The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

Nikon 24-70/2.8E ED VR

Thomas73

Member
Hi all,

I was surprised there was no thread dedicated to this latest release of Nikon pro zoom...

So, what is your experience with it ? Does it show a significative improvement vs. the earlier non-VR version in terms of optical quality ?

It seems some lenses from the first production batches can have random results, due to assembly quality... Did you experience such problems ?

Of course, it would be nice if you can post some pictures taken with that lens. :thumbup:

I have an opportunity to purchase a demo version at a dealer in my area. I have the non-VR version and am happy with it (I have been using it with a D4 and now a D4s). I do not expect a huge step if I upgrade. It is just about having the latest release, considering also the fact that my 24-70/2.8 is now 7-year-old...

Thanks for sharing pictures and your feedbacks.

Cheers.
 

Jack

Sr. Administrator
Staff member
I'm curious as well. I'm happy with the 24-120 for what it does, but it's not an ED level performer. Since the prior 24-70 had fairly significant sample variation and is biggish, I went to ART primes for that focal range and am happy with them. But a stellar 24-70 would be most welcome...
 

Jack

Sr. Administrator
Staff member
Thom Hogan's review.
Thanks for posting this -- Thom saved me the trouble of trying it out for myself with this paragraph:

>>So here’s the thing. For me the bump in price to US$2400, the bump in front filter size to 82mm, and the bump of 6.7 ounces of extra weight all are deductions from the “specialness” factor for me. The VR isn’t much of an addition for me. Thus, I’m mostly stuck with “this is a much better 24-50mm lens than the old one in terms of sharpness” (at 50-70mm there’s not a lot of difference). That’s not enough “special” to outweigh the demerits in my book.<<

So for now, I stick with my 24-120 when I need a wide to light tele zoom, and my primes when I need IQ...
 

Swissblad

Well-known member
Thanks for posting this -- Thom saved me the trouble of trying it out for myself with this paragraph:

>>So here’s the thing. For me the bump in price to US$2400, the bump in front filter size to 82mm, and the bump of 6.7 ounces of extra weight all are deductions from the “specialness” factor for me. The VR isn’t much of an addition for me. Thus, I’m mostly stuck with “this is a much better 24-50mm lens than the old one in terms of sharpness” (at 50-70mm there’s not a lot of difference). That’s not enough “special” to outweigh the demerits in my book.<<

So for now, I stick with my 24-120 when I need a wide to light tele zoom, and my primes when I need IQ...
Pretty much sums up my feeling as well.....
 

Dustbak

Member
I have one. I find it difficult to say, the 24-70 has always been a bread & butter lens. A lens that is not sexy or really appealing but simply does the job. One of those things you pack reluctantly but as it turns out it always just delivers what is needed. The same pretty much applies for the new one. The AF is faster, as in much faster. The lens itself is bigger and heavier. I am not really bothered by that. It appears to draw a bit nicer than the old one. Colors are somewhat bolder and fatter. As far as sharpness goes it is as sharp as the previous one (at least my version is).

All in all, it still is not a sexy lens but it really does what it needs to do very well. The old one already did so but the new one is just slightly better at it IMO.
 

bernardl

Active member
Just did a shoot on a sailing boat. VR saved the day.

I like the new lens' rendering a lot.

Cheers,
Bernard
 
Top