Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8G IF-ED AF-S Nikkor
Your purchases support this site
Buy the Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8G IF-ED AF-S Nikkor
- Search on Amazon
- Adorama for $1,796.95
- B&H Photo for $1,796.95 Buy here to enter drawing this month for $500 Gift Card
March 9, 2016: Please note, we've updated this lens review with new test results with newer Nikon camera bodies to have a closer comparison to the NEW Nikon 24-70 f2.8E VR lens. The sub-frame testing was conducted with the Nikon D7100, and full-frame using the Nikon D800E.
One of the most hotly anticipated lenses released by Nikon, the 24-70mm ƒ/2.8 AF-S is a replacement for the venerable 28-70mm ƒ/2.8. Released alongside the D3 in November 2007, demand was so strong for the lens that Nikon implemented a pro-first policy that required (among other things) that the lens was only available if you purchased a D3. This policy has since been lifted, making individual purchase of the lens possible.
The 24-70mm ƒ/2.8 is packed with some of the newest lens technology Nikon has to offer, including a revolutionary large-diameter Precision Glass Molding (PGM) element to eliminate coma, and a Nano Crystal lens coating to ''ensure superior color balance and reproduction''.
As a full-frame lens, there won't be any vignetting issues on FX sensors or film; however, as it is a ''G'' lens, there is no aperture dial, so on older film bodies the lens is only usable with stopped-down metering. On a sub-frame (APS-C) digital body the lens will act as a 36-105mm lens. The lens takes 77mm filters, and comes with a petal-shaped lens hood. The lens has a MSRP of around $1,700.
Wide open at 24mm and ƒ/2.8, the lens sharp in the central portion of the frame, with a touch of corner softness. By ''touch'', I mean there is a 1-unit difference between the center and the corner. The optimal setting for the lens (if you're into picking hairs) would be 35mm at ƒ/5.6, where the lens produces an image that is about as sharp as our test can measure. The ''worst'' point on the lens is 24mm and ƒ/22, likely due to diffraction.
The story with a full-frame camera is similar, with a few exceptions. Wide open at ƒ/2.8, image quality is still very sharp in the center, but we notice some significant corner softness throughout the zoom range, particularly toward the wider end. Wide-open corner softness decreases slightly around 50-70mm, howver. Stopping down to ƒ/4 or smaller, all the way to ƒ/16, gives better corner-to-corner sharpness at all focal lengths. By the time you stop down to ƒ/22, the lens does soften a bit across the entire frame due to diffraction.
Resistance to chromatic aberration is pretty good for this lens. On sub-frame cameras, at its worst, you see some traces of CA when set to 24mm, at ƒ/4 and above, but at focal lengths greater than 24mm, chromatic aberration is virtually undetectable.
On the full-frame camera, chromatic aberration performance isn't quite as good as on the sub-frame, but the crop camera has the advantage of focusing on the ''sweet spot'' of the lens. Nevertheless, the 24-70mm handles CA rather well on a full-frame camera. At 24mm, the average CA hovers aroundaround 3/1000ths of a percent of frame height for all apertures. We see similar performance as you increase the focal length, but once you hit around 50-70mm, the average CA decreases even further for better performance. At 70mm, there's little to no visible CA.
Corner darkness is practically a non-issue for the lens when mounted on a sub-frame sensor body, with around 0.25EVs of corner shading at all focal lengths when wide-open. Stopping down to f/4, vignetting is reduced further to a practically negligible level.
As you might expect, full-frame performance is a bit more demanding for the 24-70mm ƒ/2.8, as more of the lens is utilized by the sensor. There is definite corner darkening when used wide open at ƒ/2.8, though its under a full stop darker in the corners when compared to the center. That's about the worst it gets. Wide-open at other focal lengths show around 0.75EVs of corner shading, and the darkening decreases as the lens approaches ƒ/8.
