Custom Search
Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Categories
- 3.4K All Categories
- 34 Nikon Z lenses
- 75 Nikon Z cameras
- 1.4K Nikon DSLR cameras
- 11 Df
- 237 D6x0/D7x0/D8x0
- 27 D300/D300s/D500
- 29 D3x00
- 45 D3/D4/D5
- 31 D5x00
- 94 D90/D7x00
- 387 Nikon Lenses
- 9 Videos, Nikon et. al.
- 51 Nikon 1
- 18 Nikon Film Cameras
- 56 Nikon Flashes
- 25 Nikon Compact Cameras
- 48 Nikon Software
- 26 Nikon Deals
- 762 General Discussions
- 49 Gear Reviews
- 180 Other Manufacturers
- 105 Fun & Weird
- 128 Photo-a-day
In this Discussion
Who's Online (1)
- dissent 2:54AM
Disclaimer: This site has no affiliation with Nikon Corporation or any of its subsidiary.
Disclosure: [NR] is sponsored by displaying advertising banners and links.
All trademarks and brands belong to their respective owners.
Want to advertise on NikonRumors.com? Contact [NR].
Copyright © 2008-2017 NikonRumors.com.
See our Privacy Policy.
Disclosure: [NR] is sponsored by displaying advertising banners and links.
All trademarks and brands belong to their respective owners.
Want to advertise on NikonRumors.com? Contact [NR].
Copyright © 2008-2017 NikonRumors.com.
See our Privacy Policy.
Comments
Nikon N90s, F100, F, lots of Leica M digital and film stuff.
http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2015/10/nikon-24-70mm-f2-8-ed-af-s-vr-sharpness-optical-bench-testing
I bet a new 16-35mm VR F4 is in the works as well. It needs a refresh for these newer higher resolution bodies. I can't believe it is 5 years old now (2010) soon to be 6 already. 2 years before the D800 series was happily unleashed
After reading the Lensrental article, it seems like a great lens and I would not hesitate to buy it instead of the G if I was an event photographer. I think that people that are critical of this lens are not considering the purpose of the lens. I cannot imagine that a client of an event photographer will notice the slight reduction in centre sharpness of the E compared to the G or even ten times as much. The VR will provide for many more keepers. It does not matter how sharp your lens is if it is blurry.
More to the point, if you are so critical of sharpness that there is an issue here, then you are not an experienced event photographer. If you have a good reason enough reason to care about sharpness to pass on this lens, then you should be buying primes, not zooms.
In view of a 30% price increase on the current previous model. In that period of time what have the technical guys at Nikon been doing. The new lens should be perfect in all areas, not just in certain areas, and should be a market leader.
I would have thought that Nikon should have learnt their lesson when they brought the original 24-70 lens out, That had helicoid problems with a scraping sound when the focal length was changed.. If your charge Professional Prices for a New Product, it should meet all the necessary requirements a Professional Photographer demands.
This lens makes more sense as a walkaround lens for photo documentary work, shooting static subjects in low light or indoors where you want a smaller aperture for depth of field, and sharpness all the way to edge of the picture.
As an event photographer, I won't be purchasing the new lens.
However, I am becoming known as "The Camera Guy" and am getting asked to shoot events for my work and professional associations which is turning me into a sometime event photographer. That means I have a strong case to purchase a zoom and I am considering this one.
My passion will continue to be "artistic" photography, which for me means owning a solid collection of primes.
First, I must repeat, as much as I respect DXO on many fronts, I am forced to dismiss their review relating to sharpness in favour of the Lensrental sharpness review. Lensrental has a sample of 10. 20 would be better, but 1 is a joke. DXO needs to address this if I am not going to discount their review for this factor. Given a likely standard deviation on lens performance, it may be that a DXO score of 25 and 30 should be considered the same.
Now regarding Paulr's above comment, I do agree. If I believe the DXO article, I also share his passion. However, since I don't assign creibility to DXO on this front and defer to the Lensrental review, I am merely slightly disappointed.
Lensrental says that this is the best 24-70 on the market, and I am inclined to believe them.
Nikoniser, I don't see this as a portrait lens. For that I will use my 50, 85 or 135 prime depending on how much space I have. If I am at an event, I will have a second body with a prime on it and a 24-70 on the main body.
I am thinking about the event I shot on Friday night, my company's Christmas Tree Lighting charity event, a public event held in the space next to the Olympic Torch. I had my D800 and two primes, my 24mm 2.8 AIS and 50 1.4G, NOT optimum event kit. Last year we hired an event photographer with full stage access and I ran around with my D800 and no special access. About half the shots that got used were mine and I only lost out when access was important. I won out on all the portrait shots, by reason of better isolation due to a faster lens and better lighting due to no flash. On camera flash is ugly and obvious in my view and in the view of the event organizers, as this year I was the event photographer with full stage access.
As I was shooting the event with my sub-par equipment, I was watching ISO, shutter speed and aperture closely with a view to deciding what kit I really need. I was also struggling with focus issues with my 50, as a fellow employee dropped it from 4 feet on to concrete. Anyone who has a 50 1.4G should try that. It bounces just like a tennis ball. If Nikon can't fix it, I will upgrade to the 58.
