DSLRUsers.com

Just opened up my new christmas present from Poon.
The new 24-70 lens Yay!
My first impressions are very favourable, but it is an expensive bit of glass, so they damn well should be. I will continue to play with it over Christmas/New year, so more shots will be forthcoming. I will stick to the 4 image limit in future, but I felt the need to show the attributes of a new glass, and couldn't within the limit. I did keep to the size limit. I trust Gary will understand. If not, please feel free to kill this post.

This is replacing my 18-200VR as that lens has gone with my old D70s to my wife.
This is very much first impressions. And the photos within are very much "What can the lens do" type photos.
All (except one ) are taken on the d200 and set to 100ISO, AutoWB, AF
They are JPG out of camera except for resizing to 800

NB this is an FX lens, but ALL images are DX.

The lens is heavier than the 18-200, but feels more solid. No zoom creep that was the bane of the old lens.
The zoom and focus rings are both well within a single movement of the wrist from end to end, and the zoom ring fits my hand well.
The lens hood has been redesigned with a clip lock that is positive and, I feel, more secure. It also goes on to the barrel rather than the end of the lens. This means that at 24mm, the hood is effectively shorter than at 50mm. Not sure Nikon had this in mind, but it seems like a good idea.

The minimum length of the lens is at 50mm, and extends slightly at 70mm, and more at 24mm. I find this disconcerting at the moment, but will get used to it quickly I am sure. Anyway it is completely hidden by the hood, so who cares?

I love the extra speed of the lens, and the fact that is constant through the zoom range. I also like the fact that it is lighter than the old 28-70, another lens on my short list. I will miss the extra reach of the old lens at both ends though. I do have a 10-20 for the short end, but only a 105 at the long end. I may need to do something about that in the future.

Anyway, on to the happy snaps.
The first set are of an old topo map hanging on the wall. It gives some idea of barrel/pincushion distortion, though given the age of the map any problems may be the map rather than the lens. All are at f2.8
24mm Some blurring at the extremities, but given that the lens is wide open, this could just be DOF.


28mm


35mm


50mm


70mm


Next some DOF tests: Both at 70mm
f2.8


f11


Finally an outside shot of some citrus leaves
62mm f2.8

Great review Greg, you sound like you are happy with it. Quite a jump from the 18-200 to this. Good idea with the topo map. Will look forward to reading your updates after a few days of use.

the right side looks way softer than the right. i'm assuming thats the light streaming thru to the left which is giving more detail to that side ?

It is quite significantly narrower and smaller than its older brother (28-70mm)... Not sure about the first few pics, but the softness at the corner doesn't seem too nice to me... might just be DOF?

The softness at the corner seems to be a trait of this lens, as concluded by Photzone

"The Nikkor AF-S 24-70mm f/2.8G ED exceeds the already very good performance of its predecessor. The center quality is nothing short of outstanding matching or beating the resolution of a 10mp APS-C sensor. The border quality is very good at large aperture increasing to excellent levels at f/5.6-8. However, you've to be careful with the curved focus field at 24mm which can result in out-of-focus background corners! Distortions and vignetting are very low and not really field relevant. Chromatic aberrations are generally well controlled although they could have been somewhat more symmetrical (in the tested sample). The bokeh (out-of-focus blur) is unusually smooth and buttery for a zoom lens with aspherical elements. Please note, however, that 70mm f/2.8 isn't terribly fast on an APS-C DSLR so you've to be fairly close to your main subject in order to produce a pronounced out-of-focus blur. The build quality of the lens is superb and it´s a joy to handle it in the field despite its comparatively hefty size and weight. The high speed and low noise of the silent-wave AF drive is the cream on top of it all. The primary aspect which can spoil the game is, unsurprisingly, the high price point of around 1500€/US$."

Detailed review here

http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/nikkor_2470_28/index.htm

i dont mind soft corners at large apertures as long as it's even across all sides. there's a kind of funky bokeh on the right side of the above image. i think its due to the steel grate thing and the lighting though. not sure.

Mr Darcy wrote:NB this is an FX lens, but ALL images are DX.

