The Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8E ED VR lens is now $200 cheaper

Nikon 24-70mm f:2.8E ED VR lens with free filter
Strange listing on Amazon.com: the latest Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8E ED VR lens is nowย $200 cheaper ($200 below MSRP) only if you get it with a free B+W UV filter (shipped and sold by Amazon directly):

Nikon-24-70mm-f2.8E-ED-VR-lens-deal

This entry was posted in Nikon Deals, Nikon Lenses, Weird and tagged . Bookmark the permalink. Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.
  • DB

    woot! ๐Ÿ™‚

  • Iceman

    so basically you can get for less than 260$+ :))

  • catinhat

    This should once and for all settle the long-running debate over whether protective filters are useful or harmful. Clearly the filter degrades the IQ, but at least you get a $200 discount.

    • longzoom

      Never ever seen any different with or without GOOD protective filter – B+W for exmp. So every experience varies. Don’t be categorical.

      • catinhat

        I guess I should have marked my post explicitly as

        • longzoom

          Got it!

        • Duncan Dimanche

          ….

      • Thom Hogan

        Every test I’ve seen done or that I have made myself shows that you’ll get slightly lower MTF results with a filter on, even great filters with good coatings.

        Funny thing is I’ve had people argue about MTF ratings of various lenses and then put filters on the lens they claimed was better ;~). Talk about inconsistent.

        That said, MTF ratings don’t mean nearly as much as people think they do. Moreover, Nikon isn’t designing to maximize them, they’re designing to minimize astigmatisms, a whole different story.

        • longzoom

          True. But I am practical, field – oriented pro photographer, for 55 years. That’s out of questions, in the lab MTF charts will show some lowering results of lenses covering by extra glass. My own tests show lowering of resolution – average – of 1-2% – for the best filters used. In some cases, up on the mountains, lens, covered by right used multicoated filter, delivered for me even slightly sharper images, due to cutting unwanted strong UV zones. So, unicorn is coming here, but seldom! Thank you, Thom!

          • Thom Hogan

            No current Nikon DSLR has any meaningful response to UV.

            • longzoom

              My old wooden Toyo 8×10 definitely had! Especially when b/w film was in use. Without UV cutting filters the image delivered was somewhat mushy. About contemporary Nikons – my old mechanical 200-400, as well as 500P were sensitive to UV on D3 series as well as on the D800. Less so today’s new glass/camera combos, in most cases I am not able to notice any difference with or without UV/protecting filters, due to much advanced multicoating and firmware.

            • Mistral75

              Due to the UV-IR filter in front of the sensor.

    • Aldo

      It does… but most people find it negligible… or can’t notice it at all… also for many having the front element protected is a worth trade off.

      • Eric Calabros

        Steve youtube test shows it does protect nothing, and as personal experience (having friends in service centers), I’ve never heard someone say filter saved the lens.
        and “notice” could happen in raw data evaluation. But I see no difference, because the UV filter they put on sensors are pretty good filters.

        • Spy Black

          The new Sigma filters may be an exception to that. Time will tell.

        • I use protective filter just to avoid having to clean lens front element . Not for drop protection. Any loss of IQ is negligible if better filter is used. Besides we lose more IQ while shooting than does a filter. Most always that is.

          • fanboy fagz

            thats true. most people dont use the lens’s full capability anyway. and most dont use a tripod so a lot of its true capability isnt used. depends on the shutter speed used obviously.

          • silmasan

            Yeah, Hoya HD does it for me for shooting outdoor. Though honestly I never cared for it until I got it free with a lens purchase. Now I’m a believer. ๐Ÿ™‚

        • BG

          Filter definitely saved several of my front elements from scratching, either from sand in the desert, or from an accidental bump (silly things can and do happen when “the shit hits the fan”, as they say).

          • Eric Calabros

            How can be sure front element would be scratched with that accidental things?
            Maybe it’s psychological, people assume the front element is as vulnerable as their eye cornea!