Mounted on the sub-frame camera, there is some geometric distortion in images when the lens is set to 24mm, but only about 0.5% barrel, typical for a wide-angle lens. The distortion is also uniform across the frame, so correction is easily possible in post-processing. There is a point at around 32mm where the distortion converges to almost 0%. At focal lengths greater than this point, there is a slight pincushion (
The results for distortion on a full-frame sensor mimic those found on the crop camera, but magnified. We see strong barrel distortion when set to less than 32mm, approaching 1% barrel in the extremes when set at 24mm. The lens tend to add a slight barrel distortion at all focal lengths according to our testing, but the effect is extremely slight - less than 0.2%. Greater than 32mm, pincushion distortion sets in, and at 50mm our tests show 0.5% pincushion distortion in the corners. It's a complex mix given that the average distortion is barrel, meaning your straight lines will have a slight but interesting weave to them.
As is typical with Nikon Silent Wave Motor (SWM) AF-S lenses, autofocus is exceptionally quick: well under one second to rack through the entire focus range.
The lens is not a dedicated macro lens, but offers a respectable 0.27x magnification ratio and a close-focusing distance of 38cm (1' 2'').
Build Quality & Handling
Paying $1,700 for a lens, you would hope that the fit and finish of the lens is top-notch, and the 24-70mm f/2.8 doesn't disappoint. It's surprisingly compact given the aperture, zoom range and full-frame coverage available with the lens. The finish of the lens is a texturized metal, with the zoom and lens rings a plastic with excellent grip. The lens is weather-sealed, and the mount is also metal. The lens balances well, even on smaller bodies; the center of gravity rests on the zoom ring, making for comfortable, natural holding. Mounting the 24-70mm on a full-frame camera produces a slightly back-heavy package, but for this pairing it's more feasible to hold the combination by the body alone.
The zoom actuation is external, meaning that the front element moves back and forth a bit (about 2cm, a little under an inch) as you rotate the zoom collar. It takes about a quarter turn to move through the entire focal range. Zoom creep, at least with this sample, is variable; it doesn't move at all between 24-50mm, but between 50-70mm the lens will creep towards longer focal lengths when held pointing down.
The lens has a distance scale, but no aperture ring (as mentioned before, this is a ''G''-style lens). The focus ring takes about a quarter turn to rack through the focus range. The shallow depth of field presented wide open at 70mm means it takes a smooth touch to achieve optimal manual focus. We would have preferred a bit more travel on the focus ring, but with the smooth focus operation, directly coupled to the lens elements, we were reasonably confident making these fine adjustments. Built with a fairly soft ''clutch,'' there's no abrupt stop when you reach the focus limit, rather a slight increase in resistance. As an AF-S lens, you can override the autofocus at any time, making the use of the M|M/A switch slightly redundant (this switch disables autofocus operation, rather than enabling manual focus as some systems do).
The lens comes with a petal-style lens shade that's fairly effective at preventing flare. If you get the sun or any other strong light source in the corner of the frame, you'll see a multi-rayed pattern, but there are very few internal reflections to be seen (a couple, but much fewer than I'm accustomed to seeing on zooms in this focal range).
Nikon 24-70mm ƒ/2.8E ED VR AF-S ~$2,300
This is the newest 24-70mm lens from Nikon, sporting VR stabilization for the first time in their 24-70mm f/2.8 workhorse lens. Comparing this lens with the version it replaces -- the 24-70mm f/2.8G -- it's a good improvement - while perhaps not as absolutely sharp as the original, the level of difference is minute indeed.
Nikon 28-70mm ƒ/2.8 ED-IF AF-S ~$1,500
This is the lens everyone will be comparing the 24-70mm to, and unfortunately, we haven't tested it. The 28-70mm was criticized for being too heavy to be a walkaround lens; the 24-70mm is actually 30 grams heavier, and approximately the same size. Also a full-frame lens, the 24-70mm improves on the close-focus distance by half, with a corresponding increase in magnification.
