24-70 Vr???

Discussion in 'Lens Lust' started by DearLeader, Sep 5, 2008.

  1. I did a search but couldn't find anything useful.


    I'm scrounging up to buy a couple serious lenses that will hopefully cure my GAS for lenses for I hope the next 10 years.

    I'm looking at picking up the Nikkor 24-70 2.8 and Nikkor 70-200 2.8VR. I will initially be using them with a D300 but will move to FF when appropriate for me.

    I am looking for you opinion(s) on two issues:

    1. Does anybody think Nikon will add VR to the 24-70 within the next year?

    2. Does anybody use this combination on their crop sensor and, if so, do you find the lack of focal range on the wide end restricting for portraiture, wedding, family shoots?


    I am confused as to why Nikon doesn't include VR on pro lenses under 70mm. Every little bit helps.
     
  2. VR? Unlikely, considering the newness of the 24-70.

    Given the great high-ISO of the new bodies and, unlike long FLs, the lack of need for fast shutter speeds VR just isn't needed. I'm happy that the $500 and 200 grams the VR would have added was left off.

    One of the infinite debates is always 17-55 vs. 24(28)-70 on DX.

    I use the wide end more so would opt for the 17-55 on a D300.

    Moving soon to FX the 24-70 is the obvious choice. Moving to FX in 2 years? I'd buy the 17-55.
    The 24-70 arguably has a quality advantage, but they are both great.

    The nice thing about any Nikkor.....buy it, care for it and sell it even after years for ~75% what you paid.
    I think of things in car-units. My $1200 17-55 sold for $900 after 2 years. That's about what my lovely wife's GMC Denali depreciates EVERY 12 days!!!

    These forums excel at assisting you in parting with your money.
    Just buy it/them.
     
  3. 1. Does anybody think Nikon will add VR to the 24-70 within the next year?

    I seriously doubt it. If Nikon had felt it necessary, they would have included VR when they updated the 28-70/2.8. As it is, they only added 4mm of wideness and nano-crystals. The 24-70 only began shipping last November, so I'd imagine it will be quite a while before it's updated.

    2. Does anybody use this combination on their crop sensor and, if so, do you find the lack of focal range on the wide end restricting for portraiture, wedding, family shoots?

    I'm perfectly happy with my antique 28-70/2.8 for studio, portrait, and wedding work. For portraiture, anything wider introduces the issue of perspective distortion. And, besides, when I want wide, I want really wide, so I complement the 28-70 with a 12-24DX. You can't do everything with one lens, unless you're willing to accept the compromises that accompany a superzoom like the 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6... which is VR too.

    I am confused as to why Nikon doesn't include VR on pro lenses under 70mm. Every little bit helps.

    Nikon includes VR on their slower lenses, such as the 18-105mm f/3.5-5.6 introduced as the kit lens for the d90. But they haven't included VR in wide or normal range constant aperture (professional) lenses. They must feel the target audience doesn't need VR or want the extra complexity/price.

    Fwiw, you can pick up a LNIB 28-70/2.8 and a brand new Tokina 12-24 for less than the price of a 24-70/2.8.
     
  4. A lot of members here recommend holding off on a 70-200 2.8 until it is upgraded and optomised for FX. I hope to buy a 24-70 2.8 soon, it's a sweet piece of glass.............

    Cheers

    Ted:smile:
     
  5. VR on the 24-70 2.8? Hahaha, dude you don't need VR. They just put it in the those [email protected] consumer lenses because people don't have the first clue about proper photo technique. You don't even need VR until you start shooting at the telephoto ranges such as 200mm and up. VR is actually pretty darn useful at those ranges and it took Nikon long enough to revamp their lenses, but al least we have them (even though I can't afford anything above a 300 2.8!).
     
  6. Doug

    Doug

    Jan 17, 2006
    East TN
    Frank, I believe you had a Tokina 12-24, but turned around and dumped it a very short time later and got the Nikon, so why recommend it if you didn't like it?

    Get the Nikon 12-24 if you want a 12-24. Not that it ever was an issue of this thread to begin with.

    I doubt the lens will be updated this fast. Remember to that the 24-70 is a pro lens, and pro lenses are designed to be used by people that have been without VR for years. It will not affect their general capabilities anymore than it did on the 28-70 2.8. It's truly not "that" necessary with a D3 or D700 anyway. While it would have been a nicety to begin with to have it. But the lens was already a war pension before adding it.
     
  7. I loved it, and recommend it highly. But I love Nikkor lenses, too, and couldn't resist when Rich offered to trade me his Nikon 12-24 for my dusty 20/2.8 plus some cash... the same amount of cash I could raise from selling the Tokina. The Nikkor gives me the extra 5% (microcontrast) that I treasure, and it's AF-S, which comes in handy for events. But most people would never notice the differences, and the build quality of the Tokina 12-24 is miles superior to the Nikon 12-24.
     
