PDA

View Full Version : Nikon 24-70 F2.8 has arrived. Ask me questions and I'll find out for you.




Renderz
Aug 18, 2008, 06:21 AM
Hi guys,

I just wanted to share my excitement from the arrival of this spectacular lens. I've only giving it a short test run but I will be putting it through it's paces. If you're thinking of buying this lens, then post some comments on my blog and I'll go out and find out for you by doing some test shots or if you're near the Buckinghamshire (UK) area then you can try it out!

My blog post does go a bit geeky, but it's just something I've been drooling over for ages. Next will be the D3 haha! Anyone here a bank manager? I have a question to ask you :p

http://www.terrylee.net/blog/2008/08/18/nikon-24-70mm-f28/



taylorwilsdon
Aug 18, 2008, 12:13 PM
Wow, you're picking up some serious hardware. Enjoy it! I gave some brief thought to the 24-70 but I decided it was more than I cared to spend.

Consultant
Aug 18, 2008, 01:44 PM
Does it float?
Does it blend?

=p

Sdashiki
Aug 18, 2008, 01:44 PM
"A camera is for 2 years"....now I know why I havent swapped my AE-1 for a dSLR.

Sweet lens I bet.

ChrisA
Aug 18, 2008, 01:55 PM
"A camera is for 2 years"....now I know why I havent swapped my AE-1 for a dSLR.

If you are making a living with the equipment then what matters is ratio of capital equipment to gross income. The ratio is quite small even if you did buy a new D3 every two years. Spending only a few percent of gross income on capital equipment is a low ratio. Any auto mechanic or plumber or tree trimmer would spend more on his equipment.

Shotglass
Aug 18, 2008, 02:15 PM
"A camera is for 2 years"....now I know why I havent swapped my AE-1 for a dSLR.

Sweet lens I bet.Owning that very same camera, I can tell you there are many more reasons not to go digital. Such a fine piece of equipment... I'm actually still buying lenses for it. Next is an FD L 85mm f/1.2 :cool:

Sdashiki
Aug 18, 2008, 02:20 PM
Ive been sidetracked by Polaroids at the moment.

but 30+yrs and my canon is still strong.

I wish dSLRs had the same ability to last.

Renderz
Aug 18, 2008, 05:57 PM
Honestly folks, I didn't think that statement would cause any response let alone what you guys are saying. I should say it was in part jest, but I do actualy know people who change/upgrade cameras at an alarming rate. I know people who change cars every 18 months!!!

So if I've caused offence, then I apologies. However, I stand by my statement because i think it's funny :-)

Sdashiki
Aug 18, 2008, 06:03 PM
Honestly folks, I didn't think that statement would cause any response let alone what you guys are saying. I should say it was in part jest, but I do actualy know people who change/upgrade cameras at an alarming rate. I know people who change cars every 18 months!!!

So if I've caused offence, then I apologies. However, I stand by my statement because i think it's funny :-)

No way, I was just saying what u said as truth. And it, personally, keeps me from going digital at the moment.

I would if I had more money!

Digital Skunk
Aug 19, 2008, 04:54 PM
Don't believe the hype about switching camera's every two years. No serious pro does that. Mainly because they have other expenses and gear to get and keep up to date as well. Spending $5000+ on a new body every year and replacing two or more bodies is irresponsible.

Pros need glass, lights, computer gear, storage, services, and food and shelter to think about too.

termina3
Aug 19, 2008, 06:04 PM
Don't believe the hype about switching camera's every two years. No serious pro does that. Mainly because they have other expenses and gear to get and keep up to date as well. Spending $5000+ on a new body every year and replacing two or more bodies is irresponsible.

Pros need glass, lights, computer gear, storage, services, and food and shelter to think about too.

Sure, but also you can sell off the old bodies. So 2 bodies, $1500 depreciation, you're paying $3000 to upgrade, not 10,000.

Westside guy
Aug 19, 2008, 06:25 PM
I don't think most people upgrade that often. I shot with a D70 for four years, then just recently bought a D700. The D700 will let me take shots the D70 can't; but it's not like the D70 stopped working or can't take great photos in its own right.

I fully expect to be using the D700 for as long as it remains functional.

Digital Skunk
Aug 19, 2008, 06:55 PM
Sure, but also you can sell off the old bodies. So 2 bodies, $1500 depreciation, you're paying $3000 to upgrade, not 10,000.

Agreed, but it's something most pros don't do. The D3 and D700 were an exception from a lot however.

I don't think most people upgrade that often. I shot with a D70 for four years, then just recently bought a D700. The D700 will let me take shots the D70 can't; but it's not like the D70 stopped working or can't take great photos in its own right.

I fully expect to be using the D700 for as long as it remains functional.

Most shooters don't. Gear heads do. Not that I am complaining, it means good gear at a decent price for myself.

BanjoBanker
Aug 19, 2008, 07:06 PM
I have a D70 Nikon I have had for 4 years. I am upgrading to the D700 simply because I want the larger sensor. I am also buying the 70-200 F2.8 to go with my new body. I know "pros" who are using D2xs in their every day work. A new body does not necessarily mean better shots. There is no substitute for good glass. An example is when I get the urge to shoot on film, I drag out my Leica IIIc with it's glorious 50mm F2 Summicon lens! 55 years old and still takes fabulous pictures! All manual: no meter, auto focus or anything requiring a battery.:cool:

termina3
Aug 19, 2008, 08:30 PM
Back to the OP:

What situations, if any, outside of your wedding photography do you expect to use this lens for?

Do you ever shoot sports? If so, will you use it on a second body to complement a 70-200 or 200-400?

Renderz
Aug 20, 2008, 02:36 AM
Back to the OP:

What situations, if any, outside of your wedding photography do you expect to use this lens for?

Do you ever shoot sports? If so, will you use it on a second body to complement a 70-200 or 200-400?

Ah, a sensible question. I'm split between weddings and gig photography. Because this summer has been particularly busy with music festivals, I have shot well over 12 bands in a various venues; I found I was missing the mid-range zoom which this 24-70 covers.

I do shoot sports, but it is not something I have had a foot in yet although I am working hard at that once the summer festivals are over.

At the moment, my second body is a baby D40x; it's adequate in low light with a fast lens. It is poor at focusing quickly but the results have been pretty good using a 50mm 1.8 and the 70-200 2.8.

I have a festival gig this Sunday; I will be carrying the 70-200 on the D300 and the 24-70 on the D40x. My apprentice will be carrying 50mm and 18-200mm on a D80 body.