Sigma 24-70mm ƒ/2.8 EX DG Macro ~$370
We haven't tested the Sigma comparable, but user opinions are generally positive. The reactions seem to pick on its noisy autofocus (it isn't an HSM lens) and massive 82mm filter thread. While it's listed as a macro lens, the Nikkor actually focuses 2cm closer and has a slightly larger magnification ratio.
Tamron 28-75mm ƒ/2.8 XR Di LD Aspherical IF SP AF ~$330
At almost one-sixth the price, you have to give the Tamron credit: only a little bit less wide-angle, but you get a lens that is actually on par with the Nikkor. In fact, a touch sharper and it vignettes slightly less; distortion is about the same, but the Nikkor is better at handling chromatic aberration. The Tamron is also a full-frame lens, and has the added bonus of an aperture ring.
There's not much to say here that the rest of this review hasn't already indicated. Performance on a subframe sensor is exquisite, given that the lens isn't really put to the test. On the full-frame camera, it's sharp pretty much at all focal lengths and apertures in the center. Chromatic aberration isn't an issue for sub-frame cameras. The lens does vignette on full-frame, hard to avoid given its focal range, but even so it's not the worst performance we've seen for a lens that covers this kind of range. Finally, distortion is a bit of an issue - more so on full-frame than sub-frame - but again, it's not extreme, just a little complicated. It's an interesting lens, with Nikon setting the bar extremely high for themselves, and I'd say they exceed their goals for all but the most highly demanding of users. For the premium price, you get a premium lens, with a build quality every bit of what you'd expect, and very good optical performance as well.
The VFA target should give you a good idea of sharpness in the center and corners, as well as some idea of the extent of barrel or pincushion distortion and chromatic aberration, while the Still Life subject may help in judging contrast and color. We shoot both images using the default JPEG settings and manual white balance of our test bodies, so the images should be quite consistent from lens to lens.
As appropriate, we shoot these with both full-frame and sub-frame bodies, at a range of focal lengths, and at both maximum aperture and ƒ/8. For the ''VFA'' target (the viewfinder accuracy target from Imaging Resource), we also provide sample crops from the center and upper-left corner of each shot, so you can quickly get a sense of relative sharpness, without having to download and inspect the full-res images. To avoid space limitations with the layout of our review pages, indexes to the test shots launch in separate windows.
Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8G IF-ED AF-S Nikkor User Reviews
10 out of 10 points and recommended by Sephiroth (2 reviews)Everythingweight
The best lens i have (with the 70-200) tack sharp from 24 to 70...reviewed March 7th, 2014 (purchased for $1,200)
The only drawback is the weight.. for me is a 98% on my camera even at night
9 out of 10 points and recommended by mrcontinental (7 reviews)Excellent color and contrast, built like a tankHeavy and a bit long
This has been the professional standard since it was introduced and with good reason. Razor sharp with outstanding color and contrast. A bit of distortion at the wide end but it's better than not getting the shot at all.reviewed August 10th, 2013 (purchased for $1,645)
Not perfect of course but anyone who expects perfection at this price is dreaming. Works fantastic in the field which is all I care about. The brick wall shooters can whine all they want about this lens but it is top notch if you are into actual photography and not lens testing.
10 out of 10 points and recommended by 0002mantt (1 reviews)Smooth Operation, Sharp Images, Reasonable BokehHeavy, no VR
I have been impressed with the image quality. I wish it is better at 2.8 but you can't have everything and still keeping the price and weight reasonable.reviewed March 8th, 2013 (purchased for $1,600)
The auto-focus is fast on my D800 and the images are tack sharp from f4 and on. Images taken at 2.8 is a little soft but good enough for portrait.
