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

$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?

Not me, I'm good with the older, non VR version....

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. 

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.

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.  

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.

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.

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.

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.......

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

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!)

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.

The not oft used term is "acceptably" sharp.

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.

Sell it all and go Fuji

Stealthy Ninja wrote: Sell it all and go Fuji

They need to start paying you.