D7000 and Nikon 24-70mm - Photos and Thoughts?

[GolferChris68]

I'm considering purchasing a Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8G to pair with my D7000. Obviously, the 24-70 is a pro-level lens that really shines when paired with an FX camera. I already have the 16-85mm, which is nice, but it's not a great choice in low light.

Does anyone have any good photos showing the D7000/24-70mm combo? Any thoughts on the focal length change when shooting DX (becomes a 38-112mm equivalent)? I think the 24-70mm would probably work very nicely with the D7000, but I'd like to hear how other photographers are liking that combination.

 

[Big Daddy]

I have that combo, and also have a 16-85VR which I've kept for when I want to have a lighter kit. Don't have any photos handy this second.

The 24-70 is an awesome lens. Obviously it's not as wide on DX, but I'm not a wide shooter. E.g. not that many landscapes (and have a Tokina 12-24 for that). I dislike people shots at wider angles because of the perspective distortion. The 70mm on DX is a very, very useful length for portraits and the nice bokeh helps a lot.

The lens is heavy and bulky so make sure you're okay with that. I love its sharpness, colors, and contrast. I do have primes as well but like having a variety of options for different situations.

 

[GolferChris68]

Thanks Bill. The weight of the 24-70mm doesn't concern me too much, and I would probably use a 10-24mm or Tokina 11-16mm for any wide-angle work. If you do have any shots with that combo, would you mind posting a couple samples when it's more convenient?

 

[GH41]

I'm considering purchasing a Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8G to pair with my D7000. Obviously, the 24-70 is a pro-level lens that really shines when paired with an FX camera. I already have the 16-85mm, which is nice, but it's not a great choice in low light.

Does anyone have any good photos showing the D7000/24-70mm combo? Any thoughts on the focal length change when shooting DX (becomes a 38-112mm equivalent)? I think the 24-70mm would probably work very nicely with the D7000, but I'd like to hear how other photographers are liking that combination.

Have you looked at the 24-120VR?? A lot of guys are selling their 24-70 after trying it including some of the most respected guys here. I just got mine and willl have some pictures up soon with my D700. GH

 

[IsaacImage]

Had this lens and decided to sell it and buy 35mm 1.8
If photography is not you work - 35mm 1.8 will give you better Image Quality for much leesss money.
If you want great zoom and more crisp images try new 70-200 on d7k..... tried this once... check my signature

 

[Big Daddy]

... If you do have any shots with that combo, would you mind posting a couple samples when it's more convenient?

Don't have anything fancy, mostly just snapshots. I've only had the D7000 for a couple of months and the weather's been weak.

Bokeh:

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

High ISO of the D7000 @ f/4:

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

After my 70-200 VR II, my fastest focusing lens:

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

Works in daylight, too:

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

The obligatory 100% crop:

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

Of some of the lenses I have -- IQ-wise, factoring in sharpness, color, and contrast -- 2nd to my 70-200 VR II, ahead of my Sigma 50/1.4, significantly ahead of the 35/1.8 (so-so bokeh, color/contrast not as good), and significantly ahead of the 16-85VR.

 

[camerapapi]

Chris, I am sure that if you have the 24-70 f2.8 in mind you will end up buying the lens.
The 24-70, as you very well know, is a fabulous professional lens and as you stated, a great lens for the FX format.
I do not believe I would be very happy buying one to fit it to the D7000 but that is me.
24mm is not much of a wide angle and 70mm not much of a tele either. At least with FX 24mm is a great wide angle. The lens is very popular among wedding photographers.
Surprises me that you say that the 16-85 is a slow lens. Slow lens with a camera that does exceedingly well at ISO 3200? The 16-85 has proven to be a very nice optics and in my humble opinion a very useful zoom lens for the DX format. For landscape photography, environmental or studio shots the 16-85 does very well indeed.
A D7000 and a 16-85 and I believe I would be a very happy camper. I would also be a happy camper with a D700 and the 24-70 f2.8 lens.

