Nikon 24-70mm 2.8 with hood attached. The hood is the first thing I ditched.

A few months back, I picked up the  Nikkor AF-S 24-70mm f/2.8 G ED. I was new to Nikon (just made the switch from Canon), and this was one of my first “pro” lenses that I had ever gotten my hands on. I wanted to give myself some time to get my head around it, as well as to understand whether the performance difference between this zoom lens and a couple of decent quality prime lenses is really worth the price. Now, I am not going to go into a heavy amount of technical details/mumbo jumbo on the lens itself, or post charts and graphs about sharpness, corner sharpness, and distortion. If that is what you are looking for, you can find it all over the web. There are plenty of people all over the web who worry about this stuff, and they will happily give you all the charts and lab tests you want. This article is more directed towards those who are considering the lens for use outside of a controlled lab, are wanting to potentially invest $1,500 to $1,800 in it, and are looking for answers to real-life questions with regards to it.

I would like to point out that this review is based on my experience, and mine alone. I am not a pro photographer, just a long-term amateur who has shot on a lot of cameras and used a lot of lenses over the last 15 years. I have my biases and limitations on my experience, just like anyone else. If you see something you disagree with, post a comment. In an article such as this, it is important to have multiple points of view in order for the reader to make his or her choice.

I look at this lens differently than my other lenses – mostly because it is a little less like an object I own, and more like a long-term commitment. That might sound odd at first, but, believe me, this thing involves a lot of give and take. Let me explain:

The Give:

This lens is SHARP

Let’s get this out of the way – this lens has an awful lot to give. It is sharp. Some say it is one of, if not THE sharpest zoom lens ever produced by Nikon. It performs very well, even wide open (at 2.8 aperture), giving breathtaking shots. There is a very little amount of softness in the corners in the middle focal lengths, and you obviously have to adjust your expectations to account for the fact that it is a zoom lens, but zoom lenses generally do not get any better than this.

Bokeh is wonderfully smooth and has a wonderful look to it. There is distortion at 24mm, but again, this is a zoom, and the distortion is easy to correct in Photoshop. Vignetting is almost invisible, and chromatic aberration is very acceptable. I’ve read that there are field curvature issues resulting in out-of focus corners in some situations, however I am not a pixel junkie, and have yet to find any really horrible examples of this in my own work. On a side note (this is my blog, I can take any detours I want), I always wonder why folks consider corner sharpness to be such a holy grail? I usually darken or intentionally blur my corners in order to not distract from the main subject. But that is another subject, for another day.

The build quality is magnificent. Everything seems to be laid out as it should be, and the focus ring works well. The metal body feels very well made, with little wiggle or give in the components. All the components are put together with very tight tolerances, and the care in design and build quality shows.

Auto focus is smooth and quiet. It functions quite well, even in low light. I have yet to have a major problem with it hunting out a subject, even in tough conditions. You can get pretty close to your subject at a 1.2 foot minimum focal distance as well. I would like to have this a bit closer, but this is not a macro lens, so I will just chalk this up to my dream feature list. It hasn’t been an issue as of yet, but I know what to expect of the lens, so I haven’t tried to make it do something it is not supposed to do.

While not perfect, I would find it hard to imagine a  more perfect mid-range zoom performance-wise.

The Take:

The 24-70mm compared against a low profile prime lens

Here’s where we get to the honeymoon-is-over stuff. There are two to three major things that you need to know about when deciding on whether to make a commitment to this lens or not (notice I didn’t say “buy this lens or not”). Fortunately, these things are staring you right in the face, and aren’t necessarily surprises.

