VR for 24-70 lens

bbarb

@msmoto, nice shoots there! well done!!! i really loved them!! the 24 120 i think can do the job, but i want to find more actual size images. closer to my style. i will start searching. Thanks a lot
@spraynpray yes i use lightroom, but you know what at least with canon 24 105 the ca was not such an easy task to deal with. Ofcourse in most cases with a press of a button everything was ok, but when strong sun was threw branches and trees then the ca was a real pain. but with the 24 70 the ca is not an issue very fixable.

Edit: Just a thought, is it possible the ca issue to be a nikon advantage over canon?? i mean the 24 70 is really excellent at this and yes indeed at post ca is click and remove but in canon that was not always the case. just a thought.

Msmoto

Yes, handheld... the VR works well. I will search out some of the less good images for you to examine as well.

OK, look at this set...

http://www.flickr.com/photos/fantinesfotos/sets/72157631511251372/

What this will show is, I used the 16-35mm f/4 VR and the 70-200mm f/2.8 VR for the snapshots. However, the first image in the set is the 24-120 at 70mm I believe. It falls apart at the edges.

OK, here is a full set of 'walk-around' snaps, all with the 24-120mm. I think it did a good job and the extra length was critical for getting the stage shots.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/fantinesfotos/sets/72157630428070462/

Golf007sd

...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...

.....distance to subject varies a lot from 5 10 meters to huge landscapes...

...I dont know if any of you do stock,100% actual size, tack sharp,crystal clear,free of noise, 100% in focus, without any ca then you are ok....

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.

I'm please to know you have the 24-70 2.8. I'm sure it has served you well...it's is always very nice to have fast 2.8 lens. A few things I would like to share with you. 1) I have found that if I shoot 1000 images having a 5-10% of the images not up to par is not that deal breaker for me...so I think you are being to hard on yourself. VR may or may not be the solution here. I would lean on the images imperfection on the manner in which it was taken...hence for very, very, very sharp images at slow shutter speed due to a small aperture...a tripod is the true solution. Moreover, due the vibration stabilizers technology itself, will at times be the culprit, mainly due to the elements within the lens that are moving into position. 2) Keep in mind that the smaller the aperture, diffraction will also come into play, thus resulting in some images that may not be to your liking...less sharp. 3) For huge landscape, I have found that 24mm is not wide enough. If you find that you are shooting a lot of image of this nature, then a 14mm focal length lens is worth looking into (14-24 2.8 ) 4) Not sure what "stock" photography is. If you have some example please post a link, with access to full image size as well. 5) I respect the high demand you have for the images taken, the feature/tools within Lightroom will come in handy is addressing the CA in post as spraynpray stated in relation to the application having all Nikon lenses correction setting.

In closing, if cost is not a factor, and you are willing to carry 3.3 pounds in order to obtain the result you seek by all mean have a look at this setup and see if it is worth consideration...give your current camera equipment.

bbarb

@msmoto, thanks again for this links, once again lovely shoots, you managed to make me feel like i was there and this is 100% win for you, the only thing missing was the music from the band!!!!! well done.
excellent! really lovely shoots.

now regarding the lens, can you be so kind and tell my what is wrong with this image http://www.flickr.com/photos/fantinesfotos/7505110208/in/set-72157630428070462

check the head of the young man at the right corner and the hand of the girl playing the cello, check the area with the white background at 100% actual size. to be honest with you i downloaded 4 images, the first one was this image because of this specific area, this is where the hard almost unfixable ca will appear. So my question, is this ca or you photoshoped out something from there? because if its ca, then this is what i was afraid of. This ca i believe, it cant be remove with lr with a click, it needs PS and a few minutes of work. (unless someone can do it with lr so just tell me the settings if possible, and i will figure the work around)
and one more question landscape is sized down, or cropped? if its cropped, the lens is still in the game for me, if its sized down, and still is so soft at corners, then i think i must keep the 24 70.

@Golf007sd, 5-10% unusable images i think is not small ratio, keep in mind this images are unusable, because of camera movement, but there are also 10%-15% additional technically ok images that you say ''mmmmm i dont like it, why i shoot it'' so in the end you end up with a 20-25% unusable which are quite a lot i think.

