I see extremely little difference between this and my primes. I think the concept that zooms are noticeably inferior to primes is a somewhat outdated one. My 24-70 almost matches my primes and my 70-200 shits on any of my primes in that range.

@@aussie8114, I'm debating buying the 24-70mm non vr and VR version. Which one would you buy, if they were side by side in a camera store?

@@DarthPrime10 For size the non vr gets my vote. The non vr is a pretty big lens, the vr even bigger. Image quality they are about the same. You just need to consider the sensor resolution because on a D850 you will need to use faster shutter speeds to avoid camera shake compared to a D810 or D750. So the VR is of a bit more benefit on the D850 vs the D750. Even though at times I would like vr, the bigger size would annoy me. I have the D810 and happy with the non vr.

@@aussie8114, thank you for the follow up. I had a D780 and I'm deciding if it would make sense for me to add the lens. I have the 24-120mm f/4; despite the difference in f-stop and 50mm zoom between the two, I figure I can adjust the ISO and/or, use an external flash to compensate during low light situations.

@@DarthPrime10 D780 is a 24 megapixel sensor. Not so important to have VR in the lens for general photography because to avoid hand held camera shake you likely only need to use a shutter speed about 2.5 to 3 times the lens focal length. This is known as the rule of reciprocity. So if shooting at say 70mm focal length then you best use a shutter speed no slower than about 1/200th. However on a sensor like a D850 you would need to be at about 1/400th. Basically the higher res the sensor the more camera shake will be obvious. That’s why the 24-70 VR lens was released around the time of the D850. In good lighting shooting 70mm at 1/400th will still allow your ISO to be not too high, but in lower light the ISO might creep up a bit high. Hence if you use a body like the D850 then being able to shoot at a lower shutter speed with the VR version can help with the ISO. MY D810 is 36 megapixels. I use a hand held shutter speed about 4 times the focal length just to be confident of getting a shake free shot. If I need to I can try 3 times but would need to shoot a short burst of maybe 4 or 5 shots to be confident one will be a nice sharp one. If I had the VR 24-70 I could confidently shoot at 2 times or even maybe 1times. So that would be 70mm at 1/70th. Of course if the subject itself is moving then camera shake (VR) is not that relevant. Can’t shoot a moving subject at a slower speed anyway. If the VR version of the 24-70 was not bigger and longer and heavier then I would think awesome, but it is and as it is the non VR version is a pretty big lens for such a modest focal range. Some say the 24-70 is a temperamental lens regarding if you knock the front of it you can mess up the zoom. Lens rentals confirmed this, I look after my gear and especially on the 24-70 I keep the hood on which protects the zoom from being damaged if knocked.

What did you decide in the end?

Thank You! :-)

Thanks for your support! :-)

Thanks1 :-)

Thanks - 70-200 review should be out shortly... :-)

Hi Scott, I also have the Nikon 24-120 f/4 on my Nikon D850, I have been thinking about renting a Nikon 24-70 just to see how much more IQ (if any) I am missing. I am also looking at the Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 g2 for the same reasoning....I do love the extra reach with the 24-120 though!

Mark Patten l wish someone would die and leave me a few bucks 💵💰💵

Fair comment - thanks. I used the 24-70 at a trade fair recently and really enjoyed the convenience of being able to shoot at 24 and then at 70 without changing lenses. The 50/1.4, 35/2 and 24/2.8 are great lens but, as you say, in some high pressure situations changing between these lenses could lose you the shot...

Thanks for the response. I almost never take the 24-70 when travelling, personal, or for video - just too heavy and bulky. It's a work machine, that's it.

