INFORMATION PLEASE:Nikon AF-S 14-24 mm and 24-70 mm F2.8G ED

[Tom Swaman]

Has anyone seen any test reports or concrete information on Nikons new AF-S 14-24 mm and 24-70 mm F2.8G ED lense?

Tom

[Max@Home]

...I think Ken Rockwell shot them...

...but if he reported, and whether that's worth something...

...but I have my eyes out, too, will report back if something serious comes up

...€0.02...

Kindest regards,

Max@Home

[Tom Swaman]

Max, Thanks. I think I saw where Ken Rockwell shot these, but, and that should be BUTT, you know, but with two ts.....it is Ken Rockwell. Too bad it wasn't Thom Hogan or DPreview.

I have the 24-70mm on order, but I sure would like to know more before I even have this presented to be for keeps or return.

Thanks,
Tom

[dsp]

Bjørn Rørslett replaced the 28-70mm f/2.8 with the new 24-70mm f/2.8 on his list of best Nikkor lenses. He also reviews it. For those that don't know, Bjørn's reviews are very well respected in the Nikon community. Unlike some, Bjørn uses all the lenses he reviews and owns over a 100 of them I believe (the count is on his site somewhere).
Go here: NÆRFOTO Bjørn Rørslett and select lenses from the side-bar, then go to the zoom lens section for the review.

[Tom Swaman]

Dave,

Thank you for the wonderful information. Your assistance is most appreciated. Have a terrific weekend.

Tom

[dsp]

Originally Posted by Tom Swaman

Dave,

Thank you for the wonderful information. Your assistance is most appreciated. Have a terrific weekend.

Tom

No problem at all, glad to help.

[Tom Swaman]

Dave,

I was not familiar with this website before you were kind enough to share this with me. I read a whole lot of this and found it to be overall top quality and highly accurate even though it is said to be subjective. Afterall, what personal review is not subjective.

I was very familiar with all of the Nikon older micro/macro lenses, UV lenses, ultra-miros and PC-lenses except for the 85mm f/2.8. What Bjorn has published is, I believe accurate at the 90% to 95% level.

I must highlight one comment that stuck out above all others and might be of most significance to our readers here. Thi is his comment about the existence of greater performance variability in production zoom lenses than in prime lenses and the resulting necessity to test several lenses before selecting one for ownership. I hope I have paraphrased correctly and kept all in context. HOW TRUE THIS IS!!!!!

Great site! Great thanks again to you. I have placed this site in my list of favorites for easy periodic review.

Tom

[dsp]

I like Bjørn's reviews. I go there when deciding on a lens all the time. I agree all reviews are subjective, that's why I like his site. I know his style and it's better for me to use the opinions of a single known source. Some of the other sites that have equipment reviews have different contributors/readers reviewing each lens, I have a harder time aligning their opinions with what I end up thinking. With a single person's (very qualified) opinion, things are pretty constant. If that makes any sense....
Glad the link to the site is useful to you.

[Tom Swaman]

Dave,

I understand what you said. I was truly surprised that I have exactly his complement of choice Nikon lenses at this time except that I am using the 17-55mm f/2.8 and not his preferred 17-35mm. In fact, I jhave no experience with the 17-35 mm.

Interesting enough, I do use the 200mm f/4 Micro-Nikkor quite a bit. Given that this lens fits my needs, I find this to be the best overall quality macro formula lens. I fully realize that DOF is a critical issue, but so is working distance with macros and this lens minimizes the working distance issues and associated subject lighting issues.

Again, this is a great resource.

Tom

[cyclohexane]

Tom, I remember reading that Bjorn says that while he prefers the 17-35mm, he tends to use the 17-55mm more because it is a more convenient range.

In fact, I jhave no experience with the 17-35 mm.

If you don't shoot it at f/2.8 all the time, it's an incredible lens. Almost no noticeable flare when shooting into the sun, though if your lens is full of dust you lose this advantage. Wide open it's not the best lens, but by f/5.6 sharpness is even across the frame.

[Nikonfreak]

I'm eager to get my hands on a 24-70 f/2.8 AF-S

I am certain I will be quite happy with that lens.

Julio

[Tom Swaman]

Julio,

Me two. I have waited a long time before deciding to buy this lens, but what I see and what I read tells me that this fills in my gap. I am choosing this over the 28-70mm f/2.8 after all of the discussion on here and my trying this very good, very heavy, BEAST. I came very close to biting and decided to wait.

Tom

[Tom Swaman]

Michael,

Your comments are interesting. Is the 17-35mm better than the 17-55mm at 17mm? Do you experience a lot of flare issues with either of these lenses?

Thanks,
Tom

[Nikonfreak]

Originally Posted by Tom Swaman

Julio,

Me two. I have waited a long time before deciding to buy this lens, but what I see and what I read tells me that this fills in my gap. I am choosing this over the 28-70mm f/2.8 after all of the discussion on here and my trying this very good, very heavy, BEAST. I came very close to biting and decided to wait.

Tom

If the 24-70 is as good as the 28-70, I'll be extremely happy. I own the 28-70 and it's my main lens for just about any kind of work I do. It's superb. I would expect no less from the 24-70 f/2.8 ...

Julio

[cyclohexane]

Is the 17-35mm better than the 17-55mm at 17mm?

Wide open? No.

f/5.6 looks great on the 17-35mm. I've read reports that say the 17-55mm looks worse at f/8-11 than the 17-35mm, but I haven't tried it myself.

No idea on distortion characteristics, but I see very little distortion with my 17-35mm.

The 17-55mm's major advantages are center sharpness wide open, extended zoom range, and reduced size/weight.

Do you experience a lot of flare issues with either of these lenses?

No flare issues with the 17-35mm when clean; Bjorn's on the mark when he says there is little loss of contract even when pointed directly at a light source, i.e. the sun.

It's been a while since I've been looking at 17-55mm files (or copies of the lens, for that matter) but most people have told me it sucks if you want to include the sun in the frame.

[Tom Swaman]

Michael,

Ahh Michael, you see, living is easy. Only people make it difficulT!

Thanks for the info/comments,
Tom