6 out of 10 points and not recommended by DaveJDSP (7 reviews)Well built. Pretty quick focusing.Mediocre image quality, especially poor in corners. Must stop down to al least f11 to have any chance at full-frame quality. Susceptible to flare. No VR. Manual focus ring is too quick which makes fine focus adjustment impossible. WAY too expensive for th
I'm returning this one for exchange.reviewed December 14th, 2012 (purchased for $1,887)
At $500/hr for helicopter time, you want your lens to be sharp. All the way out to the corners. And without VR (this lens doesn't have it) you need all the speed you can get to fight the helicopter vibration. This copy is unusable below f11. For a $200 kit lens, that might be ok. But not for this lens @ ~$1800! Also, on the 36MP D800, you want a lens that is up to the task. This copy of this lens is not.
According the test at SLRgear (industry benchmark!), this lens should be dynamite from f4 on up, and even very good at f2.8. But the one I'm returning is not.
The one I rented a few months ago was better but not great. I'm disappointed in Nikon's quality control.
I ordered another copy of the Nikon 24-70 f2.8 and also 2 copies of the new Tamron 24-70 f2.8 VC, all from B&H (they are always great).
I tested all 3 lenses scientifically and rigorously. Studio shooting with flash, architectural, landcapes @ infinity. One of the Tamrons was the clear winner. The other copy of the Tamron and both copies of the Nikon were unacceptable for my work. None of the lenses give truly sharp corners at any aperture or focal length. But the one Tamron was close enough to get by (I hate just "getting by") (f11 is the only aperture that gives tolerable results at all focal lengths on the best Tamron).
Anyway, the better of the two Tamrons clearly beat out both copies of the Nikon. Better center sharpness, better corner sharpness, better resistance to flare, better micro-contrast, better color, and of course it has VC as a bonus! The Nikon does focus a little faster, especially in low light, but in my studio people focus tests, I got more hits with the Tamron than with the Nikon. And of course the Tamron is about $1200 and the Nikon closer to $2000.
I would be GLAD to pay $2000, or even more, for an excellent lens. Nikon needs FAR better quality control - they should be ashamed.
Get the Tamron.
But whatever lens(es) you get, be sure to order at least 2-3 copies and test rigorously (if you care at all about image quality), as there can be huge variation from one copy to the next.
9 out of 10 points and recommended by Zolotusca (2 reviews)very good image quality, good constructionlow 10 years warranty (lead free), zoom ring too close to camera (less used focus ring takes the best position for handling)
A heavy lens, too long for its focal range, with zoom ring in a difficult position for handling (too close to the camera) and with a focus ring in a privileged position (besides the fact that is rarely used). Ergonomically need to be reconsidered for the future similar lenses.reviewed August 1st, 2012 (purchased for $1,854)
Being lead-free (EU regulation) the lens is guaranteed for only 10 years, after that period the electronics and moving leaded parts being not replaceable. It is a very costly lens for only 10 years of use (or even less than 10 years, counted from the date of production not of purchase).
Good points: very good image quality (chromatic aberrations, vignetting and distortions are in an acceptable range and totally correctable in camera or in post-processing). Fast and precise response at the twist of zoom and focusing rings. Fast AF and VR with low noise, but on video the noise is not negligible. Good quality hood.
9 out of 10 points and recommended by Prime Minister (40 reviews)Sharpness, contrast, focus speed, build quality, speedNone
Sharpness and contrast at all focal lengths and all apertures is excellent for a zoom lens. Actually, the image quality surpasses that of many Nikon primes too. Really impressive. Image quality wise there’s no reason to get the nifty fifty out of the camera bag.reviewed June 13th, 2012 (purchased for $1,500)
Focussing is very fast, accurate and silent. The build quality of this lens is very good. It feels like it was made of a solid block of metal. One minor thing is the rubber on the zoom ring. It might come loose over time, but this can be fixed.
Yes, this is a relatively large and heavy lens. However, the combined weight of i.e. a 24mm, 50mm and a 85mm prime comes close and you’d have to switch lenses. There’s distortion, but it’s relatively easy to fix. It’s not a problem for me.
The supplied lens hood is sturdy and deep. It looks like an effective design, but it’s huge. Overall I think there’s little to fault with this lens.
