[Brightcolours]

The Tamron at 70mm focused closely was less than 45mm effective FOV, How's the Nikor here?

See Marcus' review:
The Nikkor min. focus distance 0.38 m to 0.41 m, depending on focal length (max. magnification ratio 1:3.6)
The Tamron min. focus distance 0.38 m (max. magnification ratio 1:5)

[Klaus]

Go tell this to wedding photographers for whom this lens is an absolute standard

the classic Nikon trio almost every professional photographer using Nikon has 14-24/24-70/70-200

And if it was my wedding I would fire those photographers.

[JJ_SO]

:lol: excellent.

 

But you wouldn't allow them to come with Nikon stuff? I mean, all that expensive gear has to be financed by the customer...  ^_^

[davidmanze]

And if it was my wedding I would fire those photographers.

 

 or maybe ask what gear they are using before hiring them....

 

        you know....it kinda saves that embarrassing "firing stir" in front of the family and guests while daddy stands awkwardly with the bride before the aisle......all while someone runs round looking for an iphone!!  

[youpii]

Thanks for the review

 

I still don't get why all the manufacturer focus on those 24-70/2.8

I'd be more interested in a 28-85/2.8 or /4

[thxbb12]

Yeah too short anyway.

Rather have a 24-100 constant f4 or 24-100 f3.5-4.8

[Rover]

The Sony 24-70mm f/2.8 is probably the only fast std zoom lens that is good. I don't expect anything from the new Sigma and Tamron.


But then this is a useless lens category - not really fast, excessively heavy and big, very expensive relative to what they offer. PERSONALLY I couldn't care less.


Something like the Canon 24-70mm f/4 makes more sense.


But we are all different.

Ah! Then I'm not the only one who thinks along these lines. Never had a 24-70/2.8 class lens - I thrive on the 16-35 + 70-200 combo, and in the middle I got the humble 24-85/3.5-4.5.

Incidentally, I had conflicting thoughts on the issue when I was shooting a wedding a couple of days ago (to put the record straight, I'm not in that business but I was doing this for a friend). I was mostly using the Canon 24/1.4 and 50/1.4 lenses with 70-200/2.8 IS added for good measure, and found that while I could have a decent hit rate, a lot of the time I wasn't having nearly enough DOF when shooting between f/2.5 and f/4.5. For proper DOF I would have stopped way down to f/11ish and pulled focus, but the proceedings were taking place in a church (thankfully, there was quite some natural light from the windows as the weather was good and the time, well, about 2 PM) and so I would have had to go to about 5-6K ISO, which I could not afford. I can imagine that many wedding shooters are facing a similar conundrum whenever they can't use flash - then, of course, it'd be f/11 and a controlled exposure.

 

Just like I ditched the 16-35/2.8 for the 16-35/4, I would prefer a high quality f/4 lens in the midrange as well. Oddly enough now I appreciate the 2.8 aperture on the 70-200 so I reconsidered selling it. However I'm content with the 24-85 for now as the real gap is only from 35 to 70 which is not a big deal...

[chrismiller]

thanks for the review. One typo in the verdict: "Given the increased size (and also the increased prize)," Prize -> price. 

 

[mst]

Thanks, Chris, corrected

 

-- Markus