VR for 24-70 lens

PB_PM

True, but the 24-105mm IS has been the "standard" kit lens as well. It kind of falls into the same arena as the 24-85mm VR, although with a fixed aperture and a steeper standalone price ($1300). The 24-70mm F4 IS is more expensive ($1500).

Nikon would have a tough time doing that, since the 24-70mm F2.8G is $1650, and the 24-120mm F4 is $1200-$1300. Not much room for a F4 24-70. People would be sitting on the fence going... "hmm $100 less for more zoom range, and $200 for F2.8..."

ben_v3

I haven't missed VR on the 24-70. Maybe its how well the D600 does at ISO 6400 or maybe I just shoot in well lit areas mostly.

birdman

I agree with the majority of the comments. Nikon knows that VR can potentially diminish IQ for a zoom of this FL. Why do you think Canon didn't include IS to their newest 24-70/2.8, but included it on their cheaper 24-70/4.0 IS (?) They wanted to have ABSOLUTE SHARPNESS across the range and reportedly it is the sharpest zoom in it's class (and by far the most expensive). I have the 24-120/40VR and it's a great lens. I can't complain on Nikon's product decisions: they've almost satisfied everyone's quench - from primes to zooms. That being said, I finally sold my 85/1.8D and am eagerly awaiting my $400 85/1.8G on its way from B&H.

Golf007sd

@birdman The 85 1.8G is going to be a nice addition to your D800 buddy...great choice.

adamz

I think we gonna see a 24-70/2.8 VR sooner than some of us believe and I doubt VR will destroy the IQ of this or any lens. if that would be the truth, why Nikon puts VR to their most expensive lenses - like all primes from 200 to 800mm?

roombarobot

I was going to venture a guess that Nikon would do an f/4 version of this with VR, like they did with the 70-200mm f/4. However, I think the 24-120mm f/4 VR already has that covered, so I doubt that.

Msmoto

One of the problems faced by all these wide to moderate tele zooms is the fact they must be retro focus at the short end. And, this creates distortion and other problems.

If we are going to see the NON-DSLR bodies as the newest thing, then some of the new lenses may be an entirely new design. And, this may slow the latest improvements to those lenses which are part of the trinity.

I think it is obvious, Nikon would like to have VRIII in all the pro lenses...but not for awhile.

Msmoto

This is the 24-70 thread....

bbarb

Guys, can someone comment on the 24 85 vr or the 24 120 vr vs 24 70 2.8.
I do travel, so 80% of my images are from 7.1 to f16 and the vr is to me of great importance.o i now use the 24 70 but i consider selling it to get a vr . Anyone have done tests and can advice me?
Any thoughts . I hope i am not of topic.

sevencrossing

lots of post on the 24 -70 f 2.8 vs 24 -120 f4 vr

the conclusion - both are excellent lenses

I can personally vouch for the 24 -120 it is the perfect travel lens, it improves at f 5.6 but it absolutely fine wide open

Rx4Photo

@ bbarb, you honestly have to look at the purpose for which you'd use the lens. If it's primarily for travel then I believe the 24-120VR is the best choice for you. It's an excellent lens for that purpose and VR does help when shooting on the long end. I currently don't own that lens but I once tested it compared to my 24-70mm and although the 24-70 focuses faster and opens to f/2.8, the 24-120mm VR gives you more reach for your all around intended purpose.

bbarb

Ok, let me help you all......so you can help me even more....lololol
When I was with canon i used the 24 105, and i was 100% happy with this lens, excellent sharpness, focus accuracy a bit soft corners wide open but i mostly use 7.1 to 16, so it was very good. Distortions vigneting and so on easily fixed in post so the only issue i had to deal with was ca. to sum up, If this lens was in nikon line, i would have instantly sold the 24 70. But, people say that the iq of the 24 120 is much much lower than this from 24 105. So is that so?
And if it is, what about the 24 85. Any ideas as well for 24 70 tamron?
The purpose is very clear, travel, i want the extra reach, the vr because i use f16 very often, and i almost never shoot above 400 iso (with nikon, with canon i had iso locked at 100 lolololo way to go nikon)
So the performance i am after is the one of canons 24 105.
Thanks for help and advices.

