VR for 24-70 lens

martinq

Anybody got any idea when Nikon will release a VR version of the 2.8 24-70 lens?

I think it would be very useful, especially for those of us shooting at higher resolutions in low light.

Martinq

D5100_Owner

Maybe never.  It is very hard to make.  Tamron spend a lot of time and money redeveloping their VC system just for one lens.  They still use their other system on all other lenses.  The barrel VC design is also very big, hence the 82mm thread on the Tamron.

Currently, there are no patents from nikon for such a lens, as far as I know. Maybe NR Admin has??...so i would not expect anything.  If they did come out with one, it would probably cost more than most houses, so the Tamron is your best bet for VR/VC stabalization.

I have found Tamron to make great products.  Their VC is also better than any of nikons.  my 70-300 VC tammy can shoot 1/10 sharp.  Don't wait for the nikon is my advice.  Spend $1300 and get the Tamron!

Msmoto

The only f/2.8 Nikkor zoom is the 70-200mm at $2400.  And, I believe the wider aspect of the 24mm creates a different set of optical problems.  Thus all the short VR lenses are f/4.

Thus i doubt we will see the 24-7-0mm f/2.8 VR Nikkor anytime soon.

JoeyC

Also, remember that at shorter focal lengths handshake - and thus image stabilization - are less of a problem/need than they are at longer focal lengths, another important reason this is an unlikely product. As a part-time weddings shooter, I can tell you that having VR on that lens wouldn't help me use it in a meaninfully different way than I already do.

It's hard to get good pictures of people at slower than 1/20-1/30 sec., and I can handhold the 24-70 at, say 50mm just fine at those speeds if I'm being careful. Not so the 70-200; it's bigger number one, and number two obviously is that, at 150 for instance, it's VERY difficult to get a steady handheld shot at 1/25 sec. unless you're leaning against a wal, etc. You really need the VR there. 

PB_PM

I think the largest group of people wanting VR in a 24-70mm lens are video shooters, more so than still photographers.

Golf007sd

I agree with msmoto that Nikon is far from bring us a VR for the 24-70 2.8. With that said, for night shots I would highly recommend you looking at a prime lens.

[Deleted User]

I had a similar question - I use the 24-70 to shoot dance and acrobats etc. in low light and VR could possibly be an advantage. Coupled with the fact I'm not allowed to move around (as there's generally an audience etc.) 

In the end I chose the 24-120 which has VR but is also f/4 - with increased ISO the difference is not even worth mentioning AND I get quite a bit closer to the action with the extra millimeters (70 -> 120)

JJ_SO

Although I was very pleased and surprised with the new 70-200/4 and it's VR qualities, some aspects can't be replaced by it, like narrow depth of field and fast shutter speeds (for dance and acrobatics). Even if the rest of the picture might be sharp with 1/15, a moving dancer won't be. The only way is high ISO and wide open aperture - and maybe a monopod.

But even then: The light situation on some stages is purposefully dim and without flashing, you need to predict a moment of relatively slow moving people to get the faces unblurred.

Msmoto

@ ;darkslide

+1

I have the 24-120mm f/4 VR and it is exactly as you say.  Especially the extra reach.

adamz

In the end I chose the 24-120 which has VR but is also f/4 - with increased ISO the difference is not even worth mentioning AND I get quite a bit closer to the action with the extra millimeters (70 -> 120)

How is the colour rendition in high ISO comparing to 24-70/2.8?

Tabazan

Well, I don't think VR is useful in any way as soon as the subject moves (not the photographer) in low light or not. If YOU shake and the subject's still, then yes. Maybe it would be more useful on primes (85mm for example, aimed at portraits and stills, and sometimes, after 2 expressos, 85mm is becoming quite long) than for a typical press/street/action lens. IMO

Tabazan

@darkslide

Superb ! Congrats.

jonnyapple

I think the largest group of people wanting VR in a 24-70mm lens are video shooters, more so than still photographers.

+1. 

I'd like to say I'd buy it if they release it, but there are a lot of lenses I want to buy that I talk myself out of (someday I will be filthy rich and my internal monologue will get lots more boring). Tamron has this lens with vibration reduction but the bokeh is not really pleasant. I've been wanting Nikon to make this lens with VR for years. I would love it for video but also for stills. 

I know it's been said, but the 16-35 f/4 has VR so I don't see why Nikon wouldn't update this eventually.

PB_PM

I think many of us have a list of lenses we would buy if we were filthy rich.

