Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8 VR price tag??

4 years 6 days ago #476010 by Flying Pig
$2400??  this is nearly at $700 price hike over the non VR 24-70mm.  Anyone fork out the extra cash for this lens yet? 

www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1175033-R..._24_70mm_f_2_8e.html

What's your feelings on the lens?


Photo Comments

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

,
4 years 5 days ago #476026 by effron
Not me, I'm good with the older, non VR version....

Why so serious?
Photo Comments

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

,
4 years 5 days ago #476031 by JeremyS
I believe it would be a good purchase... the old 24-70 is pushing 9 years old and has older technology inside of it. The new 24-70 not only has VR but also an E notation, indicating an electromagnetic diaphragm which ensures quality with exposure even under conditions of high speed photos. On top of that, the competition's 24-70's are newer technology that top the old 24-70 in many ways. 

For the extra price it may not be 100% worth it, but if you are deciding between the new vs the old nikon 24-70, the new one blows away the older one. if you want the old one or the new one is too expensive, look at the tamron 24-70. 


Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

,
4 years 5 days ago #476032 by Screamin Scott
IMHO, most of these hyper expensive fast zooms are overkill for most shooters. Personally, I'll settle for slightly older technology at a much reduced price, as they were still computer designed lenses.. I sure don't need VR on a lens that only goes to 70mm & much of the other "improvements" are minimal compared to what you have to pay for the. As for the differences being minimal, most review sites like DXO Mark bench test their lenses & real world shooting will negate many of the improvements as compared to older tech.

Scott Ditzel Photography

www.flickr.com/photos/screaminscott/

Photo Comments

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

,
4 years 5 days ago #476153 by Peter Nunez

Takennnn wrote: I believe it would be a good purchase... the old 24-70 is pushing 9 years old and has older technology inside of it. The new 24-70 not only has VR but also an E notation, indicating an electromagnetic diaphragm which ensures quality with exposure even under conditions of high speed photos. On top of that, the competition's 24-70's are newer technology that top the old 24-70 in many ways. 

For the extra price it may not be 100% worth it, but if you are deciding between the new vs the old nikon 24-70, the new one blows away the older one. if you want the old one or the new one is too expensive, look at the tamron 24-70. 



Anyone else just amazed when you look at where technology has gone in recent years.  Manufactures are really doing what they can to close what ever gaps they can on people not taking good photos.  Now granted there are some skills that regardless of what camera or lens you have, if you don't have it, you don't have it.  Still amazing. 

As for me, older gear is just fine.  


Photo Comments

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

,
4 years 5 days ago #476192 by Joves

Screamin Scott wrote: IMHO, most of these hyper expensive fast zooms are overkill for most shooters. Personally, I'll settle for slightly older technology at a much reduced price, as they were still computer designed lenses.. I sure don't need VR on a lens that only goes to 70mm & much of the other "improvements" are minimal compared to what you have to pay for the. As for the differences being minimal, most review sites like DXO Mark bench test their lenses & real world shooting will negate many of the improvements as compared to older tech.

:agree:
Yeah I never saw much use of VR on anything shorter than 105mm myself. Good technique trumps technology any day of the week. The only lens that I would even think of getting the newer version would be my 80-400, and that is only for the focusing motor over the screw drive. It seems that small improvements are costing a lot more. Also I love the little timer trying to get you to buy now for expedited shipping.


Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

,
3 years 9 months ago #484298 by Scotty
It's just a tad sharper and a lot longers and heavier than the one it replaced. 

I'm disappointed in it but to each their own.

When the last candle has been blown out
and the last glass of champagne has been drunk
All that you are left with are the memories and the images-David Cooke.

Photo Comments

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

,
3 years 9 months ago #484362 by effron

Scotty wrote: It's just a tad sharper and a lot longers and heavier than the one it replaced. 

I'm disappointed in it but to each their own.


Yeah, the original weighs quite enough.......

Why so serious?
Photo Comments

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

,
3 years 9 months ago #484395 by Scotty

effron wrote:

Scotty wrote: It's just a tad sharper and a lot longers and heavier than the one it replaced. 