            • BG

              Well, if the filter has a badass scratch, chances are that the front element would have been damaged too. Picking up at your unnecessary hyperbole – no, I don’t assume that the lens is as vulnerable as the eye’s cornea, but I assume that it’s vaguely similarly vulnerable to scratches as the filter. Which may or may not be true, granted, but given the extent of the damage, I assume the front element would have been harmed. So, how can YOU be sure that everything would’ve been fine without even knowing what the damage looked like?

            • Eric Calabros

              “I assume that it’s vaguely similarly vulnerable to scratches as the filter”
              No, its not.

            • BG

              Not even vaguely similar? I guess your front elements are made from titanium, and your filters from plastic? In my world, both lens elements and filters are made of glass. Which is, subtle differences aside, still glass. Give me break.

            • Eric Calabros

              Bulletproof glass is still glass, so what?
              I wonder how you even compare a very thick curved glass to a sub millimeter flat one

            • BG

              Which part of “similarly vulnerable to scratches” was not clear to you? How does glass thickness affect vulnerability to scratching (rather than breakage)? Anyway, I’m done wasting my time here.

            • Eric Calabros

              Great, now stop wasting your money too ๐Ÿ™‚

            • PhilK

              Eric, you’re resorting to spaghetti-logic now. Quit while you’re ahead. ๐Ÿ˜›

        • Thom Hogan

          I’ve gotten many people saying that the “filter protected the lens.” However, they are claiming an unprovable negative. You don’t know whether the filter protected the lens or not, only that the filter was destroyed. More often than not that’s because the filter is simple, thin glass and doesn’t have anything structural to it that would protect it (front elements are generally not thin, and not flat, and structurally unlikely to break).

          I have seen a few filters that broke that damaged the coating on the front element of the lens, though, thus negating the claim that they protected the lens.

          • Michiel953

            Calls for scientific, controlled, investigation.

            I used Y filters etc back in the day; b&w, so for effect, not for protection.

            Lens hoods are good for protection. Metal, crew-in, are nicest. Chinese plastic bayonet protects a lot better. Extra layers of glass? No.

          • Patrick O’Connor

            I only use filters in the presence of flying debris that could mar the lens. (i.e. sand and salt at the ocean, metal shavings in manufacturing settings, et al.)

          • Eric Calabros

            Should edit my sentence: I’ve never heard someone say filter saved the lens and could prove that.

            • BG

              Because this is obviously impossible to prove in a real-world setting, as evident upon brief consideration.

            • Andy Aungthwin

              I had a UV filter on my 16-35mm f4 whilst on holiday and when I got home I saw that there was a dent on the filter.

              It took some effort but I managed to get it off. Luckily, the threads on the lens were not damaged and I can still put on a CPL or ND filters. The threading on the UV filter, however, were damaged.

              So, it may not have saved the lens as you see it but if I didn’t have that filter on then my lens would no longer have been able to be used with filters. Since I user a CPL and ND filters a lot I would have had to buy a new lens.

              Now you have someone who says that a filter saved his lens and was able to prove it.

            • Patrick O’Connor

              You still can’t prove it. A dented filter with damaged threading doesn’t prove the lens would have been dented and unable to accept filters. Proof is difficult to come by which is why, in the U.S., we strive for proof “beyond a reasonable doubt” rather than absolute proof.

            • Eric Calabros

              Do you use the lens hood?

            • PhilK

              That’s actually a logical fallacy. Prove that you are not an alien sent from Quadnos to troll this thread. ๐Ÿ˜›

              The fact that you could not demonstrate what caused your tire to blowout on the highway does not mean that your tire did not blow out. Nor does it necessarily rule out a particular catalyst for such an event in the absence of a lot of data that, in the case of photographers with lenses subjected to usually damaging forces, usually cannot be obtained.

          • longzoom

            Situation, Gentlemen… Wind in desert, rain in mountains, splashes on the sea, shooting from choppers, so on, will destroy the front coating in seconds, doesn’t matter how that coating is hard. Dropping in not an argument, things happen.