[Deleted User]

Erm...yes, you're right! I had both with me - my excuses... X(

haroldp

I do a fair amount of theater work with VR lenses (70-200 f2.8 VR G, and 200-400 f4VR), usually on tripods or monopods, and the limiting factor for critical sharpness is subject motion. Under 1/100 sec. is very chancy.

I am usually at ISO 3200 on a D700, or 1600 on  D3x.

I will try a D800e (also at 3200), but 36 mp files are hard to handle in large numbers.

All that being said, I would like VR in the 24-70 if I could get it. mine is sharper at F2.8, than my 24-20 is at F4.

Regards ... H

TaoTeJared

I do recall that Nikon does have a patent for VR in a 24-70ish range but it seems to be in that category where patents go to die, but they want to make sure no one else can make the lens.  

As new camera's come out and IQ continually get better at the high end of ISO, I see the need for VR becoming less of a need.  Then again, if Canon releases one, it might push Nikon to do one as well. 

Msmoto

Well..

"SeeMe3" wants to know about all this as well....
"I've been debating the purchase of the 24-70mm 2.8 and the 14-24mm 2.8.
The hesitation in purchasing these lenses is whether or not new versions of these lenses will be released soon.
Am I being too hopeful or should I hold out for just a bit longer?"

Beso

Unless there is something new in concrete on the horizon my philosophy is not to wait. If you wait for the latest technology, you will be waiting forever. In the meantime you could be using and enjoying these two incredible lenses. I have both with the 24-70 usually on my camera and the 14-24 a really, really good wide angle. Every day lost waiting is one you will never get back so I say "go for it!"

TaoTeJared

I could envision a 24-70mm update due to it's release age - but it still is a top performer and has the nano coatings. Canon has been updating their lenses that cover this range though. It doesn't really seem when it comes to glass, Nikon or Canon really try to go tit-for-tat on it though.

I don't see the 14-24mm getting updated - it's just that good. If you are really hesitant, I got the Tokina 16-28 2.8 and to me it is just as good as the 14-24 at f/4 on up. At 2.8 it is still very good, but just a bit less sharp than the 14-24. The distortion control is amazing though. 8x10 you would not be able to tell the difference. I'll mostly be at f/8 on this lens so it would be very hard to tell a difference. I need it to stop snowing and freezing here so I can get some shots to post!

For lenses, those without the Nano coating seem get updated first. 18,20,24,35 (f/2),180mm 2.8s, 105/135 DC, 70-180/200mm macros, and of course the 80-400vr is about all that is left for long awaited updates or to see if they even do update all of them. The 105vr nano coated update might be out there too.

Paulohn

In case Nikon comes with an update including VR, would you believe the prices will be raised or just kept at the same levels?

PB_PM

@TaoTeJared The 24-70mm was released in 2007 on the same day as the 14-24mm, not exactly old for a pro lens. Nikon's pro line usually holds up for 10 years. If that continues to be the case, expect an update in 2017...

Golf007sd

I Love my 24-70 2.8 and if nikon can improve on it, by offering VR and better optics...I look forward to that day. Will I make the jump...we shall see. But right now, the Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8G ED AF-S Nikkor Wide Angle Zoom Lens does everything I want and I'm one happy camper.

TaoTeJared

@TaoTeJared The 24-70mm was released in 2007 on the same day as the 14-24mm, not exactly old for a pro lens. Nikon's pro line usually holds up for 10 years. If that continues to be the case, expect an update in 2017...

Can't see fault in that rational at all and what I believe too. If a VR were to come, I could see there being 2 versions for various price points. What i think is interesting is if Nikon does a lens like Canon's 24-70 f/4 IS lens.

@Paulohn - Price if there is a VR? Hold on to your hat - it won't be cheap. I would expect an additional $500+.

PB_PM

I don't get the Canon 24-70mm F4 IS, when they already have a 24-105mm F4 IS. For that same reason, I cannot see why Nikon would make one when they have the 24-85mm VR and the 24-120mm VR.

TaoTeJared

Canon shooters I spoken to seem to have a real love-hate thing going with the 24-105mm F4 IS. Bad vignetting and distortion evidently - to the point LR auto fix, doesn't fix it well. At least that is what I have heard - I have never used it though.

I'm willing to bet we could start seeing more of this with a newer model being deigned more for video. I see the Nikon 24-85vr as this more than a "kit" or anything else. Maybe that is what Canon has done.