When is a large, heavy midrange 24-70mm zoom worth the better part of two grand?
Answer: When it's the absolute best of it's kind ever made!
Nikon AF-S 24-70mm f/2.8 G ED
This optic has been around for about a year or so and it's qualities are still being quibbled over by some, so let's put that to rest right now.
Overall image quality of the 24-70 is superior to ANY zoom made by Nikon, Canon, Sony or Pentax covering the same type of range. It's shockingly sharp wide open at 2.8 and focuses instantly on a D90, D300 or D3. Even on my little D40, it's a perfect lens, though the DX sensor makes it into a "longer lens." It has some appreciable barrel distortion at 24mm, but this is to be expected in a zoom of this type. The distortion can be corrected, if you must, in Photoshop. For most types of shooting it's a non-issue. The lens has very little distortion above 28mm. Lens flare is well controlled and my two samples were consistently sharp on a D700, with only a slight softness in the extreme corners. Light fall-off is also well controlled. Out of focus areas are well rendered without harsh or distracting bokeh. Being able to get within about a foot of your subject means this lens works okay for some type of portraits, though it works better in that capacity on a D300 or other DX camera. On the D700 or D3, many will find 24mm wide enough for 99% of their work. I rarely use a wider lens.
There is no VR on this expensive top tier optic and many hobbyists can't understand why Nikon failed to add the kitchen sink on this lens, yet adds VR to much cheaper lenses. There are several reasons, so lets start with the obvious. Leaving VR off reduced the size and weight of an already large lens. But the most important reason is that Nikon wanted an optically pure and uncompromised lens with the best image quality. VR is a COMPROMISE. It adds complexity and reduces image quality overall. On a longer lens, like the 70-200, it's an easy feature to accept. But on a D3 with higher ISO capability, the addition of VR is more hurtful than helpful. Most people who complain about the "missing" VR don't own one with a D3 or D700. If they did, they'd know that VR is simply not needed. The 24-70 was designed to function optimally on a FX camera like a D700. That does not mean it's not terrific on a D90. It may show even greater edge to edge sharpness on a DX crop sensor.
The build quality and handling is typical of Nikon's pro zooms and is essentially flawless. The only negative elements to the 24-70 are size and cost. If you can deal with that, then this is your lens. It's widely used by professionals and has quickly reached "legend" status among virtually anyone who's used it. Along with the 14-24 AF-S 2.8 and the newest version of the 70-200 AF-S VR II, we have a set of optics that deserve the moniker of "Holy Trinity."
Answer: When it's the absolute best of it's kind ever made!
Nikon AF-S 24-70mm f/2.8 G ED
This optic has been around for about a year or so and it's qualities are still being quibbled over by some, so let's put that to rest right now.
Overall image quality of the 24-70 is superior to ANY zoom made by Nikon, Canon, Sony or Pentax covering the same type of range. It's shockingly sharp wide open at 2.8 and focuses instantly on a D90, D300 or D3. Even on my little D40, it's a perfect lens, though the DX sensor makes it into a "longer lens." It has some appreciable barrel distortion at 24mm, but this is to be expected in a zoom of this type. The distortion can be corrected, if you must, in Photoshop. For most types of shooting it's a non-issue. The lens has very little distortion above 28mm. Lens flare is well controlled and my two samples were consistently sharp on a D700, with only a slight softness in the extreme corners. Light fall-off is also well controlled. Out of focus areas are well rendered without harsh or distracting bokeh. Being able to get within about a foot of your subject means this lens works okay for some type of portraits, though it works better in that capacity on a D300 or other DX camera. On the D700 or D3, many will find 24mm wide enough for 99% of their work. I rarely use a wider lens.
There is no VR on this expensive top tier optic and many hobbyists can't understand why Nikon failed to add the kitchen sink on this lens, yet adds VR to much cheaper lenses. There are several reasons, so lets start with the obvious. Leaving VR off reduced the size and weight of an already large lens. But the most important reason is that Nikon wanted an optically pure and uncompromised lens with the best image quality. VR is a COMPROMISE. It adds complexity and reduces image quality overall. On a longer lens, like the 70-200, it's an easy feature to accept. But on a D3 with higher ISO capability, the addition of VR is more hurtful than helpful. Most people who complain about the "missing" VR don't own one with a D3 or D700. If they did, they'd know that VR is simply not needed. The 24-70 was designed to function optimally on a FX camera like a D700. That does not mean it's not terrific on a D90. It may show even greater edge to edge sharpness on a DX crop sensor.
The build quality and handling is typical of Nikon's pro zooms and is essentially flawless. The only negative elements to the 24-70 are size and cost. If you can deal with that, then this is your lens. It's widely used by professionals and has quickly reached "legend" status among virtually anyone who's used it. Along with the 14-24 AF-S 2.8 and the newest version of the 70-200 AF-S VR II, we have a set of optics that deserve the moniker of "Holy Trinity."
