Battle of the 24-70 f2.8 F mount Nikon

If you would like to post, you'll need to register. Note that if you have a BCG store account, you'll need a new, separate account here (we keep the two sites separate for security purposes).

Ado Wolf

Ado Wolf

Well-known member
Member's gallery
I was mainly a wildlife photographer, but I find myself branching out more and more into landscape photography, particularly coupled with travel. Previously I used the D7500 with the Tokina 11-16 mm. Recently I switched to D850 + 16-35 F4 coupled with the 24 mm F1.8 for low light situations. For tele I still use the 70-200 F4. However I am now wondering if I am missing out by not having a 24-70 F2.8? (one can never have enough lenses :LOL:)

Do I really need a 24-70 F2.8 considering landscape constitutes 25% of my photography portfolio? I guess it comes in handy with family / kids photography?
If yes, which lens from the below would you recommend:

- older version Nikon AF-S 24-70 F2.8 G ED (no VR)
which apparently is sharper than the newer "E" model
but lack of VR is not to be underestimated (as I rarely carry a tripod)
- Tamron SP 24-70mm f / 2.8 Di VC USD G2
highly recommended in the net and well priced *new
will it work with Z bodies if/when I make the switch?
- Sigma Art 24-70mm F/2.8 DG OS HSM
just listing this one to show I researched it, but won't buy it based on Research results
not very popular and not recommended (bad VR and not as sharp)

I did consider the Nikon AF-S VR Zoom-Nikkor 24-120mm f/4G ED and 24-85mm... but I find F2.8 important for me, as I take many sunrise and sunset photos.

The Nikon AF-S 24-70mm F2.8 E ED VR is over my budget.. particularly because I am mainly a wildlife photographer.

Thank you for your feedback.
 
Last edited:
Member's gallery
I have the non VR 24-70, and I find it to be very good. Certainly as good as I need. I have an on-line buddy who finds his 24-70 VR to be better. Better in the centre and better at the edges. Others say the non-VR is better I n the centre. To me, this suggests it won't be a "night and day" difference. I love getting new gear, I must admit, but I am happy with my 24-70 as is. The guy I respect most says that the best landscape lens in that range is the Zeiss Milvus 25mm f1.4. Manual focus, heavy and expensive. May be available used (?). If you buy the 24-70 G ED, just check it does not have the "zoom grind" problem and enjoy it!
Iain
 
Member's gallery
I use both the older 24-70mm f/2.8G and the 24-70mm f/2.8E VR. I do think the G series is marginally sharper and also renders slightly nicer colours , its the one I use most.

That said the E series VR lens has dug me out of a hole on a few projects in dark conditions when a tripod/monopod/flash has not been an option!

Using them on a D5 and D850.
 
Member's gallery
I was tempted to get a 24-70 but was not certain I needed it. I did an analysis of many sessions and found that I shoot mostly wide or long, very little within the 24-70 range. I have 16-35 f/4 and 20 f/1.8 at the wide end of the range and use the 70-200 f/2.8 at the other. The mudflats of the range I simply cover with the 50 f/1.8.
The money I saved on the 24-70, I put towards the 300 and 500 PF.
 
Member's gallery
Ado Wolf said:
However I am now wondering if I am missing out by not having a 24-70 F2.8? (one can never have enough lenses :LOL:)

Do I really need a 24-70 F2.8 considering landscape constitutes 25% of my photography portfolio? I guess it comes in handy with family / kids photography?

I did consider the Nikon AF-S VR Zoom-Nikkor 24-120mm f/4G ED and 24-85mm... but I find F2.8 important for me, as I take many sunrise and sunset photos.
Click to expand...

My landscape rig is a D810 plus 18-35mm, 50mm f1.8 and 70-200mm f4VR. I for one never felt the need for a standard zoom (24-70/105/120) for landscapes... I have rented one a couple of times and each time I found out I produced mostly flat and rather boring images with it unless I was at the extreme focal lengths that I already have covered...

I find a standard zoom very useful for people and travel photography though (I have one on the micro Four Thirds vacation rig).

Keep in mind that an f4 lens with Image Stabilization will be more useful than an f2.8 lens without Image Stabilization, especially on a high resolution sensor like the D850... Say, where I would need 70mm @ ISO1600, f2.8, 1/125s, I might get away with ISO800, f4, 1/30s...