            • Thom Hogan

              I’ve shot wind in desert, rain in mountains, splashes on the sea, shooting from choppers, and shooting near an active volcano. The last one is the only one that I know of that will damage (not destroy) the front coating on most current lenses.

              That said, I will use a filter when I know things are coming at the lens, if possible.

              Apparently a number of you forget my motorcycle shots from several years ago with the 14-24mm, where by the time I was done shooting, the bottom of the built-in lens hood was holding a inch or so of debris. If those direct strikes didn’t damage the coating, it takes something quite dramatic to do so.

              I’ll remind folk about where the “always use a protective filter” came from: camera salesmen. The average discount a dealer gets on a lens from the maker is 15-20%. The discount a dealer gets on a filter can be as high as 90%. It’s a way to build a better margin on what you sold. In fact, so good, that I remember a lot of dealers would say something like “if you buy a filter to protect that lens, I’ll give you 20% off the price of the filter.” Of course they would. Their average gross margin still went up.

            • PhilK

              I’m one of those former camera salespeople and I still put expensive filters on all my lenses by default. Not overpriced ripoff filters that the scheisters on 47th St. in NYC try to sell you, but stuff that costs a lot more at wholesale and so you cannot buy for $10.

              I don’t have any particular illusion that if I drop a lens off a cliff the filter will save it, but it most certainly saves the front element from all sorts of airborne crap that I won’t have to constantly sand off the front of that front element.

              Also, it’s a well-known fact that a lens can have all sorts of dust and debris inside of it that (as all the ebay sellers intone) “doesn’t affect picture quality”. But there’s a reason that manufacturers don’t have a habit of shipping lenses with a lot of dust inside of them or bubbles in the glass: it DOES affect the picture-quality, though not perhaps always in ways that Joe Snapshooter will notice in his latest selfie.

            • Thom Hogan

              Your argument is basically “I’ll settle for some level of poorer results all the time rather than cleaning my lenses.” (Of course, you have to clean your filters ;~)

              Okay, I understand that. But I’ve never really had any trouble keeping the front elements of my lenses clean, and I use them in some of the nastiest and harshest environments for water, dust, mud, and so on.

              Back in the film era lens coatings were often very soft and easily marred. Not so much these days. I’ve never damaged a front element of a modern digital era lens with correct cleaning.

            • PhilK

              As I said, if I have a particular scenario where I think I want to get the last 1% of performance out of the lens, I sometimes take the filter off. But most of the time I don’t find that necessary.

              If the poorer results were clearly and consistently visible, that would be a different matter. But with a good quality filter, I haven’t found the tradeoff to be very significant except once in a blue-moon, like in some backlit scenarios.

              Also, the older I get and the worse my eyesight gets, I am being forced to become a bit more circumspect about some of these things. I also used to carry 800 lbs of equipment around with me all the time, “just in case” I might need some particular item, but eventually discovered that the drudgery of dealing with all that baggage all the time resulted in a lot fewer pics being shot than I would have without having to carry it all around. I see this as a not too dissimilar form of pragmatism. ๐Ÿ˜‰

        • Deryk

          I use filters to keep crap of the lens, not to protect it from bangs and such. I have OCD, and if I have an exposed lens I will probably clean it more so than I should, thus probably damaging it .B+W filters are superb and do not degrade quality in any noticeable way–of course, I use high quality prime lenses.

          • PhilK

            Same here. I would much rather have a tiny image degradation in the few situations where that might be truly apparent, than a lens that is constantly attracting junk, water spray and so on, that I WILL eventually degrade the coating of the front element by constantly having to rub it with something to clean it.

            If I’m taking a particularly critical shot, particularly if on a tripod and shooting in the sun, sometimes I take the (high quality Nikon L37c or B&W multiresistant coated) filter off. But I feel OCD even for doing that.

