Nikon 24-70 F2.8 on full frame body

[lenslust]

I have the 3 f/2.8s and some other 1.4~2.8s.

17-35 is the sharpest wide open among the rest. Reaching near sharpness across the frame at f/4.

24-70 is the best mid-zoom in the range, but very heavy, too heavy for travelling and personally, it's not wide enough at 24, at least for me. Saw a lady in China using D700 + 24-70 as travel setup. I admire her neck's strength. Weighing a good 3KG was her setup at least. She didn't affix on a SB-910 else I'll really applaud her.

Why the 24-70 is not the ideal for travel is probably because it's a street-shoot lens. Good for doing street-shooting (not shooting the streets) photography. Unless you intend to do a lot of street shooting photography, the 24-70 is not ideal for travel.

Thus the 24-70 is also good for events because of it's narrower angle of view+zoom but it sucks badly at being sharp across the frame at f/4 as opposed to the 17-35. f/5.6 or more is appropriate at 24mm wide towards 70mm. Sharpness wise, it is there, but depends on how sharp you love it. I think I over did the sharpening on the camera, my shots came out too sharp for a change. On the D2X, pushing sharpness to max doesn't even hurt. Not on a FX I guess.

If travelling, I think along the lines of landscapes, wide, vastness, the 14-24 (on my to-buy list next year) or 17-35 would be a better option. With the high-ISO these days, f/2.8 wide open at 14 or 17mm would still get you a good handheld shot at night. Thus my preference over the 16-35 f/4 VR, despite it having VR. The 1-stop of light is godsent to me.

That said, 24-70 is a f/2.8, it is a Nikkor, it has the NANO coating and it's part of the 'trinity' (or so widely acclaimed). However, the usage is not purely limited to just street-shooting photography but it has no other versatility apart event coverage and street-shooting.

This is my feel. I bought it purely just to complete the range and use it for events. 17-35 was good on the DX, but on FX, it's too ... lack of reach for events.

 

[daredevil123]

As with many things in life, everyone has a different opinion in everything.

My travel setup is 16-35vr with the 24-70. The 24-70 is an extremely versatile lens, which you can use for anything from landscapes to street, from events to weddings, from environmental portraits to half body to head shots.

16-35 is good for environmental portraits and landscapes, street shooting, events to weddings, whatever you can think of.

Just remember not all landscapes are shot on an ultra wide. It depends on the view you want to capture. I sometimes shoot landscape at 70mm or even 200mm.

Lenses are just tools. Focal lengths is just the physics of optics. There are no fixed genres you have to classify for each lens or focal length. You are only limited by your creativity (or lack of).

 

[Luminare]

You can check out this site:

Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8 Review

The author has also related posts when compared to other lens. Nonetheless, like all others that have replied here, rent the lens when you got your FF body and have a feel for yourself is you like it or not.

There also related post on the CS forum about the stiff zoom ring so i suggest you read that as well.

Thanks for everyone's inputs... I am planning to get d600 but haven got it yet, hence renting the lens now would not be of much use (d80 now). I dun wan to rent a FF body just to test the lens now since i will be getting the body... hopefully soon.

So in the mean time, im just trying to get more info. Maybe I may get some common wisdom from bros here!! 😊

So far from reviews, im happy with the colors from it (im not too particular with sharpness). But with this focal length, it seems that its not easy to get shallow do, except at 70mm.

Yes u guys are right in that theres not much of a choice for this focal length standard zoom. Hence im weighing to get this lens with some flexibility, or stick to shooting with primes but have to change lens more often.

Btw, if anyone happen to know of a site with many pics taken with this lens on FF, ill really appreciate it if u can share with me!

 

[lenslust]

You can check out this site:

Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8 Review

The author has also related posts when compared to other lens. Nonetheless, like all others that have replied here, rent the lens when you got your FF body and have a feel for yourself is you like it or not.

There also related post on the CS forum about the stiff zoom ring so i suggest you read that as well.

Oh, I like the 24-70 by the way. It's nice, just that for the average user, it might not be the ideal unless you're purely looking at filling up the range and owning the f/2.8s. Think it's quite a love-hate relationship.

 

[Ben Ang]

I have the 3 f/2.8s and some other 1.4~2.8s.

17-35 is the sharpest wide open among the rest. Reaching near sharpness across the frame at f/4.