8 out of 10 points and recommended by ShutterMan (2 reviews)It does most everything well to very well, just nothing spectacular.Price,Distortion at 24mm, CAs in borders 24mm-60mm
Pros:reviewed January 28th, 2011 (purchased for $1,699)
Good overall image quality. (35mm 1.5 AF/S and 70-200mm VR II kill this in overlapping focal lengths.)
Vignetting is well controlled F/4 and smaller
High quality materials (build)
AF speed is fast!
Distortion at 24mm
Large (Scares people)
CAs in borders 24mm-60mm (middle of road performer)
Not my favorite lens, but the performance is good and a must for event photographers. F/2.8 is already a little slow and anything slower will not do. It does most everything well to very well, just nothing spectacular.
8 out of 10 points and recommended by jtorral (9 reviews)Build and Optical qualitySize and weight
To see hundreds of photos with this lens and compare to others look here:reviewed January 19th, 2011
You can get an idea of how this lens performs with different camera.
10 out of 10 points and recommended by andre_ (31 reviews)sharp, no CA, no flare, even from f2.8huge barrell distorsion at 24mm, nano-crystal coating make shadows too deep and colors too saturated
I've considered to purchase the old 28-70mm for years.reviewed July 25th, 2010 (purchased for $1,600)
At the end, I've thougt the 24-70 more flexible and I've chosen this lens.
I think it's an outstanding lens, sharp and linear, with also a good bokeh (for being a zoom lens).
The flare is surprislingly low, as well as the CA (both invisibles in many limit-situation).
Sometime I'm a little disappointed by the color rendition.
Too saturate, too contrastated, with the shadows too deep.... a Canon-like rendition, actually.
Fortunately, is very easy to develop the RAWs in every software converter to "come back" to the "Nikon-like" rendition, and this lens doesn't lost any color or detail.
In the real life, this zoom is a perfect fellow, both for landscape and street photos.
It has a very huge barrell distortion in the very low-focals range.
It's substantially neutral around 35mm, ad has a visible pincushin distorsion over 50mm.
Luckily, the lens correction in LightRoom 3 and 4 works very fine.
The AF is fast and precise.
10 out of 10 points and recommended by bangkokuwa (2 reviews)fast AF, sharp and great handling quality , lighter than my Canon 24-70L.not-internal-zoom, noVR2.
I love this lens and most used in fact , but as I quit wedding work myself and now, a strictly portrait and travel photographer , I may sell it for a couple of long primes or sell my 70-200f2.8VR2(more likely).reviewed June 15th, 2010
So, if you shoot events with a couple of Nikon bodies , then get it , you wont regret but it needs the VR2.
And I think if it were internal zoom design , it would be perfect.
I really prefer my 16-35f4VR and 70-200f2.8VR2 in terms of build and handling but this lens is more used and more practical lens in real life.
it does not matter how sharp it is if you dont need its focal range , for me the 70-200 range is not needed really and I got it only for my wedding work any way, I am thinking about down grading the 70-200VR2 to the AFS70-300VR (I had it before and I know it is equally sharp) to go with this AFS24-70 and 85f1.4D , 105f2DC and 50AFS.
but that said if you want sharpest zoom , go for the newer AF70-200f2.8GEDVR2...........
9 out of 10 points and recommended by Cliff Beard (12 reviews)Great image quality, weight and handling, build qualityUneven weight on zoom ring, weight, stowage of hood
This is most definitely a pro-quality lens as it should be for the price.reviewed September 28th, 2009
Image quality is top notch with plenty of sharpness and contrast. There is a fair bit of distortion on full frame in the corners, which can be a bit soft...I think this seems due to field curvature placing the corners out of focus rather than a resolution issue, so use depth of field carefully.