            If I screw up the filter by cleaning it, I can just replace it.

      • Wesley

        Stack two & three of the same filter and you can tell more easily on the IQ loss.

        I’d be more worried about the lens internals if the filter was able to be broken.

    • Bob Thane

      Haha, yep – they give it away for free and still have to pay you to take it. Shameful. ๐Ÿ˜›

    • T.I.M

      $10,000.00 Nikon telephotos have a front NC filter to protect, they are still sharp !
      I have Nikon NC filters on all my primes, make it easier to clean and protect the coating.

      • catinhat

        Next time I’ll use emoticons or something… The comment was made in jest and intended as a joke. Obviously no one forces one to use or not to use filters, except it is absurd (or beyond) to give you something extra to be able to discount merchandise which probably doesn’t sell that well at MSRP. Personally I’m not against filters, and agree with your comment about cleaning.

        • preston

          I think it would have more clearly a joke if you had left off the second sentence (and definitely less divisive!). Shouldn’t need to explain the punchline.

        • T.I.M

          I believe the offer with filter is made because they can’t discount the lens by itself without getting in troubles.
          For example Nikon will say: Ok, you can do a $200 discount on the 24-70mm but only if sold with an other photo item.

          • PhilK

            Quite possible.

  • Scott

    Tax eats $140 of the savings (for me).

  • fanboy fagz

    no wonder the price drop. its not selling. $2400. thats quite a jump from the $1800 of the nonVR. you get the tamron 24-70 2.8VC and 15-30 2,8VC for the same price. and they are no slouches.

    • Aldo

      The used ones (non vr) in Craigslist LA are 1000-1300… That’s before haggling *(if you are into that) … 1k for VR? Idk if it’s worth it.

      • dclivejazz

        Eventually these will start showing up used and the upgrade for VR might be worth it. Tough to say. All in all, with the lack of IQ improvement, larger size and jacked up price, this lens rollout was a big disappointment, especially acute since this was something I really looked forward to.

        At least its snappy AF performance on the D5 at our local D5/D500 demo tonight was very impressive (the D5 and D500 seemed fabulous too).

        • Eric Calabros

          There is clearly IQ improvement, non-vr is horribly soft at corners. I think it’s the non-vr that doesn’t worth $1800.

          • Aldo

            Owned and used the lens for a few years… the only ‘softness’ I noticed was at 2.8 past the 55mm mark…. otherwise it is excellent. Corners were fine… especially when you compare it to competitors.

            • Eric Calabros

              Only past the 55mm, huh?

            • Aldo

              yeah… but it fixed itself at 3.5

            • Aldo

              Idk what to tell you man… this isn’t real world photography. As I stated the lens performs fantastic under 55mm… there is also a corner crop here. Picture is at f2.8 48mm (35 LR sharpness on the slider). There is a difference between ‘corners’ and ‘edges’. As I said the old one performs excellent… and if you need the best corners possible… well you may as well just get a prime… but the old one is just right on the edges… perfect for group shots. The improvements of the new one optically are negligible imo. I’ll see If I can dig you up another sample… It’s been a while since I used the lens.

            • Eric Calabros

              Why this girl is so beautiful?

        • fanboy fagz

          well sure. it should be a bit faster but the older one is no slouch. even my 28-70 2.8 is very fast. and I use the center point always so no tracking. I lock>recompose and thats on the dance floor as well in weddings. no issue at all.

        • Nikoniser

          I own the old 24-70. There are a few things I have never thought about it. I have never thought :

          I wish the autofocus was faster.
          I wish it had VR
          I wish it was bigger and heavier.
          I wish the corners were sharper ( if you are putting a point of interest in the corners, you have failed compositionally. )
          I wish it was softer in the centre.

          I often think,
          I wish it was smaller and lighter,
          I wish it was sharper at 70mm and at f2.8 ( optimum portrait setting )
          I wish it had less CA

          Nikon has basically failed to give me anything I want, and has in fact given me the opposite of what I wanted.