24-70 is the best mid-zoom in the range, but very heavy, too heavy for travelling and personally, it's not wide enough at 24, at least for me. Saw a lady in China using D700 + 24-70 as travel setup. I admire her neck's strength. Weighing a good 3KG was her setup at least. She didn't affix on a SB-910 else I'll really applaud her.

i saw someone carrying a d800 + 24-70 and a D800E w 70-200; one on each shoulder. with tt kind of $ i'd rather go d800+200 f2 vr =P

im with you on the point that the 24-70 is overkill for an 'average shooter'. to me, its too much of an investment for most people who don't earn a living from their hobby. but hey, if they have lots of spare cash, that's up to them to spend. it's certainly not the ultimate best lens in terms of image quality, but its almost essential if you're doing paid event work and need something that will never fail you (assuming you've got the skill yourself)

 

[lenslust]

i saw someone carrying a d800 + 24-70 and a D800E w 70-200; one on each shoulder. with tt kind of $ i'd rather go d800+200 f2 vr =P

im with you on the point that the 24-70 is overkill for an 'average shooter'. to me, its too much of an investment for most people who don't earn a living from their hobby. but hey, if they have lots of spare cash, that's up to them to spend. it's certainly not the ultimate best lens in terms of image quality, but its almost essential if you're doing paid event work and need something that will never fail you (assuming you've got the skill yourself)

No no, I've nothing against the cost or people wanting to own it for hobby. Hey, I started years back myself owning the 3 f/2.8s and shooting for my own interests without getting paid.

Where I'm coming from is that if you expect the 24-70 to be the first and last lens to own on a FX, you're pretty dead wrong. There is no hard and fast rule to which focal length MUST be used in which shot or event or scene, but the 24-70 is no mere beast to handle if you do not know what you're getting it for.

Seriously 24mm isn't that much of a wide (I'm relating from experience) for travels, 70mm isn't hardly a reach for events where there's crowd. I'm actually applauding the 24-70 for being a VERY GOOD street shooting/event lens and general portraiture as well as also general landscape.

If you're talking architectural, or the beauty of ultra wides (17mm down) on a FX, the 24-70 really isn't cut out for it. I have taken landscapes at 200mm myself I know focal length is not everything, but on a FX, the beauty just doesn't cut it out at 24mm IMHO.

I have been constrained on a DX for years using only 17-35 to do wides, I know the beauty of FX and would not just want to limit 24-70 (since TS talked about 24-70 + travel).

Just providing an insight on using the 24-70 in my opinion, not a 'MUST FOLLOW' guide. If there's a 14-200 f/2.8, it would be the best ideal glass to get.

I've always been doing my portraits mostly on a 17-35 at the 17mm end as well as using the 70-200VR. The 24-70 is my main workhorse for events and street-shooting, but definitely not for travels. Let me re-iterate, this is my opinion. Others mileage may vary. Understanding what you need is more important than how others use it.

 

[Ben Ang]

No no, I've nothing against the cost or people wanting to own it for hobby. Hey, I started years back myself owning the 3 f/2.8s and shooting for my own interests without getting paid.

Where I'm coming from is that if you expect the 24-70 to be the first and last lens to own on a FX, you're pretty dead wrong. There is no hard and fast rule to which focal length MUST be used in which shot or event or scene, but the 24-70 is no mere beast to handle if you do not know what you're getting it for.

Seriously 24mm isn't that much of a wide (I'm relating from experience) for travels, 70mm isn't hardly a reach for events where there's crowd. I'm actually applauding the 24-70 for being a VERY GOOD street shooting/event lens and general portraiture as well as also general landscape.

If you're talking architectural, or the beauty of ultra wides (17mm down) on a FX, the 24-70 really isn't cut out for it. I have taken landscapes at 200mm myself I know focal length is not everything, but on a FX, the beauty just doesn't cut it out at 24mm IMHO.

I have been constrained on a DX for years using only 17-35 to do wides, I know the beauty of FX and would not just want to limit 24-70 (since TS talked about 24-70 + travel).

Just providing an insight on using the 24-70 in my opinion, not a 'MUST FOLLOW' guide. If there's a 14-200 f/2.8, it would be the best ideal glass to get.