I'm disappointed in it but to each their own.


Yeah, the original weighs quite enough.......


You're telling me. Heavily considering switching over the new 24-120 f/4

When the last candle has been blown out
and the last glass of champagne has been drunk
All that you are left with are the memories and the images-David Cooke.

Photo Comments

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

,
3 years 9 months ago #484425 by effron
I shot a small low key wedding over the weekend, used the D700 and 24-70 mostly....for the reception I grabbed the D800 and slapped on a 50 f/1.8 for some back and neck relief......(glad I don't do those events for a living these days. The phone camera shooters were a nightmare!):angry:

Why so serious?
Photo Comments

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

,
3 years 9 months ago #484500 by Don Fischer
Speaking of "a tad sharper", how sharp is sharp enough? I strongly suspect that photo's we got with camera's many years ago were sharper than could be detected with the human eye.


Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

,
3 years 9 months ago #484517 by effron
The not oft used term is "acceptably" sharp.

Why so serious?
Photo Comments

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

,
3 years 9 months ago #484535 by Scotty

Don Fischer wrote: Speaking of "a tad sharper", how sharp is sharp enough? I strongly suspect that photo's we got with camera's many years ago were sharper than could be detected with the human eye.


Look up at a Nikon 200mm F/2.0.   We still have ways to go, or some of the Zeiss lenses.

When the last candle has been blown out
and the last glass of champagne has been drunk
All that you are left with are the memories and the images-David Cooke.

Photo Comments

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

,
3 years 9 months ago #484542 by Stealthy Ninja
Sell it all and go Fuji

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

,
3 years 9 months ago #484544 by Scotty

Stealthy Ninja wrote: Sell it all and go Fuji


They need to start paying you.

When the last candle has been blown out
and the last glass of champagne has been drunk
All that you are left with are the memories and the images-David Cooke.

Photo Comments

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

,

802.3K

205K

1.62M

  • Facebook

    802,251 / Likes

  • Twitter

    205,000 / Followers

  • Google+

    1,620,816 / Followers

Latest Reviews

The Sony a7S II might be almost five years old, but as you'll see in this Sony a7S II review, it still packs a mighty punch with a small price tag.

Mar 23, 2020

In this Nikon D780 review, learn about the D780's features, specs, video capabilities, and more. Also learn how to score a discounted price on a D780 and how you can extend your gear budget!

Mar 13, 2020

In the Sony a6000 vs Sony a6100 battle, which one comes out on top? One offers a lower price tag while the other has more updated features. Find out which camera is best for you in this buyer's guide.

Mar 13, 2020

The Canon EOS RP is an entry-level camera that has some excellent features. In this Canon EOS RP review, learn all about its pros, cons, features, price, and more!

Mar 03, 2020
Get 600+ Pro photo lessons for $1

Forum Top Posters

Latest Articles

Learning how to become a professional photographer might not be as hard as you think. With these tips on becoming a freelance photographer, you'll be able to get the process started more quickly.

Apr 01, 2020

The Haida M15 filter system is a great piece of photography gear that allows me to use the same filters with many different camera lenses.

Apr 01, 2020

If you're in need of some good reads during the pandemic, give this list of the best photography books a try. Each one is an Amazon best selling photography book!

Apr 01, 2020

Believing these photography myths can get you in a lot of trouble. Instead, use these photography tips and techniques to prepare yourself to build a better business.

Apr 01, 2020

To protect your camera gear (and your monetary investment), there are a few things you need to do. One of them is to use a bag that will protect your camera gear from breakage.

Mar 31, 2020

To make money in real estate photography, you need to take steps to ensure your prices can support your real estate photography business. Learn how to do that in this guide.

Mar 30, 2020

If you're currently under lockdown due to the COVID-19 virus and can't get out to take nature and wildlife photos, there are many things you can do to get your photos and gear organized.

Mar 30, 2020

For many Realtors, DIY real estate photography is necessary because they can't access or afford professional real estate photography services. Get some quick photography tips for Realtors in this guide.

Mar 27, 2020