Alternative to Nikon 24-70 mm

MIkeA

A few months ago, DxO Lab reviewed a new 24-70 mm f 2.4 lens (with vibration reduction) that out performed ( by DxO metrics) Nikon's newer 24-70 mm lens. Does anyone remember the name of the third party lens manufacturer?

heartyfisher

Didnt the old 24-70 outperform the new 24-70 ? at least according to DXO matrics...

I have the Tammy 24-70 VC .. and its quite sharp... maybe that's the one you were thinking about?

PS there is also a new Tokina 24-70 but i didnt pay much attention to it as I have a lense in that range already ...

Sports

The new Tokina 24-70 did receive good reviews for its optical performance, so I'm sure that's the one.

renmichie

Depends from what you do. If the sharpness requirements are very high then Nikkor. Anyway - if you have possibility to take test shots with both in shop then compare at home? This is better help for your decision. Take shots with different openings and distances and light.

Pistnbroke

Nikon 24-85 f4-4.5 VR version ..the others are craap

WestEndFoto

If sharpness is your complaint get a prime, but my 50mm 1.4G is not any sharper than my 24-70 2.8E.

egosbar

Pistnbroke said:

Nikon 24-85 f4-4.5 VR version ..the others are craap

are you sure its not the 3.5-4.5?

with iso performance of cameras these days im not sure 2.8 heavy zooms are worth what you have to pay them, dont get me wrong ive used them they are supberb but really $2000 plus,the dearest ill buy is the 200-500 at this stage, the 24-85mm 3.5-4.5 is on my buy list when i get the d500 very soon

Pistnbroke

While I find the 24-85 to be very sharp I don't know if its totally suitable for DX in terms of angle of view..not quite wide enough in my opinion. There is not a lot of choice for the DX and I have been using the best of the 18--xxx bunch the 18-140

WestEndFoto

egosbar said:

Pistnbroke said:

Nikon 24-85 f4-4.5 VR version ..the others are craap

are you sure its not the 3.5-4.5?

with iso performance of cameras these days im not sure 2.8 heavy zooms are worth what you have to pay them, dont get me wrong ive used them they are supberb but really $2000 plus,the dearest ill buy is the 200-500 at this stage, the 24-85mm 3.5-4.5 is on my buy list when i get the d500 very soon

It is relative to what you are used to. I hate it when I push my 1.4 lenses (or anything else) past ISO 800.

heartyfisher

I considered the kit lense 24-85 when I was looking at my lense portfolio. It is really not a bad option if you can work with 24 at widest for DX. However on FX any of the 24-70 lenses out performs it easily at the edges if you even pixel peep a bit. even the old 35-70 f2.8 could be a better option on FX cos its so cheap.. However, it does have VR. and that is worth something in low light. In the end I went for a Tamron 24-70 VC. Very happy with it except for the onion bokeh ... (but I dont shoot onions often ;-) )

And you really need to turn off VC on a tripod.. but thats what is recommended for most VR/VC lenses anyway... though I have forgotten on Nikon VR lenses as well with still less blur from VR.

egosbar

Pistnbroke said:

While I find the 24-85 to be very sharp I don't know if its totally suitable for DX in terms of angle of view..not quite wide enough in my opinion. There is not a lot of choice for the DX and I have been using the best of the 18--xxx bunch the 18-140

its not the dearest lens for what you get , being wide enough i guess its only a step or so back with 24mm if you have room to get the same result as 18mm
if not i whack on the 11-16

egosbar

i think its rated as one of thier sharpest lenses

starralazn

egosbar said:

i think its rated as one of thier sharpest lenses

the 24-85mm is incredibly sharp... if you're willing to stop it down a bit. so basically if you're shooting in good lighting its feasible to get great results

egosbar

ive got some great results from my 18-55 im sure its better then that lens

TriShooter

I have owned both, and would be lucky to see the difference between the 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5 and the 24-70mm f/2.8 for sharpness and general quality. The primary reason I use the 24-70mm is being able to shoot between f/2.8 and f/4.5 without making other adjustments when shooting in low light and with flash under circumstances that put me between these two focal points.

Using studio strobes, I am usually at f/8 or smaller, so either lens is as good as the other one to me.

The old 35-70mm f/2.8 was and still is a great lens for sharpness, but it is hard to find one that does not have fungus or some other problem because of its age. I would not hesitate to buy one in good physical condition for $280 - $330 and this price only because of their age. The 35-70mm takes a little getting use to because of the push/pull zoom, and the contrast is not as quite as good as the newer lenses, but contrast is easily compensated for in Adobe PS. The 35-70mm is small and light. It is a fantastic lens for carrying around all day. I only regret selling four lenses, and the 35-70mm is one of them.