I've always been doing my portraits mostly on a 17-35 at the 17mm end as well as using the 70-200VR. The 24-70 is my main workhorse for events and street-shooting, but definitely not for travels. Let me re-iterate, this is my opinion. Others mileage may vary. Understanding what you need is more important than how others use it.

ah.. i see your point now. about price, i feel that there's a pressure to spend that kind of $ to get a 2.8 zoom because of the perception that they are the 'first and last lenses to own' or that they're the 'best'. as you said, its really not true at all and it'll benefit people to know that its not a must to put in so much money to get good results. i did start out really wanting to get my hands on the 2.8 zoom because of that idea; can't say how wrong a misconception that was for me.

i typically travel with 17, 45, 50, 85 and either a 60-120 2.8 or 180 2.8 for tele. if i've got extra weight i bring a 24 2.8 AIS along, but if push comes to shove, the 17 and 50 and 85mms are the ones that must come along.

i used the 17-35 2.8, but didnt have a very good experience with it. it was v good on dx, but failed to impress on FX (smudgy corners). i also found myself using it almost exclusively at 17mm so i swapped it out for a tokina 17/3.5 which pretty much out-performed it at 17mm at 1/4 the price and 1/3 the size.

 

[rain5533]

No no, I've nothing against the cost or people wanting to own it for hobby. Hey, I started years back myself owning the 3 f/2.8s and shooting for my own interests without getting paid.

Where I'm coming from is that if you expect the 24-70 to be the first and last lens to own on a FX, you're pretty dead wrong. There is no hard and fast rule to which focal length MUST be used in which shot or event or scene, but the 24-70 is no mere beast to handle if you do not know what you're getting it for.

Seriously 24mm isn't that much of a wide (I'm relating from experience) for travels, 70mm isn't hardly a reach for events where there's crowd. I'm actually applauding the 24-70 for being a VERY GOOD street shooting/event lens and general portraiture as well as also general landscape.

If you're talking architectural, or the beauty of ultra wides (17mm down) on a FX, the 24-70 really isn't cut out for it. I have taken landscapes at 200mm myself I know focal length is not everything, but on a FX, the beauty just doesn't cut it out at 24mm IMHO.

I have been constrained on a DX for years using only 17-35 to do wides, I know the beauty of FX and would not just want to limit 24-70 (since TS talked about 24-70 + travel).

Just providing an insight on using the 24-70 in my opinion, not a 'MUST FOLLOW' guide. If there's a 14-200 f/2.8, it would be the best ideal glass to get.

I've always been doing my portraits mostly on a 17-35 at the 17mm end as well as using the 70-200VR. The 24-70 is my main workhorse for events and street-shooting, but definitely not for travels. Let me re-iterate, this is my opinion. Others mileage may vary. Understanding what you need is more important than how others use it.

Can explain much on f2.8 lens how is the performing than non fixed aperture lens?
In your experience here.

Cause I had mine 24-70 f2.8G still stay in dry cabinet and dunno how to use it as well to compare some lightweight prime lens.

Isn't own a 3 f2.8s is really good enough to be cover all?

 

[Ben Ang]

Can explain much on f2.8 lens how is the performing than non fixed aperture lens?
In your experience here.

Cause I had mine 24-70 f2.8G still stay in dry cabinet and dunno how to use it as well to compare some lightweight prime lens.

Isn't own a 3 f2.8s is really good enough to be cover all?

i think constant aperture lenses are not made better by having they have constant apertures, but have constant apertures because they are made better. when zooms first came out, people were still using manual cameras and fixed aperture lenses were made so you dont have to change shutter speed every time you changed the zoom setting. of course it probably meant more design cost factored in so fixed aperture zooms were made for the professional markets.

overtime, the idea of a fixed aperture zoom being better came about because the pro lenses all had fixed apertures. and so now, even though we have auto metering and don't *need* the aperture to be fixed, companies still design their better lenses with fixed apertures because the public has drawn a connection that fixed aperture = better. just like how the red ring on L lenses doesnt magically make a lens better but tells everyone that its a 'luxury lens' (that's what the L-lens stand for btw)

take a look at canon n nikons new kit lenses. one is 24-85 3.5-4.5, the other is 24-70 f4. by looking at this many ppl will think the canon is a real professional lens. but will 1/3 stop on either end of the zoom range make a very big difference? not likely. if the canon is better is it because it has a constant aperture? nope. its because it has a better design which they decided would have a fixed aperture so it'll look better to buyers.

but of course, we all know the 24-85 will be better =P (just had to say this for fun)

as for the 3 2.8 zooms covering everything, yes. it ll give you the fl from 14-200 at 2.8, but it wont give you the DOF of a 50 1.4 at 1.4 (or any other faster prime) it also won't give you the image quality of a 50mm prime at 2.8 (or almost any other prime). you'll also likely be broke ><

 

[diediealsomustdive]

You gotta write a treatise on fixed aperture zooms vs variable aperture zooms on Nikon land. I buy the theory better made lens hence better lens bit, as that's also my take. When a f1.4 lens cost 4-5 times that of a f1.8 lens there's just that much more money to make it better.