          No sale.

          • Aldo

            I’m with you except.. I did wish It had VR

      • fanboy fagz

        damn thats low. good to know.

      • Patrick O’Connor

        1000-1300 for VR AND a warranty.

      • PhilK

        Never seen anything in remotely decent condition for ~$1000. Certainly not as asking price. I’m just a few hundred miles north of you.

        • Aldo

          There are plenty right now… try searching ‘nearby’ areas.

    • Carleton Foxx

      I have had the old 24-70 a long time and the only problem with mine is that after almost 10 years something in the autofocus system is starting to squeak.

      • fanboy fagz
        • Carleton Foxx

          Are we talking about the white nylon roller that looks cracked? That doesn’t look good.
          I was waiting till the end of a big assignment to send mine in; I think I’ll head down to FedEx first thing tomorrow.
          Unfortunately, I’m in the U.S. so I can’t send it to Taiwan, but I’ve had good luck with United Camera and so-so luck with Nikon in the past. Any votes one way or the other?

        • PhilK

          Gahh… look at that ridiculous bunch of circuit boards….

          I would have hoped that they would have addressed that in the new version, but the size/weight of it doesn’t make that seem so likely.

          EDIT: Oh whoops, I see that’s the 28-70. Perhaps that’s worse than the 24-70 because of its age then.

          • fanboy fagz

            it was the first gen with the piezo type motor.

      • fanboy fagz

        a squeak is the beginning of the end of the motor. I used nrc in taiwan. this guy

        http://nikonrumors.com/2013/06/22/amazing-restoration-of-old-nikon-lenses.aspx/

    • Justtakethepicture

      How do you know it’s not selling?

      • fanboy fagz

        I dont think many would pay $2400 for that lens. when you have a product in demand, theres no need to lower the price. but how do u know it is? judging by their last quarter revenue report, they arent doing well. thats just my opinion. you can prove me wrong…

        • Justtakethepicture

          The price isn’t really a concern for a professional photographer who writes it off their tax bill. This is a pro lens, and will be an automatic purchase for many. As long as the lens has good enough image quality (which it does), pros are more interested in reliability, handling and toughness. I doubt they are having trouble selling them.

          The only people I’ve see moaning about this lens are enthusiasts and amateurs.

          • PhilK

            There is no reason to promote it if it is selling in the quantities they want to sell it in. Period.

            Your shareholders would crucify you if you lowered prices simply because you thought it would be a nice charitable thing to do, on products that were such hot-sellers you couldn’t make them fast enough to keep up with the demand even at the old price.

            • Justtakethepicture

              Nikon haven’t lowered the price. What are you talking about?

            • PhilK

              If Amazon is selling it for less money then either they are risking their resale status with Nikon by doing so, or Nikon lowered the price and Amazon is (as is often the case) the first to reflect that.

              I will speculate that within a week, either Amazon will raise their price again, or other retailers will follow suit with a lower price. Let’s see which it is.

            • Justtakethepicture

              None of that reply makes any difference to your original comment, which implied Nikon lowered the price due to insufficient sales. Pure fantasy on your part. As for B&H offering a discount, do I really need to explain how that’s nothing to do with Nikon?

            • Aldo

              You need the manufacturer’s approval to lower the advertised list price (if you are a nikon usa affiliated seller)… So nikon did lower the price.. even if it’s indirectly. Companies like bh sometimes get around this by giving you ‘free’ stuff on the prices they can’t lower. Lack of sales may be speculation, but it is an educated guess… nikon seldom gives straight discounts on lenses… especially new ones.

          • NicP

            What you mean by write it off their tax bill? Are they going to get their money back? It will be an automatic purchase for just a few as it seems, because not only is an expensive lens without being much greater than predecessor, but also bigger and heavier than other models at same focal lengths.

            • Justtakethepicture

              You don’t get it, do you? It doesn’t have to be much greater for a pro to buy it. As for writing it off, yes, in effect they will get their money back. Let’s not even get into the fact that one good job would pay for this lens several times over.

