! And I'm also jealous that your 800 will arrive a month earlier than my 800E! I've already been asked by Bill Claff to help fill in the stats on the "E" model. Btw, I'm thinking of greeting my 800E with either a 14-24mm lens or a 70-200mm. I'm leaning towards 14-24mm to take advantage of the wideness of both the lens and the full-frame.

Click to expand...

Have you considered the Tokina 11-16mm F/2.8? It's rated as a better lens for hundreds less.

"The Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 AT-X is the best ultrawide zoom available for Nikon DX cameras, better than even Nikon's more expensive 12-24mm AF-S DX." - Ken Rockwell

"Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 lens Here is a list of things I like about this lens: - HOSSedia

• It produces sharp images with great color. Note: I’m not a pixel peeper, so your results may differ.
• Great build quality.
• The focus ring is smooth.
• To switch to manual focus from auto-focus you just pull the focus ring back. Push it forward to get back to auto-focus.
• Fairly light weight and easy to carry around.
• Because it is an f2.8 you can use it to make pretty blurry backgrounds or use it to shoot in very low light since it lets quite a bit of light in.
• It uses a fairly common 77mm filter size. Not that I used many filters with this lens, but I was able to use filters that I had from other lenses that were the same size.
• Wide angles just offer a very cool and unique perspective. You can get a lot of wow from them!

Bite your tongue! Coupling a 800E to a non-Nikkor lens would be utter blasphemy and the Nikkor Gods would forever smite me! To be honest, the only glass I would consider buying outside of Nikkor would be Zeiss.

DWPhotos said:

Bite your tongue! Coupling a 800E to a non-Nikkor lens would be utter blasphemy and the Nikkor Gods would forever smite me! To be honest, the only glass I would consider buying outside of Nikkor would be Zeiss but my pockets aren't that deep yet.

Click to expand...

I'd put a Canon lens on my D800 if it was rated much better than the Nikon equivalent and much cheaper. There, I said it. I've thought of the "Dark Side". LOL

bobmielke said:

Have you considered the Tokina 11-16mm F/2.8? It's rated as a better lens for hundreds less.

Click to expand...

Correct me if I'm wrong Bob, but isn't the Tokina 11-16 2.8 a DX lens?

Yes, it is Marcel.

Nikon 14-24 F/2.8 FX = $2,000
Nikon 12-24 F/4 DX = $1,225
Nikon 24-70 F/2.8 FX = $1,700
Tokina 11-16 F/2.8 DX = $700

Congrats Bob. It's a beautiful lens. I love the nice heft a solid lens provides in hand. I recently purchased the 24-70 2.8 and it mates wonderfully with the 70-200VRII 2.8 (I use them both on my D700 and D7000). Looking forward to the pictures from your first excursion with your new toy tomorrow.

bluenoser said:

Congrats Bob. It's a beautiful lens. I love the nice heft a solid lens provides in hand. I recently purchased the 24-70 2.8 and it mates wonderfully with the 70-200VRII 2.8 (I use them both on my D700 and D7000). Looking forward to the pictures from your first excursion with your new toy tomorrow.

Click to expand...

I'm going to give it a good old fashioned college try. I'll undoubtedly head for the Portland Zoo strictly for the familiarity. I intend to carry just the D7000 with the 24-70mm aboard.

One word -- WOW!

That's going to go well with your D800.

Please Bob, let us know of your thoughts after looking at the results with the 24-70. I've been wrong before, but I'm afraid the 18-200 won't be used much after you see what Nikon's top lenses can produce. Since I've gotten the 17-55 with the D7000, it's pretty well on the camera all the time.

I'm actually jealous but I have to remember that when I had the opportunity to get that lens I choose the 24-120 instead for the range. It's still in my mind though...

Marcel said:

Please Bob, let us know of your thoughts after looking at the results with the 24-70. I've been wrong before, but I'm afraid the 18-200 won't be used much after you see what Nikon's top lenses can produce. Since I've gotten the 17-55 with the D7000, it's pretty well on the camera all the time.

I'm actually jealous but I have to remember that when I had the opportunity to get that lens I choose the 24-120 instead for the range. It's still in my mind though...

Click to expand...

Since I'm keeping the D7000 as well as the new D800 I feel the 18-200mm, my present favorite lens, will continue to get used. In most of my animal photos of big cats I will need the reach of the 200mm side of the lens. That's why I initially attempted to buy the 28-300mm FX lens.

If your friends are really your friends then they will realize the photography is near and dear to your heart no matter how much it costs...I mean come on you climb inside lion cages to get the snap...I've seen the photos! hahaha

bobmielke said:

I'm genuinely excited! My new Nikon 24-70mm F/2.8 AFS FX lens just arrived. The first thing I did was put its 77mm UV filter on for protection. At $1700 the $50 filter protects my investment.

Click to expand...

You put a $50 filter on a $1700 lens? Madness.

Don't expect the sharpest images.

EttVenter said:

You put a $50 filter on a $1700 lens? Madness.

Don't expect the sharpest images.

Click to expand...

I kind of second that if that $50 filter is a not a pro one. Ett, they (USA) might get the pro filters at much cheaper price than we do here in SA. Amazon sells the awesome Nikon ND 77mm for only $70!!! We pay between $150 to $200 for a Nikon ND filter 77mm in South Africa. And some States in the US are not burdened by taxes on consumer goods I believe.

But yeah, if you get a pro lens and 'need' to protect it with a UV/ND filter, stick to Nikon, Carl Zeiss, or B&W ONLY.

I have a Carl Zeiss UV T* 77mm filter in front of my Nikkor 85mm f/1.4, I did test shots with and without: no reduction in quality at all.

I'll be honest - I don't believe in filters. A filter is just another piece of glass that the light has to go through, and it DOES affect quality. Of course, on high-end filters, the effects are so little, but you need a really expensive filter for that.

I don't use filters on any of my lenses, even the expensive ones. Heck, I've got an 85mm 1.4G, which costs R18 000 ($2400) here, and I don't use a filter on that lens. I use the lens hood permanently, so the front element is well protected.

Also, a high-end filter that's GOOD ENOUGH costs as much as it would cost to replace the front element on my lens if I ever broke it, so I'd rather just risk it and be sure that my photos are as good as my lens can do, and not hindered by a filter that I may never need.

Yeah we have the same lens, I'm always tempted to remove the filter, but when I travel it stays on. Yes the Zeiss filter is expensive (R1,500), but if I break a filter (which happened before), at least I can carry-on shooting without the damaged filter.

Not sure about how much it cost to replace the large front element of the 85mm 1.4G, but I'd expect something much higher than the most expensive UV filter.

EttVenter said:

You put a $50 filter on a $1700 lens? Madness.

Don't expect the sharpest images.

Click to expand...

I put a Quantaray Pro Filter on the lens. THe $50 price I wrote was actually a $65 filter that I trust. I 've used this brand and series of filters for a very long time. I am not a Nikon snob. My photos speak for themselves. Those who think that affects sharpness are fooling themselves but not me. Nuff said.

Congrats Bob. The Nikon 24-70mm f2.8 lens is one of my favourite and mostly used zoom lens for family pictures. I used it with my D7000 yesterday for video and it worked very well especially at wide open. You can pixel peep on all corners at f4 and they will be razor sharp just like what you achieved.