I have been using mostly old prime lenses and a couple of older and old zooms on my D800 and do not think the 3 f2.8 lenses are better in anyway. But that's an assertion not a fact. Have yet to try them out due to cost and inventory issues (since I have so many old lenses to start with). My impression is that the 14-24 is really a best lens but the price and size keeps me away. I could possibly loan the other two lenses to test, but am afraid that I will want to buy them...

But I'll say the AFD 20-35 is that much better than the 18-xx kit lenses on DX. And curiously also better than the AFD 20 prime on FX (D800).

 

[rain5533]

i think constant aperture lenses are not made better by having they have constant apertures, but have constant apertures because they are made better. when zooms first came out, people were still using manual cameras and fixed aperture lenses were made so you dont have to change shutter speed every time you changed the zoom setting. of course it probably meant more design cost factored in so fixed aperture zooms were made for the professional markets.

overtime, the idea of a fixed aperture zoom being better came about because the pro lenses all had fixed apertures. and so now, even though we have auto metering and don't *need* the aperture to be fixed, companies still design their better lenses with fixed apertures because the public has drawn a connection that fixed aperture = better. just like how the red ring on L lenses doesnt magically make a lens better but tells everyone that its a 'luxury lens' (that's what the L-lens stand for btw)

take a look at canon n nikons new kit lenses. one is 24-85 3.5-4.5, the other is 24-70 f4. by looking at this many ppl will think the canon is a real professional lens. but will 1/3 stop on either end of the zoom range make a very big difference? not likely. if the canon is better is it because it has a constant aperture? nope. its because it has a better design which they decided would have a fixed aperture so it'll look better to buyers.

but of course, we all know the 24-85 will be better =P (just had to say this for fun)

as for the 3 2.8 zooms covering everything, yes. it ll give you the fl from 14-200 at 2.8, but it wont give you the DOF of a 50 1.4 at 1.4 (or any other faster prime) it also won't give you the image quality of a 50mm prime at 2.8 (or almost any other prime). you'll also likely be broke ><

Wah! I'm really pleased to read your feedback.

Thanks a lot.

 

[Cheesecake]

You gotta write a treatise on fixed aperture zooms vs variable aperture zooms on Nikon land. I buy the theory better made lens hence better lens bit, as that's also my take. When a f1.4 lens cost 4-5 times that of a f1.8 lens there's just that much more money to make it better.

I have been using mostly old prime lenses and a couple of older and old zooms on my D800 and do not think the 3 f2.8 lenses are better in anyway. But that's an assertion not a fact. Have yet to try them out due to cost and inventory issues (since I have so many old lenses to start with). My impression is the 14-24 is really a best lens but the price and size keeps me away. I could possibly loan the other two lenses to test, but am afraid that I will want to buy them...

But I'll say the AFD 20-35 is that much better than the 18-xx kit lenses on DX. And curiously also better than the AFD 20 prime on FX (D800).

I agree.

Some older lenses r real gems and they do perform on D800/E.

 

[rain5533]

You gotta write a treatise on fixed aperture zooms vs variable aperture zooms on Nikon land. I buy the theory better made lens hence better lens bit, as that's also my take. When a f1.4 lens cost 4-5 times that of a f1.8 lens there's just that much more money to make it better.

I have been using mostly old prime lenses and a couple of older and old zooms on my D800 and do not think the 3 f2.8 lenses are better in anyway. But that's an assertion not a fact. Have yet to try them out due to cost and inventory issues (since I have so many old lenses to start with). My impression is that the 14-24 is really a best lens but the price and size keeps me away. I could possibly loan the other two lenses to test, but am afraid that I will want to buy them...

But I'll say the AFD 20-35 is that much better than the 18-xx kit lenses on DX. And curiously also better than the AFD 20 prime on FX (D800).