I agree with you other comments, and yes i also work with a 14-24 2.8 :x , i love this lens.

Regarding the ca give a try at the above image if you want with lr, i cant save this ca (if its indeed ca).
Thanks for the link of the tripod but its hard for me to carry all day long camera, lenses,spare body and a tripod, i just cant do it anymore. I have tested the manfroto carbon and yes it ended up in the hotel room... couldnt cary it all day.

Stock photography is what i do. i sell my images online all over the world. i upload them at stock sites which are agencies that sell images. How can i say it, its like image banks. Shutterstock , fotolia, dreamstime, 123 rf, etc Dont you know that photo business?
In the thread d600 oil spot, i was rude enough and i have kept secret where i came from because i am in troubles with nikon, so i hope i will get a good end at this, so what the heck i really believe everything will go ok with them, so this is my port (and where i come from as well,lololo).

http://www.shutterstock.com/g/GreeceStockPhotography/sets

unfortunately, as you can tell, its not possible to download full size images.
@guys, i really thank you for all those efforts of yours.

Msmoto

@bbarb

Other than my image is pretty crappy.....you mean...LOL

This was one of those unfortunate situations where the background light was so intense I apparently tried to bring it down with a mask in LR. This is not the lens...but purely the mask on probably LR3. I now use the soft edge on the brush and then erase with a mask so as to not do this. Also in this image I may have blurred the background so as to reduce distractions.

Look at this one,
http://www.flickr.com/photos/fantinesfotos/7505155732/sizes/o/in/set-72157630428070462/
and there might be a small amount of CA near the ages, f/5.6 at 120mm.

I do not think this is as sharp a lens as the 24-70mm f/2.8, but the extra reach may be the benefit. Having said all this, if I were to do it over, I would get the 24-70mm f/2.8. But, I often use two bodies or change lenses as you could see from the set on Fairview, SD. I used the 16-35, 24-120, and 70-200. And, i will walk around with a 24, 35, 50, or 85mm, even 105 or 135mm prime. I was raised in a time when we had prime lenses only. So, take my opinion as from an old dog who may not be able to learn new tricks....LOL

bbarb

@msmoto, your images crappy ????!!!!! noway. i didnt said that.
Your images as i said traveled me all along the way. i loved them.

So it was editing, ok s*&@t always happens lololo, then i think the only think that i must worry of is the softness at corners. Because from your shoots it looks like the lens handles good the ca, or at least is easy removable, i think i must rent one and test it.
The image you linked is just fine to my taste.
Thanks a lot for the replies and the efforts. Having seen your work, i really trust your suggestion and will consider it seriously, but again this extra reach and vr are important for me.

Msmoto

@bbarb

I was the one who said the image was not very good....and to clarify, I do shoot what I see as 'snapshots' but the one image had way to many flaws to be something I would put up today.

And, for you, if the VR and extra reach are important, I do not think you will go wrong with the 24-120mm f/4 VR Nikkor.

yakawar

Sorry for unearthing the topic... Any news about a refreshed version of the lens in the coming years (with or without VR) ?

I am planning future purchases and be willing to delay a little bit if there is a refreshed version of the lens coming.

Thanks all.

PB_PM

Nothing since this thread has started.

Golf007sd

Get the current 24-70 2.8 and you will find it to be an amazing, versialt lens.

TaoTeJared

If I'm not mistaken it was released in 2007. Nikon usually has a 10-year refresh cycle on pro lenses. The 70-200vr was updated for Nano coating and Updated VR version and that was only 6 years. The 24-70 already has that.
Take into consideration also that Canon's new 24-70 is not much better (if at all depending on your definition of better) and Tamron's VC lens is on par with it, there is not a huge demand for anything more. I think it is probably in the "works" and we will see a refresh in 2-3 years. Nikon almost always sticks to it's timelines for everything, especially lens design.

PB_PM

I think what I would like Nikon to do is find a way to make it lighter, and give the lens an internally zooming design.

Vipmediastar_JZ

@PB_PM after handling the 70-200 the 24-70 feels like a feather but i agree with you.