William Rodriguez
Miami, Florida.

 

[ejstefl]

Any thoughts on the focal length change when shooting DX (becomes a 38-112mm equivalent)?

You could look at the photos you've taken with your 16-85 and see what focal lengths you're using. That would answer your question regarding if 24-70 would be a useful range for you.

Otherwise, you could just use your 16-85 only between 24-70mm and see if that works for you. Then you'll know for sure!

 

[Sirraj]

Have you considered the Nikon 17-55mm? I believe the image quality is close to the 24-70mm. It is my favorite lens on a DX body. I would find 24-70mm not to be wide enough for me, but every one is different.

 

[Takeda]

Have you considered the Nikon 17-55mm? I believe the image quality is close to the 24-70mm. It is my favorite lens on a DX body. I would find 24-70mm not to be wide enough for me, but every one is different.

+1 However, I have used my 24 70mm on both my D300 (DX) and D3s (FX) with excellent results! If you ever plan to go to FX, then 24 70mm would be the lens to buy.

 

[Pa]

Chris, I am sure that if you have the 24-70 f2.8 in mind you will end up buying the lens.
The 24-70, as you very well know, is a fabulous professional lens and as you stated, a great lens for the FX format.
I do not believe I would be very happy buying one to fit it to the D7000 but that is me.
24mm is not much of a wide angle and 70mm not much of a tele either. At least with FX 24mm is a great wide angle. The lens is very popular among wedding photographers.
Surprises me that you say that the 16-85 is a slow lens. Slow lens with a camera that does exceedingly well at ISO 3200? The 16-85 has proven to be a very nice optics and in my humble opinion a very useful zoom lens for the DX format. For landscape photography, environmental or studio shots the 16-85 does very well indeed.
A D7000 and a 16-85 and I believe I would be a very happy camper. I would also be a happy camper with a D700 and the 24-70 f2.8 lens.

William Rodriguez
Miami, Florida.

Sound advice.

 

[TetonTom]

I also shoot DX and would like to get a fast zoom in this range. I'm thinking more about a Tokina 28-75, mainly for size/weight.
I guess the big question to consider is if you need f/2.8 for your style of shooting. I've shot various DX kit zooms, 18-200, and 16-85, and always miss the ability to manipulate backgrounds. Also, I'm not always satisfied with wide-open lens performance with any of these slower lenses.
I, personally, would never spend serious money on an f/2.8 DX mid-range lens (17-55) due to it's limited range for my style of shooting. I rarely used my 18-55 kit zoom because of it's range, and could never imagine that I'd appreciate the same lens with a faster max aperture.
I won't deny the convenient "1-lens solution" that the 16-85 offers.
For my style of shooting (events, location portraits, restaurant/vineyard PR) I get by fine with a couple fast primes in this range (a 35 and a 58). I wish I had an 85 or maybe a 105, as well (if I had one my 80-200 would probably stay home a bit more). But I'm thinking that a zoom covering this whole range might be a better investment for me right now than an additional prime. My best option for this zoom would be one of the FX mid-range f/2.8's, and not any of the DX lenses available...
Good luck, and buy what you need...

 

[Iscariot]

Take a look at this thread of mine:

https://www.nikoncafe.com/vforums/showthread.php?t=307858

All of these were taken with the combo you are considering. they may not be the best as lighting was poor and Im not all that great but it will give you some idea. If you want to see the full collection they can be found at my flickr site.

 

[ebsund]

I also shoot DX and would like to get a fast zoom in this range. I'm thinking more about a Tokina 28-75, mainly for size/weight.
I guess the big question to consider is if you need f/2.8 for your style of shooting. I've shot various DX kit zooms, 18-200, and 16-85, and always miss the ability to manipulate backgrounds. Also, I'm not always satisfied with wide-open lens performance with any of these slower lenses.