Those being said, I would go for either the Tamron 24-70mm f2.8 VC G2 for image stabilization and f2.8 in the same package or the Sigma 24-105mm F4 Art for extra reach, OIS and overlap with the 70-200mm f4.
 
Member's gallery
@IainD thank you for your feedback. I take both are then good enough for me. The VR version is today outside my budget though and used copies are still quite expensive.

@Graham Clark thank you for your input. So you confirm my concern about VR being useful particularly during golden hour (darker hours). I guess Tamron is probably the better option.

@Steve W that's exactly what I did.. I recently bought the 300 PF because I avoided buying the 24-70 (till this point).. and now I'm saving up for the 500 PF. I too have a 50 f1.8 alongside the 24 f1.8.

@StefanSC thanks, I too think VR is quite important and as you said even more on a D850. I guess that pushes me more towards the Tamron if I get convinced that the focal length will be useful. I prefer to stick with normal zooms (max 3x the focal range) and avoid super zooms like the 24-105.
 
Member's gallery
Agree that the non VR yields sharp photos, and disliked the 82mm front end of the VR version. I've owned the 24-70 2.8 for years and will never let it go. Mine is super sharp on all my cameras. However, I admit the 24-120 f4 gets more use as it has the added reach, a great for events and general purpose photography.
I've never owned Sigma or Tamron gear. Reply what you decide, we'd like to know.
 
Member's gallery
I would probably pick the 24-70G. I had it and used it for years when I used to do more landscapes. Had lots of images taken with that lens published and won more than a few contests with those images as well. It's a good optic. I had the 24-70E as well and I think I liked the 24-70G better. The "E" was better at shorter focal lengths though, but for the price difference, not sure it was worth it. FWIW, the best 24-70 I've ever used is the new Nikon 24-70S lens for the Z mount.
 
Member's gallery
I have the G version as well. It is a superb lens which I use for portraits and landscapes. I considered the newer VR version, but the price difference wasn't worth it to me to get a VR function. The lens produces very sharp images.
 
Member's gallery
From what I have read, the non-VR 24-70 is generally sharper in the center while the VR 24-70 is more evenly sharp across the frame and thus better in the corners and along the edges. That evenness may be useful for landscape work.

For a number of years, I used the 24-120 VR as a hiking lens. Not bad, but not great either. I found myself using the 1.8 F mount primes for landscapes from a tripod.

When I decided that I wanted a better lens in the 24-70 range, I decided to get a Z7 so that I could use the 24-70 f4 in Z mount and have a lighter kit for hiking. It’s quite a nice lens and relatively light, especially when compared to its F mount cousins.

And then I decided to get the 24-70 f2.8 S in Z mount, which is a great lens and also materially lighter than the F mount 24-70s (but of course heavier than the 24-70 f4). I use it for landscapes, except in some cases where weight is an issue when I take the 24-70 f4 (some hikes). I also have a few Z mount 1.8 primes, but the 24-70 f2.8 S is so good that I am using them less than I expected.
 
Member's gallery
I’ve own the AF-S 24-70 f2.8 G for 12 years and I've been very pleased with the IQ. I also have the 24 - 120 VR F4 but for Landscapes I more than often still use the 24 - 70 G 2.8, However low light situations with slow SS a Monopod or TriPod is recommended. My first copy developed the Barrell Grind issue within a couple weeks of purchase and I was able to exchange.
 
Member's gallery
I also have the AF-S 24-70 f2.8 G and does everything that I ask of it well. However l read an interesting article awhile back that said not to use a wide angle to shoot landscapes. But instead shoot a sequence and stitch them together in PS. I’ve tried this and it’s quite interesting. I still used the 24-70, but shot closer to 70 in portrait. Result was interesting took 5-6 shots stitched together, =1 picture was something like 4.5 gig, shooting with the D850. So much more detail than one shot wide angle horizontal. Just a thought that maybe you can try ??
 
Member's gallery
Thank you all for the replies. The G version is definitely the one that it’s most recommended on this forum. It is in my price range and will surely work with the Z camera should I choose to upgrade eventually. I always hesitated to buy 3rd party lenses mainly for future compatibility issues.. so why start now.
 