Seriously on the Nikon AF 20-35mm D in eBay of mint condition still able to sell on $USD 899.00

I don't think I can afford that legend older pro lens.

 

[lenslust]

ah.. i see your point now. about price, i feel that there's a pressure to spend that kind of $ to get a 2.8 zoom because of the perception that they are the 'first and last lenses to own' or that they're the 'best'. as you said, its really not true at all and it'll benefit people to know that its not a must to put in so much money to get good results. i did start out really wanting to get my hands on the 2.8 zoom because of that idea; can't say how wrong a misconception that was for me.

i typically travel with 17, 45, 50, 85 and either a 60-120 2.8 or 180 2.8 for tele. if i've got extra weight i bring a 24 2.8 AIS along, but if push comes to shove, the 17 and 50 and 85mms are the ones that must come along.

i used the 17-35 2.8, but didnt have a very good experience with it. it was v good on dx, but failed to impress on FX (smudgy corners). i also found myself using it almost exclusively at 17mm so i swapped it out for a tokina 17/3.5 which pretty much out-performed it at 17mm at 1/4 the price and 1/3 the size.

Yes, exactly. 24-70 happens to have a few criteria in which people would consider but not understand if they do really need it.

24 mm - wide

50 mm - no need to buy 50 f/1.8, stepping down does seem to win the 50 1.8 at some spots.

70 mm - average zoom

Is a f/2.8 glass, is a trinity.

If one can afford it, why not? Just bear in mind what you really intend to use for.

As for the 17-35, it's a pain with the smudgy corners when you stack >1 filter. Still living with it, I can give some discounts for it's performance in low light and weight during travels. I used to bring the 10.5FE & 70-200VR along, but the 17-35 stays mainly on these days. Coupled with ISO12,800 the 10.5FE or 50 1.8 seldom needs to come out anymore.

 

[lenslust]

Can explain much on f2.8 lens how is the performing than non fixed aperture lens?
In your experience here.

Cause I had mine 24-70 f2.8G still stay in dry cabinet and dunno how to use it as well to compare some lightweight prime lens.

Isn't own a 3 f2.8s is really good enough to be cover all?

It's physics, damn tempted to tell you to refer to kenrockwell.com but oh well, let's not be sore.

Why do apertures step down as you zoom out on non-fixed aperture lens?

Because of imperfections on the outer portions of the glass. The aperture steps down to ensure light only travels through the designation sweet spots of the glass to achieve the best image quality. As the aperture steps down, light gets lesser, and only through the center of the glass. Where we all know that's the sweet spot.

This simple physics explains thus why f/2.8s are most costly, performs better against the similar f/3.5-5.6 kind of glasses. It's the design of the elements within and the stringent build controls to create the perfect optical elements. Ensuring that the glass stays optimum within the entire zoom range and yet the light entering does not step down, is how the f/2.8s work.

That said, this portion is regards to physics. If you can't use the glass, then it's just a piece of glass. If you are good, f/8 glasses also can take Nat Geo and award winning images.

As to why your 24-70 f/2.8G is staying in the dry cabinet, is a good example to why did you purchase the lens in the first place? If you can't answer that, then it's just another glass, regardless trinity, 2.8, G, D or AIS.

Post the same question back to you, is covering all range important?

 

[lenslust]

You gotta write a treatise on fixed aperture zooms vs variable aperture zooms on Nikon land. I buy the theory better made lens hence better lens bit, as that's also my take. When a f1.4 lens cost 4-5 times that of a f1.8 lens there's just that much more money to make it better.

I have been using mostly old prime lenses and a couple of older and old zooms on my D800 and do not think the 3 f2.8 lenses are better in anyway. But that's an assertion not a fact. Have yet to try them out due to cost and inventory issues (since I have so many old lenses to start with). My impression is that the 14-24 is really a best lens but the price and size keeps me away. I could possibly loan the other two lenses to test, but am afraid that I will want to buy them...

But I'll say the AFD 20-35 is that much better than the 18-xx kit lenses on DX. And curiously also better than the AFD 20 prime on FX (D800).

It's more of demand and practicability over time. Like what the gurus like to refer to "Last time no AF, also can do sports, no 8fps also can do sports".