              But please, what else have you got?

            • NicP

              Sorry Sir I dont get it, Im a photographer Im not into economics, please tell me how I can do the same for my other lenses as you state above: “As for writing it off, yes, in effect they will get their money back”, or maybe I should learn economics first. As for your last statement you know that a photographer has to pay whole lot of other things than lenses right? From your writing seems that you think all photographers have studios with seventy employees.

            • Justtakethepicture

              How much you can write of your tax depends on where you live, but I can write off 100% of the cost of my photography kit. If you can’t, you should get an/another account.

  • Doug Laurent

    Compared with the performance of the Canon and Tamron equivalents and looking at the wide open sharpness of this new Nikkor, it should be 1000 bucks cheaper. That’s a pity, because the new 200-500 is great for its value and price. Sigma seems to have a homerun with every new lens release, Nikon doesn’t seem to be able to accomplish that. I wonder why that’s not possible when you have 8 years available for improving a product optically.

    • JJ168

      “Compared with the performance of the Canon and Tamron equivalents and looking at the wide open sharpness of this new Nikkor, it should be 1000 bucks cheaper…”

      I wonder what performance are you referring to. Lensrental tested 10 copies and his test shows that sharpness across the frame destroy the latest canon and tamron (with similar or slight decrease in the corner compare to 2470G).

      • Doug Laurent

        As i might cite Roger Cicala from Lensrentals: “if you want the absolute best center resolution at the mid and wider
        ends of the lens, then you probably don’t want the new Nikon 24-70 f/2.8
        VR. And it also tells you that this lens has been designed to be about
        things other than absolute resolution.” I can’t read where this lens “destroys” the Canon and Tamron in any way!

        Lensrentals gave the most friendly review of more than 10 reviews i have read about this lens who all claim the same – and it’s by a company who might have bought a lot of these 24-70s and needs to do business with it and can’t be too harsh.

        Other than that, I own all Canon, Tamron and Nikon 24-70 lenses myself, and unfortunately aside from stabilization, I have seen myself that the new Nikon is the weakest wide open. It’s okay, but not worth that much money. If you release a new 24-70 for the next 4-8 years and resolutions of 36MP+, it better be a milestone – and this lens isn’t.

        • Eric Calabros

          They could make a milestone, but it would be $4000. Since their customers are already whining about $2400, its pretty understandable that they are not in milestone making business.

          • Doug Laurent

            It’s weaker than the Tamron who costs just 40% and is out since a few years. At least it should be on par qualitywise – or it should cost less.

            • Mike

              Most people here regurgitating reviews and other sound bites have likely never actually used this lens in the field. It’s sharp across the frame. There are other intangibles that are not measured in these reviews. I guarantee the Nikon is at least 2x faster to AF than the Tamron. I used to have it and was frustrated by its AF. I haven’t missed a shot yet like I did with the Tamron. Secondly, I don’t often shoot (people) dead centre. Bottom, top, L & R of the frame is where I often compose PJ type wedding scenes. The Nikon is very strong here when composing off centre.

              The only thing about this lens that is middle frustrating is the VR. It seems to exhibit the same characteristic as the Tamron. At 1/20 -> 1/80 shutter speed there must be a frequency of mirror slap that VR systems don’t like or can’t handle with this type of lens. With proper technique I actually get crisper images hand held without VR at these speeds. Slower…. absolutely the VR is stellar. Faster, and it’s not really needed. My 70-200 f/4 VR doesn’t do this and it’s excellent at all shutter speeds.

              But having used the Tamron for a few years, it’s good, but the speed of AF alone is worth the upgrade to the new Nikon.

            • VanHoff

              So you prefer to carry a heavy lens and to pay a lot more just for the fact of af speed? What are you planning to photograph with a 24-70? Formula 1 races?

