No need for prime For those of you who are satisfied with your 18-200 VR. You don’t need this lens. I stuck with my f3.5-5.6 zoom for a long time because, heh, I took “good pictures”. I adapted to low light, didn’t miss f2.8. I was not convinced that a “pro” lens could make any difference visually…only if examining test shots of test patterns with a microscope.
One Lens for Vacations, Portraits and Fun I know what you’re thinking: Seventeen hundred bucks or more for a mere midrange zoom?
Outstanding quality, as expected The image quality from this lens is, as other reviews indicate, nothing short of spectacular. Having used its ancestor, the Nikon 28-70mm f/2.8, I am not surprised in the least. Despite specifications to the contrary, the 24-70mm feels lighter in my hands than the 28-70mm did, and if it is possible, somewhat more responsive. Perhaps the weight distribution is more even in the 24-70mm than it was in the previous iteration.
Comments are disabled for this post.
Register | Lost your password?
Sunday, Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday: what comes next?
Sign In | Lost your password?
Username or E-mail
Sign In | Register