The f2.8s have their beauty like the older AI-S. It's not necessary better, but it gets the job done. Like your example. the 20-35 f/2.8 was a gem in the older days, to compare with the 18-xx/xxx glasses these days, it's definitely a hands down comparison. The 17-35 was created for that extra 3mm and to replace the 20-35. Doesn't mean the 20-35 sucks, but demands do grow.

Like what you felt now, am sure the 14mm is tempting as opposed to the 20mm. Similarly, that's what enticing me on it when I already have 17-35.

Also earlier, I did mention, the 3 f/2.8s are a glass (class) on their own, they do not necessarily lose out to primes, but they do not necessarily win every prime. Same as for the 20-35. Primes do not generally win because they are prime.

Take it with a pinch of salt.

 

[lenslust]

I agree.

Some older lenses r real gems and they do perform on D800/E.

The AI-S 800 f/5.6 is real gem too...

 

[rain5533]

It's physics, damn tempted to tell you to refer to kenrockwell.com but oh well, let's not be sore.

Why do apertures step down as you zoom out on non-fixed aperture lens?

Because of imperfections on the outer portions of the glass. The aperture steps down to ensure light only travels through the designation sweet spots of the glass to achieve the best image quality. As the aperture steps down, light gets lesser, and only through the center of the glass. Where we all know that's the sweet spot.

This simple physics explains thus why f/2.8s are most costly, performs better against the similar f/3.5-5.6 kind of glasses. It's the design of the elements within and the stringent build controls to create the perfect optical elements. Ensuring that the glass stays optimum within the entire zoom range and yet the light entering does not step down, is how the f/2.8s work.

That said, this portion is regards to physics. If you can't use the glass, then it's just a piece of glass. If you are good, f/8 glasses also can take Nat Geo and award winning images.

As to why your 24-70 f/2.8G is staying in the dry cabinet, is a good example to why did you purchase the lens in the first place? If you can't answer that, then it's just another glass, regardless trinity, 2.8, G, D or AIS.

Post the same question back to you, is covering all range important?

Well said.

Actually is very simple on fixed 2.8 Pro zoom lens is suit for general purpose, even zoom still can achieve f2.8 aperture, but heavy weight and more glass inside and better design.

Honestly ah.. Even same kit lens still doing better then f2.8 fixed pro lens.

In the old timer body has offer 800 ISO max.
When shoot in night time an without tripod & flash so the image has much noise.
What can be solve? Buy the fixed f2.8 zoom Lens to be reduce the using higher ISO.

If using the non fixed aperture lens and can't guaranty your photos is 100% out of focus blur.

For someone still prefer the prime lens over than zoom fixed lens.
Cause in the list still called fast lens.

Why my fixed zoom lens is still staying on dry cabinet and bought for what?

Sometime in the event or AD you may need use on fixed zoom lens to cover the overall bokeh images and pop up in my important object.

But most of time, I'm still prefer prime lens over than zoom lens.

1st Lightweight to allow you long runs.
2nd like 50mm f1.8G stop down on f2.8 the overall IQ is look better than fixed f2.8 midrange zoom lens.
3rd in the some prime may do more well then just keep to usage more prime lens over then fixed f2.8 zoom lens.

Just take about decent technology in FX body such as D600/800 you may slightly press single button to switch over DX or FX crop frame factor.

For example like 28mmG on FX and need do more closeups and simple switch on DX = 42mm that's I'm still staying the same place but on my photo can reach more closeups object that i want.

Fixed aperture zoom lens would be a better and that's still personal preference.

I guess you're not a newbie and don't think to grab fixed aperture zoom lens can be shots the right photos..

Cheers!

 

[Ben Ang]

The AI-S 800 f/5.6 is real gem too...

i wanna try that! and the 200 f2 ais ^^ and not just nikkors but rokkors, hexanons and c/ys are in some cases better too =P

 

[diediealsomustdive]

Seriously on the Nikon AF 20-35mm D in eBay of mint condition still able to sell on $USD 899.00

I don't think I can afford that legend older pro lens.

Yes, that lens still commands a high price. But read in detail what I wrote - I did not compare it against 17-35 or 16-35 or 14-24 in the overlap range. There is no overlap with 24-70.

But the 20-35 is wide enough for me, or at least that's what I think, my previous favourite UWA was the 20mm f/3.5 during my film days. Regret selling that when I bought D70 (cough blood to buy that at that time).

And don't joke lah, Rain, you use D800, and your backup is D600, can't afford? Seriously?