Rockwood Joe I agree The thing with the 24-70 is that it is meant for pro event/PJ work where you just dont' have the time to screw around with primes but still need a relatively fast aperture. It is a compromise lens meant for shooting a rapidly changing situation under tight time constraints when you are being paid to get the shot. Most people would probably be better off buying a refurbished 24-85mm f/3.5-f/4.5G VR for like $300-$350 which will give you wide angle, the versatility of a zoom when you dont' want to be switching lenses and optical quality about equal to the much more expensive 24-120mm f/4.0. Then adding the 50mm 1.8G and 85mm 1.8G for excellent IQ, subject isolation, low light shooting and portraits. Or if you're really sure you wont need the versatility and speed of a zoom you can trade out the 24-85 for the 24mmf/2.8D prime or even have it in addition to the 24-85 if you can spend the money. You could also get a used 105mm or 135mm DC f/2.0 lens instead the 85mm and still be below what a new 24-70 costs. Which leaves extra money for other things that can make a huge difference in your images such as a decent tripod or a flash setup. The price, size,weight ect of the 24-70 only makes sense if you are using it for what it is meant for. If you aren't shooting event/pj type stuff where you just dont' have the time to change lenses there are better, lighter, and cheaper options.

Rockwood Joe very well said. As a wedding photographer this lens is just amazing. Yes, its heavy and bulky but the convenience of having all that focal lengths at 2.8 aperture is just a delight. Yes, shooting primes might get you slightly better result but you wont need that slight edge when the moment has already passed. Such is the reality in event photography. I wont also use this lens for travel and as a walk around lens due to its size and weight but for event photography this may be all that I need and maybe the 70-200.Other than the missed purpose of this lens it was a good review. keep up the good work.

Noel Perena Exactly. It is all about using the right tool for the right job. Most people who buy the 24-70 though are not pro event shooters, they are amateurs who buy it because it's expensive, "the Best" "fast" and "what the pros use" not because they actually thought about if it was the best choice or not for them personally. For many, perhaps most people who buy it the 24-70 is actually a huge waste of money.

No worries - you've got three great lenses which will collectively 'get the job done' at any focal length from 14 up to about 350 (with the TC). Tiny and inexpensive (esp. s/hand) 24mm f2.8 or 35mm f2 will help your bag on the days when you want to leave the 24-70 at home, though! Many thanks for your comments... :-)

It's sharp in the center but at the edges, even closing down to f8 it doesn't beat the previous AFD version. Between 24 and 40mm the edges are a disaster, and I am not the only user who says so.

Mine too.

Fair enough - thank you.

I don't think that was the point that JK was making Simon. I have this 24-70 too, but seldomly use it: I favour my 50mm f/1.8 G which performs better at 50mm and gives the extra stop of light and bokeh, and is marginally sharper, and is about a seventh of its weight, my Sigma 35mm f/1.4 Art blows it away at 35mm, even sharper at f/1.4, and my Nikon 20mm f/1.8G ED is my favoured wide angle. At short tele I prefer to put an 85mm f/1.4 on as it has better compression and far better bokeh and sharpness (though the latter, yes, very expensive). So I've got to the stage where I am thinking of selling mine, because it is too heavy, too conspicuous, limited compared to my primes in that range in terms of speed and bokeh, and doesn't outperform them optically. Yes, as an all-in-one compromise lens covering those focal lengths it is still a great lens, but it comes at a cost and in terms of weight and in size

JKLenses and the kids were

Thanks!

Thanks. 60mm AF-D is one of my favourite and sharpest lenses. Works well with non-macro subjects too as long as they're not moving about too much! It's also cracking value now that it's been 'overshadowed' by the AF-S version. :-)

Why use both Nikon and canon 🤔 Make up your mind and go with one system then you can get a range of lenses.

I agree - an awful lot of plastic in my 24-70 for a 'pro' lens. 28-105 will deliver v similar picture quality 95% of the time and if you drop it, it's not very expensive just to buy another one! :_)

Glad you found it useful! :-)

+JKLenses Better to do a review and comparison with other makes of 24-70mm lens than with primes. Bit disappointed in this respect with what would have been an excellent review

I think you've answered your own question! There are pros and cons of the 24-70 over a couple of primes and it depends on the kind of photography that you need them for. In some situations the primes will give better quality and VFM whereas in other situations only the speed of the 24-70 will get the shot you need... :-)

35 is not wide enough for landscape type shots.