PB_PM

None of the lenses you listed will match the 24-70 F2.8 Nikkor, that's just the way it is. By all accounts I've read the 24-120mm F4 VR is easily better than the Canon 24-105mm (not hard really). And no, the 24-85mm VR is not optically better than the 24-120mm F4 VR. If you do go for, watch out that you don't buy the old 24-120mm F3.5-5.6G VR, which was softer than ice cream (speaking from experience).

bbarb

@pb_pm, i dont expect them to be superior than the 24 70 2.8, but i want him to be at the f stops i work about the same. Really you have seen 24 120 better than the 24 105??
I think i have to read again, these are good news, for me.
I will search, but if you have bookmarked links be so kind and post some. If not let it go, i will do it by myself.

sevencrossing

I often shoot the same subjects, at the same time as friend who has the cannon 24 105 neither of us are pixel peepers but we are critical of each others work, we are both very happy with our respective lenses

Ade

@bbarb At f/16 all of these lenses (Canon and Nikon) are so affected by diffraction, that any small optical differences between them become negligible.

PB_PM

@pb_pm, i dont expect them to be superior than the 24 70 2.8, but i want him to be at the f stops i work about the same. Really you have seen 24 120 better than the 24 105??
I think i have to read again, these are good news, for me.
I will search, but if you have bookmarked links be so kind and post some. If not let it go, i will do it by myself.

If you look at Photozones reviews of the lenses, look at the resolution figures. They are so close that unless you are looking at 100% you'll never see the difference.

Golf007sd

@bbarb: 1) The 24-70 2.8 rock the house. For me, I love that focal length and it does everything I want it to do. 2) Both these lenses will be tack sharp and dead on accurate given your f-stop. 3) With respect to VR...I key here is your shutter speed first...followed by your ISO (100). The D600 has great ISO performance....so don't be shy or worry about raising your ISO.

Questions:1) What is the subject your are shooting? 2) What method are you using in taking the shot...ie. handheld, monopod or tripod? 3) Distance to subject? 4) How will you be displaying/distributing/publishing the final results..ie. web or print? 5) Will you be using any filters (CPL or ND)?

sevencrossing

.so don't be shy or worry about raising your ISO.

for action shots I would agree

but for landscapes raising the ISO will reduce the dynamic range and colour fidelity

For landscapes, like you, I like to keep the ISO at or below 400 ( for action shots I happy at 6400)

landscapes are often best at twilight and if, like me, you don't like tripods, as they are cumbersome and restrict your movement , VR is a great asset

bbarb

@golf007sd, i know the 24 70 is the best, thats why i bought it, but the problem is i often use big f stop nymbers i.e f16 and because at the same time i dont want iso more than 400, i often get low shutter speeds so i sometimes i loose images due to camera movement. For instance from 1000 images i may have lost more than 50 - 100 images, and this is killing me. I have been using the 24 105 for years, and i have to admit that from 1000 images i never lost more than a max of 5.
1.I do travel, 2. i walk around all day long, so tripod is impossible even carbon versions ( i am not 20 any more.....), 3. distance to subject varies a lot from 5 10 meters to huge landscapes, 5. no filters, 4. the usage is almost evrything you said, web, and small to huge prints. I am stock photographer, so in the end all of my images are examined @pb_pm at 100% size from pixel to pixel in order to be accepted and then go to sales point.
I dont know if any of you do stock, but if images are not at 100% actual size, tack sharp,crystal clear,free of noise, 100% in focus, without any ca then you are ok. Thats why i mentioned the canon 24 105, because results from this lens are ok. I mean that, from 100 images the 80 90 could enter the house. The only problem of this lens was ca. And i read the 24 120 is worst at ca, so this is i fear of. The soft corners is not so critical because i solve this at time of shooting.
Keep also in mind that after all day walking and 1000 shoots my hands ( at least mine) are not steady any more.....
Thanks for help.

Msmoto

Go to Flickr and view the full size of this one, 120mm, f/10, 1/100 sec

bbarb

@msmoto, where i download the image???

bbarb

ok found it

bbarb

@msmoto, thanks! thats what i wanted!
Really thanks for the image! you are helping me a lot, thats what i wanted full size real world examples.

Center is almost perfect even its at the long end of the lens. Corners are a little soft but quite manageable and the distortion looks fixable as well. are there in your port other image with this lens to search for?
to be honest i preferred a more lens demanding image with strong highlights and shadows to examine.
nice technical shoot.
i like it.
Handheld???
i am searching your port

spraynpray

@bbarb - are you using lightroom? If so, Nikon lenses are fully corrected for distortion at a click and CA disappears with a tweak of a slider - no big deal.