Member's gallery
Steve said:
I would probably pick the 24-70G. I had it and used it for years when I used to do more landscapes. Had lots of images taken with that lens published and won more than a few contests with those images as well. It's a good optic. I had the 24-70E as well and I think I liked the 24-70G better. The "E" was better at shorter focal lengths though, but for the price difference, not sure it was worth it. FWIW, the best 24-70 I've ever used is the new Nikon 24-70S lens for the Z mount.
Click to expand...
I would love to see a gallery of your landscape pix, award-winning and otherwise.

Need to remember that great photos are more dependent upon the structure 5 inches behind the lens, not the lens.
 
Member's gallery
Ado Wolf said:
I was mainly a wildlife photographer, but I find myself branching out more and more into landscape photography, particularly coupled with travel. Previously I used the D7500 with the Tokina 11-16 mm. Recently I switched to D850 + 16-35 F4 coupled with the 24 mm F1.8 for low light situations. For tele I still use the 70-200 F4. However I am now wondering if I am missing out by not having a 24-70 F2.8? (one can never have enough lenses :LOL:)

Do I really need a 24-70 F2.8 considering landscape constitutes 25% of my photography portfolio? I guess it comes in handy with family / kids photography?
If yes, which lens from the below would you recommend:

- older version Nikon AF-S 24-70 F2.8 G ED (no VR)
which apparently is sharper than the newer "E" model
but lack of VR is not to be underestimated (as I rarely carry a tripod)
- Tamron SP 24-70mm f / 2.8 Di VC USD G2
highly recommended in the net and well priced *new
will it work with Z bodies if/when I make the switch?
- Sigma Art 24-70mm F/2.8 DG OS HSM
just listing this one to show I researched it, but won't buy it based on Research results
not very popular and not recommended (bad VR and not as sharp)

I did consider the Nikon AF-S VR Zoom-Nikkor 24-120mm f/4G ED and 24-85mm... but I find F2.8 important for me, as I take many sunrise and sunset photos.

The Nikon AF-S 24-70mm F2.8 E ED VR is over my budget.. particularly because I am mainly a wildlife photographer.

Thank you for your feedback.
Click to expand...

I consider the 24-70 f/2.8 a staple. It's a pro workhorse lens with very good performance. I have the G, Z f/2.8, Z f/4, and a couple of DX equivalents.

The G version is sharp in the center of the frame, but not as good toward the corners. I have one that I'm going to sell soon. The big thing to watch with a used copy is the smoothness of the zoom and focus. If it is rough, it make be related to a mechanical issue that is hard to repair. Functionally, it's not a big deal and the lens still works fine. The softer corners are only an issue with some landscapes and panos. I'd still recommend the lens - especially if you can find a good used copy from someone moving to the Z.

The Z lenses are especially good toward the corners if you are considering a new camera.
 
Member's gallery
PaulBCT said:
I would love to see a gallery of your landscape pix, award-winning and otherwise.

Need to remember that great photos are more dependent upon the structure 5 inches behind the lens, not the lens.
Click to expand...

here ya go:

Landscapes - Backcountry Gallery

backcountrygallery.com backcountrygallery.com

I think I have some newer stuff that's not up there (I'm more known for wildlife so I'm not as good at keeping up with landscapes) and some of that work is a little more "processed" than what I do nowadays, but you'll get the idea. Most of those were with the 24-70G and 14-24G.
 
Member's gallery
Steve said:
here ya go:

Landscapes - Backcountry Gallery

backcountrygallery.com backcountrygallery.com

I think I have some newer stuff that's not up there (I'm more known for wildlife so I'm not as good at keeping up with landscapes) and some of that work is a little more "processed" than what I do nowadays, but you'll get the idea. Most of those were with the 24-70G and 14-24G.
Click to expand...
Steve, those are gorgeous!
If our state hadn't just been locked down for a virus outbreak, I would go out and try that now,
Iain
 
Member's gallery
Ado Wolf said:
I was mainly a wildlife photographer, but I find myself branching out more and more into landscape photography, particularly coupled with travel. Previously I used the D7500 with the Tokina 11-16 mm. Recently I switched to D850 + 16-35 F4 coupled with the 24 mm F1.8 for low light situations. For tele I still use the 70-200 F4. However I am now wondering if I am missing out by not having a 24-70 F2.8? (one can never have enough lenses :LOL:)

