I am considering buying the new Nikon AF-S 24-70mm, F/2.8 ED for my Nikon D200.

Any experiences?

Lars :-)

It is a great lens. Very sharp, fast and silent. The only real downsides are WEIGHT and PRICE. AF-S 24-85 4-5.6 costs 1/10 as much, easier to carry. But it looks less impressive, it doesn't open up to f/2.8 and isn't quite as sharp (but sharp enough for most use).

/ Jacob

Best on a FF like a D700 though. Costs an arm and a leg as well ;-) Do I want one? You bet! ;-)

Hey Lars,

I LOOOOVE my 24-70, it is an EXTRAORDINARY lens. It's totally worth every penny. It is VERY expensive but it pays off in quality. Not that it cannot be cheaper, it should be!! But what i mean is, if you still decide to go for it, like I did despite the price, you won't regret it.

But you have to be sure that the focal range will be useful to you in you D200. When i used it on my D300 it wasn't really useful to me since I use the range 20-40 a lot and this lens starts at 36 mm on a DX format. In my D700 is fabulous I use it most of the time, i'm extremely happy with it.

but the sad true aside from the price is that it is very heavy! combined with the camera, after a day of walking around, your shoulders will definitely feel it (and I'm 31) !!! Also it is bulky, for street portraiture it results very very intimidating to the subjects, especially here in Asia.

hope this helps.

Best lens Lars.... I have this lens and i back what all others have said. The only draw back its bloody heavy and with the lens hood on its a monster but performance wise i dont think you will find batter.

Glen

I have the 24-85 that Jacob talks about, a very nice lens. I can't imagine that the 24-70 is nearly 10 times better but it does cost nearly 10 times as much as I paid for mine.

Thanks for all the recommandations!

I have now for the focal lenght area the kit-lens from my first Nikon (70S), the Nikkor AF-S 18-70 MM 3,5-4,5G ED DX. It's quite good, but I hope I can expect much more from the Nikon AF-S 24-70mm, F/2.8 ED !?

My other lenses are:
Sigma 70-200mm F2.8 EX HSM (same filter size as the Nikon AF-S 24-70mm, F/2.8 ED, so I don't have to invest in extra pol-filter et cetera)
Sigma 70mm F2.8 EX DG MACRO
Nikon 200-400 f/4G VR with 1.4 Extender

Lars :-)

More than the 18-70, well yes, more than the 24-85 that I Jacob and I are talking about, well yes. But 800% more?????? The one thing that lens can do that the other 2 can't is f2.8. The sharpness difference on a D70s or a D200 well, no where near 800% better, maybe 20% better. (I'm no real lens expert, just based on what I've read)

If you have $2000 laying around just burning a hole in your pocket, go ahead. Or you could spend the 2k on travel to some exotic land for a photo safari...

I bought mine last year and have never regretted it, superb lens. It is a bit of a weight to carry all day long, but the effort is worth it!

Hey Lars.

I have 24-70 / F 2.8 for my D200. But it's overkill. The best lens here is probably 17-55 / f 2.8. Also a better zoom range for a crop camera. But I have a 24-70 glass because later I will have a D700. For this camera is the 24-70 really good.and the best.

Have good day.
With regards Soeren

I held Robert's the other day here in Beijing.. nice build quality and feel....balanced well on the D700. But I would not buy it for the same reason I sold my 17-35. Weight.

I am happy with a 28 AIS 2.8, 50 1.2 AIS and 85 1.4 AFD. All up they might weigh more but 2 our of 3 is enough for me at any one time.

Nikon does need some other medium aperture zooms in it;s range. F 2.8 is really considered medium these days and F4 constant on a digital body is more than fast enough. Especially on a crop format where doing DOF effects is harder anyway...

But to the question - nice lens. I guess it all depends on what you need to do and how you do it. For me - too big - then too heavy.

I have good muscles, so I think I'll go for it!
And as I have to stay home and support my sick wife, I can't use the money for travel anyway!

Lars :-)

You can read more here, Lars:
http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/24-70mm.htm
and You can see why its overkill to a crop-camera too. But if You plan to shift to a FX-camera its the right choice. Else 17-55 is a much better choice.

Soeren

Same here. But carry it in your right hand all day with your arm by your side ready to pounce on a shot - then it gets heavy. And more so the size puts people off. Again it all depends on your needs. Technically though - it is a wonderful lens - at least to hold - as that is where my experience stops... ;-)

Håber, at du kan bruge info Lars og ser, at 24-70 er spild af glas på et crop-kamra, da man jo ikke kan udnytte hele glasfladen. Til gengæld en perle til FF.
Kh. Søren