Firstly, the price is a huge commitment. At around $1,500+, this lens requires you to fork out some serious dough. You could get 3-5 very nice lenses for the same price. For example I picked up a nice $100 (used) 50mm 1.8 D prime lens. This lens is at LEAST as sharp and faster than the 24-70mm 2.8! This is an easy lens to manufacture, and it is made without a lot of bells and whistles. It trades a lot of construction (i.e. lots of plastic) and features (i.e. zoom) to do one thing very well; take sharp shots. You could easily come close to replacing a 24-70mm with a 50mm 1.8 and a $550 20mm 2.8 AF, or you could opt for he 50 mm 1.8 and a $350 24mm 2.8. We are talking a fraction of the price for similar performance. Only you have to changes lenses and maybe physically move in and out instead of zoom. The horror!

Next, for me, is the biggest issue. This thing is big and heavy. It didn’t take me that long to ditch the huge hood, since it is as big as it is unnecessary. Doing a lot of street shooting, I tend not to lug around a lot of large, heavy equipment. At 35 oz, this lens is heavier than my actual camera! The dimensions are about 5 1/4″ x 3 1/4″. You want to be light in weight and discrete when shooting? Then stop reading right now, because this lens is the wrong choice for you. When I bought it, it caused me a great amount of agony at first because, while I loved the photos, I hated toting it around and shooting with it. I mean I really HATED it. I was “this close” to selling the lens and replacing it with several lighter and smaller lenses. The only problem was, every time I picked it up, the image quality pulled me back in. Kind of like when you are with a girl and you fight constantly, but each time you make up it seems SO worth it.

Not much longer than a pencil? Only it's 30x as thick and made of a lot of metal.

Fortunately for me, I have been able to adjust my routine and carrying habits to accommodate this lens and have decided to keep it. I rigged up a new system inside my main bag (not a camera bag, I personally detest camera bags) that allows me to carry it relatively hassle-free. There is still that added bulk, but I am slowly becoming accustomed to it.

We’ve officially moved in together, and we’ve both had to make compromises. I have accepted that she isn’t quite as petite as I normally prefer (and a tad obnoxious in public), and she understands that I may not want to take her out with me ALL THE TIME. That’s what makes a relationship work, right?

Lastly, for a little note for those with cropped sensors. I have read elsewhere that this is not recommended for cropped sensors due to the fact that is not wide enough. To that I cry “bull hockey”.  Don’t let the full-frame camera snobs ruin your fun. With a cropped camera, this gives you the rough equivalent of a 35-105 mm zoom. To me, if you carry this and a wide lens, such as the Sigma 8-16mm (which I am currently awaiting delivery on as I write this), you are all set. At a 35-105mm focal range, this lens is very useful, although in a different way than on a full-frame sensor. It gives you everything you need from a perfect “normal” lens to a solid portrait/zoom range. That should not be considered trivial in my opinion. Think about it, you get the 35mm, 50mm, 60mm, 85 mm, and 105 mm ranges all in one lovely kit. Poor full-frame owners get what? They get 24 mm, 35 mm,50mm, and 60mm ranges. Yeah, tell me again that this lens is ridiculous on a cropped camera. I was using this lens the other day, and I was pretty glad that I had that extra zoom range more than once.

I love the 35mm range, and consider it to be plenty wide for a variety of situations.  I also prefer the 105mm range for portraits. To me, two lenses carefully chosen can give you a great overall range of coverage. However, some of you may feel quite differently on this subject, and to each his own. Just be sure to carefully consider this when selecting your lens.

My Verdict

When all is said and done. I just couldn’t bear to part with this lens, and I don’t think I will any time soon. For all of its faults, there are just too many positives to part with it. It’s a little love-hate, but I am living with it, since there is just so much to love. I am planning on picking up a 24mm 2.8 and I already own the 50mm 1.8 for those days where I just want to go out and travel light. But unlike any other lens that I own or have ever owned, this one requires a conscious decision and generated effort to actually carry and use. I used the relationship analogy throughout the article, and while it is a bit tongue-in-cheek, it really does apply in a lot of ways.

To me, it comes down to this: quality is not an issue with this lens. You will very likely be happy with it from this standpoint. It all, in the end, is about whether you are willing to spend the money and then lug it around with you once you have it.

Good luck, and hope this has helped. Be sure to leave comments below if you have somethign to add/refute.