Home · Register · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username  

  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Nikon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1      
2
       end
  

Archive 2016 · Is the 24-70 2.8 VR right for me?

  
 
TANG0F0XTR0T
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #1 · p.2 #1 · Is the 24-70 2.8 VR right for me?


I've owned the non-VR. The VR version is faster to acquire accurate focus for sure.

It is a very sharp lens, in fact, sharper in the center. Overall it renders pictures differently and I like it. It's that immeasurable look that I've noticed and with my D810 it is a great combo. Its an updated lens in terms of glass and it shows. I wouldn't hesitate to combine it with the new D850.

Those that say VR is not necessary are ignoring the higher resolution cameras which will show poor technique or just plain issues that come with challenging conditions. Take that for what it's worth but VR is not useless on a lens like this. It comes in handy in lower light to help ensure focus. I shoot a D810 and high resolution has shown issues I hadn't seen before.

If you already had the non-VR I'd say keep it otherwise consider this a worthwhile investment if debating between the non-VR. I'm impressed with mine and have no regrets buying mine used. Just remember, it is a big lens (bigger than non-VR) if you don't mind carrying it around.

Edit: Forgot to address your other question as to durability. I'm not sure it has ever occurred to me that it is not a solid lens. I've owned a lot of lenses in the past. None have given me that feeling as to being not up to the task of day to day shooting, especially while traveling. Feels solid like any other solid lens. I also have the newest 70-200FL VR. It is solid as well and I worry about neither. Then again I'm not a photojournalist and I am careful with my equipment.



Oct 17, 2017 at 12:34 AM
Ai_Print
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #2 · p.2 #2 · Is the 24-70 2.8 VR right for me?


That's great and all but 82mm filter sizing is an absolute deal breaker in getting the VR version as a landscape lens. With three very large camera systems built around a max filter size of 77mm, this is simply not negotiable.

Once again, I am looking for really comprehensive feedback in terms of using the G version stopped down at the wide end for great sharpness and micro contrast.

Something is telling me I should continue to skip the lens altogether and go a different route, like maybe a 24mm 3.5 PC or 28mm 1.4.

As for the 70-200 FL, it gets delivered today.



Oct 17, 2017 at 06:36 AM
Ayoul
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #3 · p.2 #3 · Is the 24-70 2.8 VR right for me?


I own the first one (non VR) that I use almost only for weddings. I thought that its AF was fast and reliable (and in fact it is fast and reliable).

This summer, a guest had the VR version and a D750 (like me). It took me only ONE shot with his camera to realize that it was much, much faster than mine. I focused far away in the background, then on his face ( ~1m) and it was blazing fast, noticeably faster than with my 24-70.

I don't know JMDobson if it's the perfect lens to cover conflicts, but just for AF the price could be worth the difference with the old one. Just my two cents based on a few minutes with the lens.



Oct 17, 2017 at 10:13 AM
ilkka_nissila
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #4 · p.2 #4 · Is the 24-70 2.8 VR right for me?


82mm is now the standard filter size for 24-70mm f/2.8 lenses. Using a filter system such as Lee or others will let you use 82mm as well as 77mm mounting rings so you don’t need separate filters for different lenses.

I really like the VR 24-70/2.8E for the nice build quality, smooth and reasonably even tension of the zoom ring, the high contrast and vibrant colours, edge sharpness, loca correction, bokeh, and fast focusing.



Oct 17, 2017 at 10:50 AM
la puffin
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #5 · p.2 #5 · Is the 24-70 2.8 VR right for me?


Ai_Print wrote:
That's great and all but 82mm filter sizing is an absolute deal breaker in getting the VR version as a landscape lens. With three very large camera systems built around a max filter size of 77mm, this is simply not negotiable.

Once again, I am looking for really comprehensive feedback in terms of using the G version stopped down at the wide end for great sharpness and micro contrast.

Something is telling me I should continue to skip the lens altogether and go a different route, like maybe a 24mm 3.5 PC or 28mm 1.4.


Then skip it and go for a prime and settle for not having the convenience of a zoom. Be done with it and don't look back. You've gotten a number of posts about how much sharper across the frame the 24-70/E is but the filter size is you're deal breaker. You've gone in with a high resolution D850, don't mess around with a zoom lens that doesn't perform the way you need it.

Take the money you would've had to spend on the 82mm filters and buy your SO something nice.



Oct 17, 2017 at 12:55 PM
cohenfive
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #6 · p.2 #6 · Is the 24-70 2.8 VR right for me?