The weight and form of the lens makes for great handling and I have used it as a portrait lens with great success on both crop and full frame. Overall its more versatile on full frame where 24mm is suitably wide for landscape. It takes filters, unlike the 14-24, which is nice. The zoom ring feels a bit under-damped and has uneven weighting, probably owing to the weight of the zoom group.
The supplied hood does a great job but I do find it niggling to carry the lens in most bags as the hood is simply too bulky...it has to be detached and take up another space in the bag, but if it does its job well, I guess that's the most important thing.
As with all pro-optics I find it too heavy to justify travelling with for all but the most special of trips.
Overall avery nice lens with the usual pro-level benefits of great optics and handling and penalties of weight and bulk.
10 out of 10 points and recommended by jake (8 reviews)
my first lens for Nikon D700 and by my opinion the best standart zoom as ever madereviewed August 9th, 2009
10 out of 10 points and recommended by Robert Bertin (1 reviews)Fantastic image quality and suberb construction.Flash shadow below 35mm on D200
This is the best lens I've ever used. I enlarged several test shots in CS4 just to see the results and was more than impressed with the sharpness. My only complaint - and this is for use on a Nikon D200 - is that the built-in flash leaves quite a center-bottom shadow when zoomed below 35mm (lens hood removed of course). It's a minor drawback but is something to be aware of when using the integrated camera flash. Perhaps this wouldn't occur using a D700 with its higher integrated flash position.reviewed June 20th, 2009 (purchased for $1,799)
Nevertheless, I'm pleased with the lens and think it's worth the price I paid.
10 out of 10 points and recommended by GregTheRotter (3 reviews)Sharp enough to make me consider leaving the primes at home, it's that good for a zoom. f2.8the price AFTER the Nikon price hikes. I paid an extra 350 US over what it used to sell for
This lens really is worth every penny.reviewed June 3rd, 2009 (purchased for $2,100)
I bought this lens in the UK, where it cost me 1311 GBP, at the current exchange rate, that works out to over 2000 US. Oh well.
10 out of 10 points and recommended by SimonCarter (1 reviews)Image Quality for a Zoom Lens
I currently use this lens on a Nikon D300 body. So this review is based on D300 / 24-70mm combo.reviewed January 15th, 2009 (purchased for $1,450)
I brought this lens for wedding photography for it's zoom range and image quality. I have tested it at all focal lengths and apertures, (both in studio and outdoors) and I am 100% happy with it. Even wide open at f/2.8 it is extremely sharp. I love my 50mm f/1.4 lens, but it saddens me to think that it won't come out as much anymore as this new lens produces near identical results at 50mm (at some apertures it is even slightly sharper!).
Some people have written that weight is an issue, but I quite like the feel of this lens.
I don't belive VR is needed. I can produce images at 1/60th at 70mm hand held every time. And knowing that images are still sharp at 2.8 is comforting.
Focusing is fast and accurate.
I would highly recommend spending the money on this lens (just don't get upset at the thought of your 50mm f/1.4 lens gathering some dust!!!)
1 out of 10 points and recommended by x-other (2 reviews)Sharp, Fast, Great IQFront focus, poor construction quality.
UPDATE May 31st 2010:reviewed December 25th, 2008 (purchased for $1,683)
Well, since my previous review I've already changed the lens two times. So, overall, in less than 2 years the lens got broken 3 times because of the zoom ring which suddenly got rough between 28 and 24 mm. I don't know why is this happens, but I know that to get it fixed costs around 1.000 EUR. Mine was covered by warranty, but if it not, everyone can imagine how efficient this lens can it be.
I would not recommend it whatsoever!
I brought this lens from a retailer in Romania. I did not make the focus test right after I got it thinking it's silly to make it for a high grade lens. Finally when I did the test it showed about 2 mm front focus with the worst results at 70mm f/4. I went back to Nikon’s authorized service in Bucharest and they decided to change it right after I strongly refused to accept an “18-55 f3.5-5.6” as a replacement lens while mine was supposed to be sent in Germany for recalibration.