Can anyone explain the pros and cons to this? I understand the D200 is a DX frame (due to size of sensor). I also understand that this really means the 24-70 is really a 36-105 in comparitive terms (to "film"...)
Is there any other advantage / disadvantage I am not considering?

devilla101 wrote:"Chromatic aberrations are generally well controlled although they could have been somewhat more symmetrical (in the tested sample)."

I thought any chromatic aberration was bad, symmetrical or not... Why would you want symmetrical chromatic aberration? Possibly answering that myself, they say in the link you provided,

Unfortunately the CAs were a bit unsymmetrical in the tested sample making it difficult to remove all CA traces via post-processing.

so I assume they mean the CA is uneven throughout the image, therefore harder to fix the RAW image in post processing.

I had a detailed look at one of the sample images they have posted, namely (warning, 7.2 Mb file)
http: //w ww.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/nikkor_2470_28/samples/DSC_4237-01.jpg
[EDIT] I note they have removed that image but replaced it with this one. My description still seems to match.
If we take my basic description of a castle with two ornate nobbly bits, to the left and the right.
Looking at the nobbly bit to the left - the right edge of it has a magenta hue, and the left edge a marginal cyan hue.
But looking at the nobbly bit to the right (with the clock), it's the left edge that is magenta and the right edge that is cyan.
These arberrations are also visible on the contrasty window edges to the left and right if the image, but not really detectable in centre of frame.
I guess that is what they mean when they describe the CA as a bit unsymmetrical.

This is going to make me look closely at this lens to see whether it is just their tested sample, or a "feature" of this lens.
What does one do if they want a lens with minimal to no CA?
Is this just a feature of zoom lenses and one needs to go to a prime lens to remove detectable CA, or is it something I am going to have to live with?

If you would like to post some links to 100% images of contrasty subjects at your sharpest ISO and different zooms from this lens, that would be a good help. Typical images I take at the moment where CA bothers me are scenery shots, such as mountains with sky in the background...
A couple of examples of what I mean from my gallery -
[EDIT] Can't locate the images I had here, found these dead links courtesy of Google Analytics. Links removed.
Not the greatest examples, but a guide to what I mean.
Any advice as to how to take photos like these with minimal to no CA would be appreciated. Particularly, is the 24-70 the lens for me?

Some comments I perhaps should have put in the original:
The map photos were all taken at 52mm from centre of image to sensor plane
All photos were taken with available light which was a large window facing south the the immediate right of the map photo. This means there will be light falloff from left to right across the image.
The indoor still life was taken from the same point (I did not move the tripod) but the camera was rotated about 90 degrees so the light was now behind the camera, but since I was standing behind the camera, a significant portion of the light was blocked.

Can anyone explain the pros and cons to this? I understand the D200 is a DX frame (due to size of sensor). I also understand that this really means the 24-70 is really a 36-105 in comparative terms (to "film"...)

I can't give you a definitive answer, but I can explain my reasoning.
I bought an FX lens rather than a DX one for two reasons:
1. I figure that as the quality must be there for a full 35mm sensor, the DX sensor should be in the middle of that & hopefully the lens will be at its best there. Vignetting should really not be a problem for an FX lens on a DX body. It was a real issue with the 18-200
2. Lenses are forever. Bodies are for now. Buying the FX lens allows me to continue using it when (if!) I move to a full frame camera some time in the future.

The main reason I bought the 24-70 over the 28-70 was because it was a little wider which is a distinct advantage on a DX body. (35mm equiv rather than 42)

I have made a few more shots, but as I need to prepare for Xmas, I don't have time to process and upload them. Hopefully before NY.

I would be most interested to hear from 24-70 owners to see what they think of the CA in this lens - taking note of my points in my previous post relating to the sample image provided and the difference between left of frame and right of frame...
Can someone please provide me with similar images showing a high contrast subject so I can see whether it really is a bit of an issue, or whether the lens is so darn good that I'm worrying about nothing...
I particularly like the sound of the closest subject distance of this lens over the 28-70mm.

EDIT - I have done more reading all over the net and no longer need my questions answered... I bought one and it will soon be here.