AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8E ED VR

CEBlueclouds

I must say that I am really discouraged by the size of this lens....I have it on preorder...wanted to be in front of the queue if it turns out to be a winner..... Let's see..hopefully more info would become available soon....

niemeyjt

One of the things that KR does well is putting tables together. Here is the comparison of the current/old lens and the new one. Scroll down 3/4ths the way down for the comparison table.
http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/24-70mm-vr.htm

He also says:

Don't buy a midrange zoom. Carry a fixed 50mm instead, like a pro.

Pros don't use midrange zooms because they aren't needed, they are too heavy to carry around, they are too expensive. A fixed 50mm lens does the same thing, but better.

Pros use a wide zoom and a tele zoom, and walk forward or back to cover the middle range if it doesn't fit either lens. Pros only carry a 50mm lens in their pocket for if the light gets too dim.

Anyone feeling disheartened now?

J

tcole1983

One of the things that KR does well is putting tables together. Here is the comparison of the current/old lens and the new one. Scroll down 3/4ths the way down for the comparison table.
http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/24-70mm-vr.htm

He also says:

Don't buy a midrange zoom. Carry a fixed 50mm instead, like a pro.

Pros don't use midrange zooms because they aren't needed, they are too heavy to carry around, they are too expensive. A fixed 50mm lens does the same thing, but better.

Pros use a wide zoom and a tele zoom, and walk forward or back to cover the middle range if it doesn't fit either lens. Pros only carry a 50mm lens in their pocket for if the light gets too dim.

Anyone feeling disheartened now?

J

Funny joke. Why can a pro carry wide and telephoto zooms and not a mid range zoom which in most practicality is a more useful lens for 95% of shooting? Sorry, but he is an idiot...and IMO the 50 primes that Nikon offers aren't any better than the zooms except that they are a stop or so faster. I would have died shooting the wedding I did if I just used a 50 prime.

I prefer to shoot my mid range zoom and have specialized primes. Works out pretty well for me.

paulr

In the "Old days" all we had was 50mm lens.
Strange how Zeiss spent millions of euros and described their 1st Otus lens has built without compromise Guess what size it was 55mm
As Photography changed that much?

heartyfisher

Just looked at the samples on the main blog..

too good.

starralazn

I kinda see where KR is coming from, you know, that whole elitist attitude that primes are always better than zooms. but then i guess he kinda derails from that pov to say that pros also use wide zooms and/or tele zooms.

spraynpray

A pro has to get the shot so if it isn't a situation where one has the time to control things, a zoom is the only lens to have on your camera.

rmp

What is the old joke .. "The best camera is the one you have." That probably applies to lenses as well.

That said, the sample shots for the new 24-70 look really good. I wonder if I could tell the difference between a shot with a 50mm-prime and the new 24-70 at 50 mm. If some one gets the new 24-70 would they please run such a test?

Rx4Photo

My "grab-n-go" backpack has excluded the 24-70mm for quite some time.
Nikon 14-24mm
Siggy 50mm f/1.4
Nikon 70-200mm
SB-910

So I can pretty much say that I won't be getting this lens.

Photobug

It will be interesting to see what the professional reviewers say and the lab test technician say about this lens. Then will see what happens to the demand. My hunch if it's much sharper we will see pros switch and pros who are replacing older gear while advanced amateurs pass on this lens and buy the older one because they can't justify the cost difference.

paulr

I must say , the more I read and the more I see about this lens It could be a keeper.

heartyfisher

I must say , the more I read and the more I see about this lens It could be a keeper.

Links ?

I have the Tamron 24-70 VC. Some comments I have read say that there is no difference and they are keeping their Tammy. My first impression from looking at the samples are "wow!" the images are gorgeous ! but I cant put a finger on why. Will be looking at reviews... maybe someone will have a better finger ;-).

Would I upgrade to the new Nikon version? if it was a swap, yes for sure! I would say, if it was my main range, I would. However, I don't use that range enough to need/want the best. I can see many people getting it.

retread

I use the 24-70 in place of my kit lens on DX even though it is not as wide on DX. Don't see myself upgrading soon as it is not in the budget. Only need VR in low light.

Golf007sd

Good day....well, well, well. We here at NRF have been talking about this lens having VR and now Nikon has brought it front and center. As you all know, I love my 24-70 2.8. It is always with me and I will not be getting ride of it. This new lens looks fantastic...specially if you do not have one....but the cost is not what I had hopped for. The used market will be great opportunity for those seeking a good deal.

