[Klaus]

[quote name='backcountryskier' timestamp='1300909701' post='7053']

Seems a lot like Sigma's 24-70



Sharp center, somewhat weak edges, low c/a, nasty bokeh.



How would you compare the Sigma with the Zeiss?

[/quote]





Well, the Zeiss is still somewhat snappier for sure.

[Guest]

[quote name='Klaus' timestamp='1300881071' post='7043']

Frankly I've always been wondering about the hype about these f/2.8 standard zooms in general. They're too short to be useful for portraits (compared to much cheaper primes a la 85/1.8) and not really any better than more moderate f/4 zoom lenses but exceedingly more expensive.

The Zeiss remains a good lens, of course, and it should be easily possible to work around its limitations in most scenes.



Klaus

[/quote]





Well, for me the expense is worthwhile as for my personal shooting there are no 'workarounds'; I use F/2.8 a lot and on DX/APS-C 70mm gets into portrait territory - with good bokeh. I hate changing lenses 'in the field' - arthritis in my hands doesn't help (although I'm not exactly a cripple!} An F/4 alternative is not so obvious in Nikonland.... Others may disgree of course. I do use primes, but rarely, for the reasons above.

[youpii]

I'm wondering how many of the 24-70 are actually used on FF.

28-85 seems a more interesting range to me.

[Brightcolours]

[quote name='youpii' timestamp='1300967692' post='7069']

I'm wondering how many of the 24-70 are actually used on FF.

28-85 seems a more interesting range to me.

[/quote]

Almost all 24-70's are used on full frame, especially the Nikon one. The Canon 24-70mm was used quite a bit too on 20/30D's before the 5D came along, and of course on the 1.3x APS-H 1D series.



I can not imagine anyone buying a 24-70 from Zeiss and not having a A900 or A850 either...



The Canon and Nikon 24-70 f2.8 are quite high volume lenses too. Not so strange, they are just standard zooms. The equivalent of the 17/18-50mm f2.8's on APS-C (well, equivalent focal range wise of course... not aperture wise).

[Guest]

[quote name='Brightcolours' timestamp='1300969520' post='7072']

Almost all 24-70's are used on full frame, especially the Nikon one. The Canon 24-70mm was used quite a bit too on 20/30D's before the 5D came along, and of course on the 1.3x APS-H 1D series.



I can not imagine anyone buying a 24-70 from Zeiss and not having a A900 or A850 either...



The Canon and Nikon 24-70 f2.8 are quite high volume lenses too. Not so strange, they are just standard zooms. The equivalent of the 17/18-50mm f2.8's on APS-C (well, equivalent focal range wise of course... not aperture wise).

[/quote]





Well I'm in that tiny Nikon DX minority then.



Where do you find the info to suggest 'almost all' ?



Im just curious

[Klaus]

[quote name='AAC7man' timestamp='1300973483' post='7074']

Well I'm in that tiny Nikon DX minority then.



Where do you find the info to suggest 'almost all' ?



Im just curious

[/quote]



I'm also wondering. A "35-105mm f/4" is a viable option.

[backcountryskier]

It seems that there are a lot of people are shooting 24-70s with crop gear. This is from browsing places like photo.net



I think the explanation falls in five general categories:



1) Some folks still haven't figured out the focal length and equivalent focal length thing. 24-70 is a standard zoom, right?

2) Some folks are still hesitant to buy crop gear. They'll move to fullframe, maybe, someday, in the distant future. Crop cameras are going to be obsolete any day now, and there's no resale value in crop lenses, right?

3) (Canon only) The 24-70 has a red stripe and crop equivalents do not. Therefore 24-70 is the better lens. L lenses are the ultimate in quality, guaranteed, every time, right? Non-L is always inferior. 24-70s are also big and heavy, and look imposing.

4) Some folks pair with a 10-22 or 12-24 ultrawide, plus 70-200 telephoto, and don't mind switching lenses.

5) (tiny minority methinks) portrait shooters who don't need anything wider than 35 mm equivalent.

[janez]

[size="3"]Dear all forum contributors![/size]



[size="3"]Writing/reading on this particular topic became interesting to me because I use zoom 24-xx(x) for a long time ago (also film times). I tried to use on DX my old 24-120/3.5-5.6, but it was too narrow for me. Now I still use mostly my 24-70/2.8 (on FX), even I have other possibilities in bag. It is crucial for my way of life (I’m not pro photographer). The reason is simple: it is sharper than non zooms I could buy for reasonable prices (24/2.8, 28/2.8, 35/2, 50/1,8), except last year newcomers (24/1.4, 35/1.4 and ‘old’ 50/1.4 AF-S), which each is the same price like zoom 24-70/2.8. It has also fast AF, so I close my eyes about distortion on 24mm. Because of the problems, I sold first unit and tried to be without (only 28-200/3.5-5.6 and 50/1.8) and soon realized that I need new one. So I bought another one. [/size]



[size="3"]Some interesting figures about production numbers in Nikon land:[/size]



[size="3"]28-70/2.8 130.740 pieces[/size]



[size="3"]17-55/2.8 174.234 pieces[/size]



[size="3"]24-70/2.8 329.834 pieces (almost twice!)[/size]



[size="3"](source: [/size][url="http://www.photosynthesis.co.nz/nikon/serialno.html"][size="3"][color="#800080"]http://www.photosynthesis.co.nz/nikon/serialno.html[/color][/size][/url][size="3"] )[/size]



[size="3"]Klause, some time ago you prepared time to time questioner about different topics. Is it still possible on ‘new’ forum? I really want to know how many people here use FX/FF with 24-70/2.8 (all brands) and how many people use on crop (1.5/1.6)…?[/size]



[size="3"]Nice day Janez[/size]

[anyscreenamewilldo]

Hehe yikes, I had not seen that.

- just a short departure from the immediate topic above of whether size matters or not -



it seems to me that the subject of that picture above of the onion rings is out of focus and that the photographer should have focused on the onion rings and let the side foreground bits be soft thus making a nice vignette surround - although a beautiful picture is in the eye of the beholder no doubt

[mst]

Since I'm the photographer of that image, allow me to explain that this was not meant to be "art", it's just a small 100% crop out of a much larger image. Its single and only purpose was to illustrate the poor bokeh.



-- Markus