If you are at all budget constrained, I would also consider the new tamron g2. I had the nikon 24-70g for a long time and just sold it for the g2. I also had the nikon vr version for a short period of time, it just didn't do anything for me other than having vr. Not worth 60% more to me. I had a hard time deciding whether to keep the g2 or the old nikon however. I ended up selling the nikon, partly because the buyer was the guy who I originally bought it from, so it was like the lens was going back home to papa...

Anyway, my early impressions of the g2 vs nikon g.....G2 does need 82mm filters which is a negative imo but not a deal breaker for me. I only have a few filters and only the vari nd is expensive, and selling my 77mm nd will just about be a wash vs the 82mm I bought. I think the nikon is a bit faster to focus than the g2, but I don't find it to be a problem given how I use the lens. If it were being used to shoot wildlife it would bother me, but it's not. In terms of iq, I can't honestly tell a difference, both are very good. Having image stabilization didn't seem like a big deal, but I think at the end of the day that is what swayed me to keep the g2, in addition to wanting to try something new. I just got back from one of my favorite hikes in the eastern Sierra, not an easy hike..and I didn't want to schlep my tripod and other 'waterfall' gear with me. I ended up taking a bunch of waterfall pics at 1/8 second and they came out really well, something I could not have done with the old nikon.

Anyway, sorry for the long winded response..but I would put the g2 into the mix if budget is an issue. It is pretty darn good.



Oct 17, 2017 at 02:30 PM
ckcarr
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #7 · p.2 #7 · Is the 24-70 2.8 VR right for me?


No kidding. The answer is there already.
The lens isn't going to magically change.

By the way, I had both in hand for a week when the VR first came out. For my purposes there was no appreciable difference, so I kept my old tried and true original non VR.. For others there might be a difference. Depends on what your shooting. I like 77mm filters too though.

There was a thread on this comparison a year or so ago....

Or, just buy a used one and if you hate it sell it. Not too much downside there.



la puffin wrote:
Then skip it and go for a prime and settle for not having the convenience of a zoom. Be done with it and don't look back. You've gotten a number of posts about how much sharper across the frame the 24-70/E is but the filter size is you're deal breaker. You've gone in with a high resolution D850, don't mess around with a zoom lens that doesn't perform the way you need it.

Take the money you would've had to spend on the 82mm filters and buy your SO something nice.





Oct 17, 2017 at 02:35 PM
Lance B
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #8 · p.2 #8 · Is the 24-70 2.8 VR right for me?


I owned both the old 24-70 f2.8G and the new 24-70 f2.8E VR at the same time and evaluated them over about 6 months together. The new lens is a better lens overall IMO and for my purposes. Sharpness across the frame is better and overall IQ and color is better. I sold the old version and couldn't be happier.

The problem with this zoom range is that it is notoriously difficult to design and design to be good at everything, hence why *none* of these lenses are what you would say are prime quality and they all have at least one "achilles" heel. Pretty much any other zoom range can be designed well with results approaching prime quality, just not this range. Why is the Nikon version so big compared to their counterparts? Well, one reason is their attention to detail like the way the lens hood works to give the best shading for all focal lengths without vignetting or lack of shading required. It does this by having the lens hood stationary but the zoom mechanism works by alternating the length of the barrel so that the front element moves forward and back in relation to the hood. So, at 24mm, the front element is forward more in relation to the hood for minimal/correct shading, and at 50 and 70mm the front element is furthest back front the front of the hood for maximum/correct shading. This arrangement means that the lens is bigger than heavier than their counterparts from Sigma, Tamron and Canon. Possibly why the Nikon has such good colors and contrast?



Oct 17, 2017 at 04:50 PM
sandy27000
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #9 · p.2 #9 · Is the 24-70 2.8 VR right for me?


I’m biting the bullet today. Had kept away from this zoom since I have several primes. I do need faster AF at times and struggle with the f1.4 Nikon primes. Luckily, this is a fast moving lens, so if I don’t like it, I can sell it for a decent value.


Oct 18, 2017 at 05:45 AM
k-h.a.w
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #10 · p.2 #10 · Is the 24-70 2.8 VR right for me?


I am using my Nikkor AF-S 24-70/2.8 non-VR lens with the electronic autofocus adapters Commlite ENF-E1 FW 04 and Commlite ENF-E1 Pro FW 05 on my Sony A7rII and A9 cameras that both have excellent In-Body-Image-Stabilization(IBIS). That seems to work pretty well after waiting a moment or two when first switching on the camera. According to the discussion above I don’t see a reason to replace my lens with a VR version. Oh BTW, on the A9 Eye-AF works like a charm. I also have a D800E but hardly ever use it these days.