As always, can you identify shots which your 24-120 isn't getting you? If so, would this be cured by an f2.8 aperture or extremely good (rather than very good) optical quality..? If so, then the upgrade may be worthwhile. If not then your money may be better spent elsewhere... :-)

As usually your comments are very straight to the point and useful. Agree 2.8 will not assist and the quality difference is hard to detect without zooming in 100%. I will stick with the 24 -120 f4 it works well with both the D800 & D4S. Looking forward to your next review and the primes I have.

Mark Reynolds

@@DavidSmith-eu4zr the one and only, i thought that was hoar cross church

You set the aperture on the camera, it has not aperture ring on the lens to do it manually.

Thanks - 70-200 review will be out soon... :-)

hard to find a clean used copy.

It's a review of the 24-70 lens with a (large) section reviewing possible alternative lenses in the 224mm to 70mm range.

I thought the same thing. This is more the reviewer presenting a case to NOT get the 24-70!

Nikon have been making lenses with enough resolution for the D810 since the days of film photography. When manual lenses were ‘replaced’ by AF lenses this didn’t represent any sudden leap forward in optical quality. I have several manual focus AI lenses and their optical quality is usually every bit the match of their current AF-D or AF-S versions. With the AF-D versions you get the convenience of autofocus and with the AF-S versions you get rather faster autofocus although the margin varies considerably between particular lenses. This may or may not be important to the kind of photography you do. More modern lenses will also probably perform better in tricky lighting conditions by virtue or developments in coating technologies, such as Nanocoating etc. In other words, I would expect many of the better manual lenses to perform well up to the standard of the D810’s chip in terms of things like resolution. Due to their simple construction they often give rather better images in terms of saturation etc than the modern zooms which contain ten or more pieces of glass. Optical quality of the glass is therefore not likely to be the deciding factor here - as always, it comes down to the type of things which you are photographing. If your subjects stay still or move predictably and you’re not always shooting into the Sun, then a good quality Nikon prime lenses from the days of AI or AI-S will give excellent or even better results than a modern plastic zoom. If your subjects jig about a lot or you regularly have to deal with an enforced poor viewpoint and/or tricky lighting then a more modern AF lens will be a better bet. AF-D lenses can often be fine, depending on the speed of your subject. For example, when photographing a stately home I often use a 30-year old 24mm f2 AI Nikkor which produces results which are more than up to modern standards on my D3s. However, when stuck at a less than ideal corner of a race circuit photographing Formula 1 cars, I need all the modern whizzy features of my 70-200 f2.8 AF-S VR lens..! So I guess it’s up to you - try your old manual Nikkors on the D810 - | don’t think you’ll be too disappointed and you’ll quickly identify the areas/applications where it’s going to be worth paying for a new lens with all these new-fangled features… J

JKLenses Thank you for taking the time to reply. I have been testing my current lenses and am satisfied with some (e.g. my 40 yr old 55mm Micro) and not so much with others. My primary work is done in the studio with the Nikon on a Cambo with Schneider lenses. But I'd like new lenses to explore other uses for the D810 at a reasonable cost. So, based on your tremendously helpful comments, my plan is to start by picking up some used AF-D lenses. If the optical quality is good, I'm sure I'll be happy with them. Thanks again.

Towards the end of the video. The 28-70 2.8D is recommended as a alternative; albeit a bit softer at 2.8

Thanks! :-)

Great review

+Bill Solomon As soon as I can get my hands on one... :-)

Any timelines that you can share ? There are a lot of conflicting reviews on the new lens so clarity will help

Stuart Lamont Get a 14-24mm for landscapes. Dont ditch your 24-70 you'll regret it 2 seconds after you've sold it.

+MrAppledude007 i agree, He might need this lens at some point. i for one shoot all type of shoots. so for weddings i think this would be great. fast, sharp, and not having to stop and change the lens is a plus.

+Samuel Monte-Arrieta In all the reviews I have seen & read about the Tamron 24-70mm it competes well with the Nikon-it is as sharp and great resolution. Maybe a touch softer in corners at f2.8 but apart from that it is supposed to be as good, has IS and is loads cheaper.

Both

How can it fall to bits