  8. Wail

    Wail

    784
    Aug 14, 2007
    Saudi Arabia
    I use the 24-70 and find it perfect for portraits & events; it's even my walk-about lens .. it's simply that good. I too wished it had VR, I need as much stability help I can get, but it's excellent without VR. Buy it, you will not regret it.

    As for the 70-200VR, I had that lens and sold it just last month. It, too, is another one of the wonderful lenses that Nikon make. The VR here is very useful, but due to my inability to hand-hold it well I had to sell it. Hopefully the rumoured 70-200VRII will give me what I need!

    That said, if you're looking to buy gear, buy things that you can use now .. who knows what the future brings? Use your lenses & bodies now, enjoy them, and in the future should you need to "upgrade" or "downgrade" you'll get your money's worth ... so long that you take good care of your gear.

    I've gone "down" from the 70-200VR to the 70-300VR (I know they don't compare), but the weight issue coupled with my hand problems meant I needed a lighter lens.

    Go ahead, pleace the order and get these two glasses .. you will feel so much better once you do that :smile:
     
  9. Wail

    Wail

    784
    Aug 14, 2007
    Saudi Arabia
    Oh yes, I forgot ....

    For wideangles, I use the Sigma 10-20; which isn't as good as the Nikon 12-24 or the Tokina 12-24 .. but it is a bit cheaper!
     
  10. Frank207be

    Frank207be

    538
    Mar 11, 2006
    Belgium
    Not possible

    IMO it's really simple: VR is not possible for the fast non-tele lenses. Have you ever looked through them from the backside with the aperture lever opened? Then you'll realize that there is no room left... at all :wink:
     
  11. Thanks everyone! I forgot to mention I already have the Tokina 12-24.

    I forgot to put a question in this thread.

    In your opinion, if you had to buy a third party lens ie Sigma in these focal ranges. Which range would you put in the Nikkor? (for portraiture, wedding etc)

    I'm thinking the Nikkor 24-70 2.8 and Sigma 70-200 2.8 APO HSM would more logical but I would like to hear your opinions. My main concern with the Sigma is that I hear it can be soft at 2.8. I seem to use lenses at wide apertures quite a bit.

    thanks for your time
     
  12. How about the Canon 17-55 2.8 IS? :wink:

    Canon does it, but they skimp on sucky lens materials.

     
  13. Frank207be

    Frank207be

    538
    Mar 11, 2006
    Belgium
    Aha... That's an EF-S lens :wink:
     
  14. Honestly I think Nikon and Canon could do it, but I don't think we really need it!
     
  15. johnmh

    johnmh

    771
    Nov 21, 2007
    Greater NYC
    It's a fast mid range lens. Why bother with VR when you can shoot with shutter speeds fast enough not to need it?
     
  16. Well... I suppose there are times when one needs to stop down a tad to deepen the DOF....

    I don't think I've ever heard a case where VR has gotten in the way of anything. It can only be helpful.
     
  17. Rob T

    Rob T

    870
    Aug 27, 2008
    SoCal
    Because there will always be situations where the shutter speeds won't be fast enough and VR would be helpful.

    It would be great to have the best of both worlds: a fast lens and VR!
     
  18. demosaic

    demosaic Guest

    Exactly. This two-steps-forward, one-step-back trend in photo technology is disappointing. Nikon introduces a line of fast sensors, and a bunch of slow glass. What fast lenses they do offer generally lack VR.

    It would be nice to have at least ONE new lens from Nikon that pulls out all the stops for low-light, indoor, handheld photography. Say, a 50mm f/1.4 VR. That mounted on a D3 would be ideal. Don't think a VR helps at those focal lengths? It does at 1/8th - 1/15th second. Don't think human subjects sit still enough for exposures that long? You'd be very surprised.

    This would be a wedding reception dream machine.

    If they can find an audience for a brand-new line of PC lenses, surely they can find people who want to shoot handheld in low-light without a strobe.
     
  19. True, but added cost, added weight and added bulk would be the inherent price and, in a sense, would get "in the way" in a way.:biggrin:

    It would be, quite likely, $2000 USD, bulky like the 28-70 and heavier.

    As usual, Nikkors are exceedingly well thought out before coming off the CAD drawing boards.
    The 24-70, perhaps while not perfect, is optimized for its intended purpose and market.
     
  20. Ah-ha.

    I hope Nikon is reading this.

    I'd send them $600 for that lens in a heartbeat. Best suggestion in a very good thread.