PB_PM

@Vipmediastar_JZ After using the Sigma 120-300mm f2.8 (2.9KG) the 70-200mm f2.8 (1.4KG) feels like a feather. I'd still like to see the 24-70 weigh closer to 700g.

Golf007sd

The only way that Nikon would be able to do what some are seeking is to incorporate more plastic construction to the body...something that could yield some negative feedback. Personally I do not find the weight to be an issue when used with the right strap. Hence, Black Rapid.

PB_PM

I have no problem with a plastic outer shell, if it means the lens can be lighter and nicer to handle in cold weather. As for negative feedback, almost every pro I've met sold their 85mm F1.4D for a 85mm F1.4G, even though they didn't like the plastic shell at first. I've yet to break a lens with a plastic outer shell. I did manage to break a metal barreled one though. The toughness of the metal used on the outer shell of most lenses is blown way out of proportion. It may feel tough, but is it really? I'd still like the inner tube to be metal, for the sake of longevity, but there is no reason for the outer barrel to be made of metal.

I use a blackrapid strap, but it still causes shoulder pain after a few hours of use.

haroldp

Using long (telephoto) lenses, a small angular movement of the lens, results in a large linear movement of the image at the sensor. Since in-lens stabilization can make angular corrections of moving elements, this is an optimum use of in-lens stabilization.

Wide angle lenses however have much smaller linear movements of the image at the sensor, for any corresponding angular movement of the lens, and present a much better case for sensor based stabilization.

Since Sony makes sensor based stabilization versions of it's DSLR sensors, it would be feasible for Nikon to include it in the next generation. This feature could be menu selectable, or automatically turn itself off if an in-lens stabilized lens is mounted.

This feature set would neatly solve the problem for the 24-70 / 2.8, or any of the non stabilized lenses for any lens speed.

The D800e currently has me at the 'good enough', or what Thom Hogan calls the 'last camera syndrome'.

The option of sensor based stabilization, immediately stabilizing all of my Nikon glass (I have a lot after 45 years) is a feature that would definitely get me to bite for the next model. So far, none of the other features discussed for the next D800 would get me to buy or trade.

Regards .... Harold

proudgeek

PB_PM's comment about internal zooming brings to mind a question I've always had (slightly off topic, I apologize): Why is it that Nikon can make a wide zoom (like the 17-35) and a tele-zoom (like the 70-200) zoom internally but not the 24-70? I'd use it more, but I worry that it's a dust sucker.

sevencrossing

, it would be feasible for Nikon to include it in the next generation.

another feature to add to the D400
or may be the Df Mark II
the latter being specially designed for old lenses

spraynpray

PB_PM's comment about internal zooming brings to mind a question I've always had (slightly off topic, I apologize): Why is it that Nikon can make a wide zoom (like the 17-35) and a tele-zoom (like the 70-200) zoom internally but not the 24-70? I'd use it more, but I worry that it's a dust sucker.

Maybe you know something about lens design that I don't (easily possible) but you seem to be thinking that the fact that the IF lenses channel air from one compartment to another and that there is a balanced change of volume going on so there is no internal/external exchange of air? I am not aware of that as fact, but I strongly suspect that if it was Nikon would list it as a design feature.

Ironheart

@s-n-p , just say it: all lenses suck (air)

proudgeek

No I don't know any more than anyone else (likely less). I'm just assuming that a lens whose moving parts are exposed outward are more likely to suck in dust than those whose parts are internal. I'm not suggesting that any zoom lens will give you a level of cleanliness found in a clean room.

TaoTeJared

There are gaskets and higher tolerances in the 24-70 that limit the air exchange/dust. Those lenses are in dusty environments and never get a spec in them - it is just fine. The air "pumping" is only an issue with the consumer to mid-grade glass. Odd thing is that my 24-120 VR f4 really doesn't push much air at all. Not sure where it expels it, but it's not back into the body as other cheaper lenses do.

Golf007sd

I have shot the 24-70 in all different types of harsh dusty/sandy environments, never have I had anything get inside the lens.

Msmoto

I think if Nikon does come out with a VR 24-70mm f/2.8, it will be a new lens entirely and they will make certain it fills the "Holy Trinity" adequately. And, it will cost over $2,000. But, I will wait.