I set auto-ISO to max at 6400 and turned the auto selector for shutter speed to a slow shutter speed. Then every shot was about 10 shots. Many are blurry, but there are always a couple of reasonably sharp shots.
I will be looking at the pictures closely to decide if I find ISO acceptable. However, I find myself thinking that anything that can help me get the shutter speed down is worth paying for. For that reason, the E trumps the G.
Also, as I said earlier, centre sharpness is important for portraits, but I am not going to use a 24-70 for that. I will use a prime. One of my best shots from Friday night is a shot of the Christmas tree being lit up with a crowd in front of it. The subject, the 75 foot tall Christmas Tree with small points of light that I don't want blurry, is off the the extreme right. I also took numerous shots of groups of people, which means eyes off the the extreme right and left.
So for me, shooting events, the E with its superior edge to edge sharpness trumps the G with its superior centre sharpness. VR seals the deal. Despite my quibble about centre sharpness, I consider this a win for Nikon
When the D820 comes out, my kit for an event like this will be the D820 with the 24-70 2.8E (to mate up the latest in auto-focus advances) and my D800 with my 85 1.4G.
On the whole it was a pretty educational evening.
People take DXO way too seriously sometimes. Value for money is one thing- it's an expensive lens for sure, but it can't be the end all be all of reports. There's a lot of factors to consider, including but not limited to sample variation and unfortunately, Nikon quality control as well.
I have the 24-70g and I never liked it but it is great for events. Paired with a 70-200f4 on another body makes it a nice combo. Towards the end I used one body and shot at f2 with a prime once I made sure all event was well covered.
I was supposed to just do candids but then the family wanted formals. The groups ranged from 2 people to 15 people in a matter of seconds. I could have had two primes but having the two zooms allowed me to do the formals and the candids while the next group went up on stage.
So following the advice I found on the forum and on the web I have tested the 24-70mm f2.8 using both the new and previous version for comparison. I made a display of the focus charts available at Bob Atkins.com. I made many comparisons between both versions and I also took a variety of real world photographs including my favourite brick wall! I also produced A4 and A3 prints for close examination. I used a D810 for these tests. More recently the new lens has been out and about with me and used with a D810 and D3S, on and off a tripod.
I appear fortunate to have a lens without any of the auto focus issues found in the early “trial” versions and my findings, from an amateur’s point of view, concur exactly with those by Roger Cicaia at www. lensrentals.com/blog. His very helpful articles on reading MTF charts and advice on what can be sharpened and what cannot be sharpened (Acutance and Microcontrast) are also well worth reading and will help get the most out of this lens. Like using the D810, technique and careful post processing is all important
In the end, I have decided, quite happily, to keep both lenses as they are both good and may serve slightly different purposes – again look at the MTF chart. Recent images suggest, however, that the new version will be my “go to” lens. The major benefit of the new lens is not only the much improved edge to edge sharpness but also a very effective VR system. Mostly I use a tripod but in, for example, churches and cathedrals, where tripods are not usually allowed and light can be variable, VR has been very helpful. Recent images taken on a dark day inside Liverpool’s (UK) RC and Anglican Cathedrals show, for example,brickwork and ornamentation in fine detail, edge to edge. Any slight centre softness seems, to my eyes, to go in post processing.
At home, without VR my brickwall image at f/18 70mm at just 1/10 of a second was mush, as expected. The same shot with VR was crisp and sharp throughout. Quite impressive. The DXO findings are worth considering but you do need to see the detailed results at Lens Rentals for a more complete picture of this lens.
There is vignetting at f2.8 but Lightroon/Camera Raw deals with this under the lens profile/calibration tab perfectly. As to increased size and weight I really don’t find this is too much of an issue and the new lens looks and feels very well made and handles brilliantly – as did the previous version. Buying new 82mm filters etc is an additional cost however. This lens is not, I would suggest, a dummy (the images I have taken and processed, in my non-professional judgement, are more than satisfactory regarding sharpness, as good as anything I have taken before – they just need the same careful attention in Photoshop as do most images) and if it would only stop raining here in the UK I will get out to test it some more!
So, for edge to edge sharpness and effective VR, where tripods are not allowed or are not practicable, this new lens, mounted on a good camera, is worth serious research and consideration.
Hope this helps.
I am also comfortable with the optical performance of this lens. I think that across the frame sharpness more than makes up for the slightly reduced centre sharpness. And in an effort to keep the ISO lower than "stupid", to the extent that the VR helps achieve that, the lens is sharper. I remember that noise is essentially a reduction in sharpness (and a few other things). It is a moot point that your lens is sharper if you have to quadruple the ISO to get a sharp image - the increase in ISO will effect sharpness more than the difference between any two lenses will.
As an antidote to injesting zoom, I needed a dose of prime, preferably Manual Focus. As such, I also have the 24mm 3.5 PC on order.
While some have criticized the new VR 24-70, I tend to agree, its sharpness combined with the VR should produce superior results overall compared to the old version.
Great addition to your kit, WestEndFoto