K-H.

PS: The Commlite adapters work with AF-S lenses as they rely on the focusing mechanism built into the lens. For non-AF-S lenses I use the TechArt Pro LM-EA7 autofocus adapters.




Oct 18, 2017 at 09:43 AM
90 5.0
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #11 · p.2 #11 · Is the 24-70 2.8 VR right for me?


I don’t get the landscape hate for this lens? Are people shooting lots of landscapes hand held these days?

Most landscape photography I rember shooting for me was with a prime, often manual focus on a tripod with a remote shutter release stopped down a bunch anyway.

What’s the deal? Are people shooting landscapes @ 2.8 hand held now?
Wtf?




Oct 18, 2017 at 11:44 AM
Blakehfreeman
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #12 · p.2 #12 · Is the 24-70 2.8 VR right for me?


No, just a lot of people on here that attribute poor shots to their gear, or talk about things they've never actually used.

90 5.0 wrote:
I don’t get the landscape hate for this lens? Are people shooting lots of landscapes hand held these days?

Most landscape photography I rember shooting for me was with a prime, often manual focus on a tripod with a remote shutter release stopped down a bunch anyway.

What’s the deal? Are people shooting landscapes @ 2.8 hand held now?
Wtf?





Oct 18, 2017 at 12:06 PM
90 5.0
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #13 · p.2 #13 · Is the 24-70 2.8 VR right for me?


Blakehfreeman wrote:
No, just a lot of people on here that attribute poor shots to their gear, or talk about things they've never actually used.



I took a pretty big break from photography and just started really getting back into it as the kids are old enough now that shooting activities are fun again with them. So I’ve come back, I didn’t even log in here for several years.

There has always been some of this but it seems like it’s alot more prevelent now.

There has always been the crowd that thinks equipment that serious pro’s have no qualms about using isn’t good enough for their pics of their coke cans or other random stuff at their house that they are viewing @ 500% magnification looking for flaws and complaining.

I don’t know how it is anymore but I remeber a couple years back I grabbed a landscape photography magazine off the rack at the airport to read on the plane. 99% of the Nikon shots in that mag where STILL shot with a D200 or D2 variant and the D300/700 and D3 had been out for quite some time already.




Oct 18, 2017 at 12:51 PM
Ai_Print
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #14 · p.2 #14 · Is the 24-70 2.8 VR right for me?


90 5.0 wrote:
I don’t get the landscape hate for this lens? Are people shooting lots of landscapes hand held these days?

Most landscape photography I rember shooting for me was with a prime, often manual focus on a tripod with a remote shutter release stopped down a bunch anyway.

What’s the deal? Are people shooting landscapes @ 2.8 hand held now?
Wtf?



No man, I am using all kinds of gear to shoot landscapes, in fact I only use my Nikon system about 1/3rd the time, preferring either my Hasselblad or 4x5 system for most stuff.

I have no "hate" for the lens, I have not used it. In fact, I even went as far as to be specific in asking how does the 24-70 2.8G ( non-VR ) do at the 24mm end at apertures commonly used for landscapes, IE F8+ when it comes to sharpness and the corners. I got one reply that said it seemed fine at F10 but that was about it.

At this point, I can either buy the lens ( non-VR version ) and see if it makes the grade or just say to heck with it and fill that void with a great compact prime like the 24mm 1.8G or pony up for a 24mm PC-E tilt shift and be done with it.

Not sure who said they wanted to shoot sharp landscapes at 2.8 but it was not me.



Oct 18, 2017 at 12:57 PM
90 5.0
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #15 · p.2 #15 · Is the 24-70 2.8 VR right for me?


Ai_Print wrote:
No man, I am using all kinds of gear to shoot landscapes, in fact I only use my Nikon system about 1/3rd the time, preferring either my Hasselblad or 4x5 system for most stuff.

I have no "hate" for the lens, I have not used it. In fact, I even went as far as to be specific in asking how does the 24-70 2.8G ( non-VR ) do at the 24mm end at apertures commonly used for landscapes, IE F8+ when it comes to sharpness and the corners. I got one reply that said it seemed fine at F10 but
...Show more

IT a general observation I’ve been seeing lately about people talking about all kinds of vr zooms for landscapes ,

Yours fit in with the motive in a general sense.



Oct 18, 2017 at 02:08 PM
1      
2
       end




FM Forums | Nikon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1      
2
       end
    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username       Or Reset password



This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.