It's a shame for Nikon to have such a poor level of service in Romania. Imagine that you must wait up to 1-2 months to get back your lens or body back from the service because locally they are not capable to repair it and they must send it to Germany of other Nikon service. It happens me before with my D200 which showed well know banding issues.
It took about 4 months to have again quality problems with the replaced 24-70 f/2.8. Right before Christmas, during a photo session, unexpectedly the zoom collar becomes rough among 28mm and 24 mm and then it got stuck there. It's strange that I did not drop the lens or broke it. As a matter of fact I took care of it more than I took care of myself.
I took it back to the same Nikon's authorized service but this time they refused to change it, they keep it in service although they’re on holidays until January 5th, and again they were not able to provide a back up lens other than 16-85 f/3.5-5.6 AF-S VR. I'm shooting with d700 and I could not offer to my customer’s 5mpx pictures with a poorer IQ due to the lens. I'm expecting to get it back no early than February again because they couldn't repair it locally and have to send it to Germany. Probably it's just a screw issue...
Because I needed a wide lens for some shootings, even that 24 mm was wide enough for a FF, I had to go to the retailer to buy a brand new 14-24 f/2.8 in order not to get dropped by my customers. I wanted to buy that lens but not under the circumstances described above.
This experience cost me two trips to the service meaning 320 km made it twice because I'm not leaving in Bucharest and the cost for the new lens being forced by the circumstances. And yes, I'm frustrated because all of this!
SHAME NIKON, SHAME ON YOU!
10 out of 10 points and recommended by shock (2 reviews)fast focus, sharp, build quality, design, look...nothing
It is great lens, before buying it I'm lookin for sharpest lens and I'm find it... Using it on Nikon d300, and sample full size images you can see on my portfolio... order images by date.reviewed October 27th, 2008 (purchased for $1,699)
In comparation with nikon 80-200 2.8 there is lot more shapness in images and much, much bether contol of purple fringe at lower f stops...
Another fullsize sample...
Image is taken in 14bit raw, and later exported in one at sharpnes 2 and anoter on sharpness 9... Later put together in two layers in photoshop... sharpen image is on eyes and hair... gread sample of sharpness...
two sb800 and softboxes... ezybox
And another sample... with no any postproduction...only converted raw
sharpness, 6 (9 max), satration 0,
f2.8, iso 100, 1/250.... two sb800 flashes with softboxes
This is my story... hope it will help someone...
10 out of 10 points and recommended by shrikrishna (4 reviews)Exceptional IQ, built to last and lot more.Price, lengthy.
I had Tammy 28-75 F2.8 on my D300, and bought this as an upgrade. I am fida over it and it just amazes me every time I use it. Super fast focus, outstanding sharp image wide open, deadly pixel contrast, and built like a tank. I only wished to have it little shorter, and lighter (a wish!) because it being my walk-around lens, I wish to keep it in smaller travel-zoom bags. Lengthier it is, so doesn't fit in my existing TLZ-20!.reviewed August 7th, 2008 (purchased for $1,950)
10 out of 10 points and recommended by bobbibrown (4 reviews)Very sharp even at f/2.8; build forever; fast and reliable AFPricy
This is together with the Nikkor 14-24 f/2.8 my sharpest lens. It is a real workhorse and 100% reliable.reviewed May 18th, 2008 (purchased for $1,750)
10 out of 10 points and recommended by ddt332 (6 reviews)Very sharp at any apecture! Great build! Prime killer.Pricy.
This is easily my sharpest roon lens ever! I own Nikon's pro glasses like 17-35 f2.8, 70-200 f2.8, 17-55 f2.8, 50 f1.4, 12-24 f4, etc. However, this lens easily blew all my other lenses away. It beats my 50 f1.4 prime at F2.8!reviewed December 4th, 2007 (purchased for $1,700)
Anti-glare ability is amazing. Nano-coating really works.
I can't wait to try it on my coming D3. Highly recommended!