Do I really need a 24-70 F2.8 considering landscape constitutes 25% of my photography portfolio? I guess it comes in handy with family / kids photography?
If yes, which lens from the below would you recommend:

- older version Nikon AF-S 24-70 F2.8 G ED (no VR)
which apparently is sharper than the newer "E" model
but lack of VR is not to be underestimated (as I rarely carry a tripod)
- Tamron SP 24-70mm f / 2.8 Di VC USD G2
highly recommended in the net and well priced *new
will it work with Z bodies if/when I make the switch?
- Sigma Art 24-70mm F/2.8 DG OS HSM
just listing this one to show I researched it, but won't buy it based on Research results
not very popular and not recommended (bad VR and not as sharp)

I did consider the Nikon AF-S VR Zoom-Nikkor 24-120mm f/4G ED and 24-85mm... but I find F2.8 important for me, as I take many sunrise and sunset photos.

The Nikon AF-S 24-70mm F2.8 E ED VR is over my budget.. particularly because I am mainly a wildlife photographer.

Thank you for your feedback.
Click to expand...
Ado Wolf said:
I was mainly a wildlife photographer, but I find myself branching out more and more into landscape photography, particularly coupled with travel. Previously I used the D7500 with the Tokina 11-16 mm. Recently I switched to D850 + 16-35 F4 coupled with the 24 mm F1.8 for low light situations. For tele I still use the 70-200 F4. However I am now wondering if I am missing out by not having a 24-70 F2.8? (one can never have enough lenses :LOL:)

Do I really need a 24-70 F2.8 considering landscape constitutes 25% of my photography portfolio? I guess it comes in handy with family / kids photography?
If yes, which lens from the below would you recommend:

- older version Nikon AF-S 24-70 F2.8 G ED (no VR)
which apparently is sharper than the newer "E" model
but lack of VR is not to be underestimated (as I rarely carry a tripod)
- Tamron SP 24-70mm f / 2.8 Di VC USD G2
highly recommended in the net and well priced *new
will it work with Z bodies if/when I make the switch?
- Sigma Art 24-70mm F/2.8 DG OS HSM
just listing this one to show I researched it, but won't buy it based on Research results
not very popular and not recommended (bad VR and not as sharp)

I did consider the Nikon AF-S VR Zoom-Nikkor 24-120mm f/4G ED and 24-85mm... but I find F2.8 important for me, as I take many sunrise and sunset photos.

The Nikon AF-S 24-70mm F2.8 E ED VR is over my budget.. particularly because I am mainly a wildlife photographer.

Thank you for your feedback.
Click to expand...
I'm in the same position re what I do, I have the 24-70 2.8 Tamron vc G1 and the 70-200 2.8 vc G1. Both are super sharp and render great colours and clarity. I hardly ever use the 24-70. I find myself using it only because I have it (guilt) My 70-200 is permanently on my D750. Love my Tamrons. If I had the money, I'd probably buy the Nikkor versions but.....Having said that, the Tamrons often get better reviews?! So, if you want a 24-70 get the Tamron cause it's cheaper, you'll still be happy. BTW, I also use a 10-24 Tamron (DX /Di II) on my full frame at 15mm (14 at a squeeze) upwards, great results! I have found that the Tamron VC is better than Nikons VR IMHO. Having said ALL that, I can not believe how sharp and how beautiful the colours are on my Nikkon 105 2.8 VR Micro however the VR doesn't match Tamrons VC.
 
Member's gallery
Steve W said:
I was tempted to get a 24-70 but was not certain I needed it. I did an analysis of many sessions and found that I shoot mostly wide or long, very little within the 24-70 range. I have 16-35 f/4 and 20 f/1.8 at the wide end of the range and use the 70-200 f/2.8 at the other. The mudflats of the range I simply cover with the 50 f/1.8.
The money I saved on the 24-70, I put towards the 300 and 500 PF.
Click to expand...
Thanks for that! I'm the same but wasn't sure what to do. I'm going to take a feather out of your cap and do the same. Sell my 24-70, get a decent 50 and put the rest into a longer lens.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top