I bought Tamron 28-75mm (the Tokina 28-75 is quite heavy afaik?) to compliment my 16-85mm when I'm mainly doing family pictures, to have the ability to better isolate backgrounds. I also have a 85/1.8, but would sometimes like the convenience of a fast zoom. But alas, it is quite soft at 75/2.8, requiring stopping down to f/4 at the long end, and then the relative gain over 85mm/5.6 for the 16-85 is considerably reduced, even though the bokeh is somewhat better.
I'd love to see a dedicated DX portrait/people f/2.8 zoom with a range something like 24-85mm or 28-90mm, covering both quite tightly framed shots as well as environmental portraits. But I'm afraid it will never happen. The Nikon 24.70mm f/2.8 would maybe be the closest, but it is heavy and expensive. There is also the Tokina 50-135mm or Sigma 50-150mm, but they don't cover the normal or slightly wide FoV.

 

[Takeda]

I bought Tamron 28-75mm (the Tokina 28-75 is quite heavy afaik?) to compliment my 16-85mm when I'm mainly doing family pictures, to have the ability to better isolate backgrounds. I also have a 85/1.8, but would sometimes like the convenience of a fast zoom. But alas, it is quite soft at 75/2.8, requiring stopping down to f/4 at the long end, and then the relative gain over 85mm/5.6 for the 16-85 is considerably reduced, even though the bokeh is somewhat better.
I'd love to see a dedicated DX portrait/people f/2.8 zoom with a range something like 24-85mm or 28-90mm, covering both quite tightly framed shots as well as environmental portraits. But I'm afraid it will never happen. The Nikon 24.70mm f/2.8 would maybe be the closest, but it is heavy and expensive. There is also the Tokina 50-135mm or Sigma 50-150mm, but they don't cover the normal or slightly wide FoV.

There are no aftermarket zooms that can come close to the performance of the 24 70mm Nikon!

What you found with the Tamron is very typical of aftermarket zooms.

 

[ebsund]

There are no aftermarket zooms that can come close to the performance of the 24 70mm Nikon!

What you found with the Tamron is very typical of aftermarket zooms.

I knew from reading various tests and user reports that it would be slightly soft at 75mm f/2.8, but my copy was more so than I hoped for. So I'm on the fence wether to sell it or keep it - as mentioned its very nice once stopped down a little, but then I bought it for the f/2.8 ability...

 

[Takeda]

I knew from reading various tests and user reports that it would be slightly soft at 75mm f/2.8, but my copy was more so than I hoped for. So I'm on the fence wether to sell it or keep it - as mentioned its very nice once stopped down a little, but then I bought it for the f/2.8 ability...

I've posted these tests from DxOmark on another thread, but they match what you have found:


Tamron 17 50mm:

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

Tamron 28 75mm:

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

Nikon 24 70mm:

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

 

[Bucky]

I had the 24-70, and like all have said it is an incredible lens. Problem for me was the size and weight. When I was around home I would end up using my primes and when I was "on the road" I would use my old 28-105. Simply because of the bulk factor. I recently purchased a 24-120/4. It seems to be a great compromise.

 

[Ed-Gein]

I use the 24-70 on my D7k and absolutly love it. i will never trade or sell that lens.

plus the good thing about buying FX lenses, is if later down the road you go FX, well, there ya go.

As for the focal length on DX, i think it is fantastic. Im not sure what everyone complains about.

Here are some images with that combo.

All but the 2nd and 3rd to last in that set were done with the 24-70 2.8 on the D7000.

 

[jdhdiggs]

Takeda:

You're comparing apples to oranges with the difference in cameras. Put the 17-50 and the 24-70 on the same body and you get MUCH different results:

http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Le...175/(onglet)/0/(brand)/Tamron/(brand2)/Nikkor

DXOMark really shows the Tamron being sharper and less CA, but with more vignetting and distortion than the 24-70.

SLRGear tests show the same results.

Put the 17-50 on the D300S and the 24-70 on the D40x and they'll switch places with the 17-50 being the "much" better lens in testing.