TriShooter

....... The used market will be great opportunity for those seeking a good deal.

You are right. This is a terrible time to sell the 24-70mm g lens here in Atlanta, but a great time to buy one. Craigslist is bursting at the seems with used ones now at very attractive prices.

retread

My 24-70G has a big advantage over the 24-70E. It is paid for and still works.

Photobug

Good day....well, well, well. We here at NRF have been talking about this lens having VR and now Nikon has brought it front and center. As you all know, I love my 24-70 2.8. It is always with me and I will not be getting ride of it. This new lens looks fantastic...specially if you do not have one....but the cost is not what I had hopped for. The used market will be great opportunity for those seeking a good deal.

Wow..welcome back Ali. +1 about it being a good time to buy a used one. I saw TriShooter's note and it just happens that I was searching on Craig's List and there was not one 24-70 but there were two D800's and one D800e and they were priced under $800. Someone had a D750 but his price was only $300 less than a new one and it had 2K shutter activations.

It's going to be fun reading the reviews and seeing lab test results.

NSXTypeR

I think 24-70 is okay, but personally, it's one of the more boring zoom ranges anyway. I'd rather get a 50mm equivalent and a wider prime and call it a day.

The fact that it's using a larger filter size is weird- exchanging filters between the 70-200 and 24-70 made sense. Now... not so much.

Msmoto

I will probably be ordering my new one in a couple days....and selling the 24-120 f/4VR. It is not only the one stop of speed, but I think the new 24-70 has better sharpness across the frame than the 24-120.

BVS

The fact that it's using a larger filter size is weird- exchanging filters between the 70-200 and 24-70 made sense. Now... not so much.

Maybe there's a new 70-200 on the way too? Seems like this would be something they'd want to upgrade to an E sooner rather than later.

spraynpray

I have to say this: Remember when I was saying how the 24-70 needed VR and y'all were saying it doesn't need it? Ali?

Just saying is all... :P

Vipmediastar_JZ

A review of this lens is posted on the main site.
the colors seem like the non vr version. Sharpness seems similar (haven't seen the high res photos) the far away bokeh looks "similar" to the 300f4e
http://foto-info.si/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/DSC_0844.jpg

For events this lens is gold. I have used it for street, car shows and other types of photography.
From what I gathered the non VR is parfocal. Is there word that this lens is also parfocal?

I'm in the I don't need it camp right now. I been happy shooting the primes 35 and 50 with the zooms 14-24 and 70-200 to get those focal lenghts. That lens is still used when the second shooter is my wife and/or a useful backup lens.

moreorless

I have the Tamron 24-70 VC. Some comments I have read say that there is no difference and they are keeping their Tammy. My first impression from looking at the samples are "wow!" the images are gorgeous ! but I cant put a finger on why. Will be looking at reviews... maybe someone will have a better finger ;-).

Would I upgrade to the new Nikon version? if it was a swap, yes for sure! I would say, if it was my main range, I would. However, I don't use that range enough to need/want the best. I can see many people getting it.

I'v not seen any proper reviews yet just people saying they consider the Tamron better value, not that I disagree with that owning it myself but there are obviously issues with boarder performance same as there are with the old Nikon 24-70mm on a 36 MP sensor.

My guess is that the Tamron might have motivated Nikon to go for more of a "no compromise" lens as it would have been difficult to compete with it on price.

Unlike the old Canon the existing Nikon 24-70mm isn't a poor performer though, it might have weaknesses but for a lot/most users its likely good enough so I could see them keeping it in production.

Golf007sd

I have to say this: Remember when I was saying how the 24-70 needed VR and y'all were saying it doesn't need it? Ali?

Just saying is all... :P

I do recall buddy. But for that lens...I do not need VR. I have thousands of images to prove it. But what I find very appealing about this new lens is the MTF chart....really looking forward in seeing some real hands on reviews. Who knows....Christmas is right around the corner...and you all know how much I love having gold boxes delivered to me :P

@Photobug: Have not gone anywhere buddy...but other matter have kept me from being more active here. But trust me...I'm here

Photobug

@Golf007sd - I hear you. I almost stopped participating this summer due to a high demand on my volunteer time. I told the Pastor working 60 hours last month for the church was too much. I was in the background reading and did not get caught up until last weekend. Now going on vacation tomorrow without the new 300 F4 PF. ( My 70-200+1.4TC or1 .7TC is going to get a workout.