            • silmasan

              How about something more common and yet just as dynamic as (if not more so than) F1 cars, like… kids?

            • VanHoff

              AF accuracy is a lot more important, where can I see your comparison on af accuracy between the 3 24-70?

            • silmasan

              Why do you ask me? Where can I see yours, since you proposed that.

              Not meaning to offend (if you had the Tamron) at all, but generally for AF speed, reliability etc I won’t use 3rd party lens and would stick to known fast Nikon glasses (or Canon if I’m shooting on one) like the 70-200.

              Anyway photographing kids (not posed) require both speed and accuracy, of course.

            • VanHoff

              I think that with a 24-85 you’ll be ok to deliver nice pictures of kids playing all day Long ๐Ÿ˜‰

            • silmasan

              Yes, I’ve done just that. ๐Ÿ™‚ The original AF-S 24-85 is actually quite fast. Haven’t tried the VR version. I think best value overall is still a mint 24-70 AF-S if you’re shooting professionally (kids or grownups).

            • Mike

              Weddings. I don’t mean tracking. My old 50 1.4G was slow as a glacier but it was accurate and it could keep up with people walking towards me. I mean quickly going from near and far extremes. I shoot a lot of weddings and it’s the getting ready part of the day or the reception (or even at the ceremony) where there can be something significant happening behind or in front of where my focus is at. Seeing that something is about to happen and quickly attaining focus there yields far more keepers with the new Nikon than I ever got with the Tamron. Yes, timing is everything but having technology keep up with your brain is important too.

            • PhilK

              Which bodies are you using where you see that issue at 1/20-1/80? I wonder if the bodies with more mass (eg D4 series) would be less of a problem, or bodies with less mirror-slap (eg D810 vs D800) would be better here.

            • Mike

              D750 & D810. But my style of shooting with that lens (and 24-70) is to have a faster shutter speed anyway. Shooting people without flash I always try a minimum of 1/125 anyway. With flash I will go as low as 1/15 and rear sync (usually for creative effect). I typically will use VR for slower than 1/20, hand held, no people. Or drag long enough to remove people from a scene. Slower and it’s tripod (which I hardly use [never] at weddings).

            • PhilK

              Thanks. Isn’t it true that the D750 is noiser/more mirror slap than the D810? Along with the lighter body, I’d imagine that might be the one with the biggest issue in that respect.

  • Adnan

    Slightly expensive for a medium wide/tele zoom but the VR3 is great.
    Price will drop at some point ๐Ÿ™‚

    • Eledeuh

      > Slightly expensive for a medium wide/tele zoom

      Compared to what ? This is not a 18-55 lens, and its focal range is typically tough to pull-out (as can be observed in the performance and design/size of other lenses in that range).

      I don’t know if it’s worth its current price, but it’s absolutely no slouch either.

      • Adnan

        Compared to 200-500mm and now being with a DX lens, last time I checked it was the “holy trinity” member.
        People who need this focal range have and will buy it.

        • outkasted

          but that’s just it. Many are NOT buying it. Say what you want but if a new pro lens comes out it should always be better in a way that makes people who have the previous lens want to upgrade. Why can’t Nikon figure this out. Sharpness should have been better, the lens needed to incorporate Fl glass to make it lighter especially since you are putting in VR!…Why can’t Nikon understand people want or need more incentive. I mean I currently am embarking on purchasing a 600mm/f4 and yerss the 200-500mm/5.6 does look good but the difference is night and day in some aspects if not all. However with FL glass Nikon achieved sharpness which is on par with previous model 600mm/f4…but i’m willing to pay extra for new and lighter tech. NOW that’s incentive!

          • Eric Calabros

            FL is not a magic pill, and can’t benefit any lens

            • outkasted

              Lighter is as lighter does ๐Ÿ™‚

            • PhilK

              Actually I don’t recall FL being used on anything but long lenses. There are also some downsides to it, like temperature-based expansion and so on.

              In the old days that was one of the reasons Nikon probably didn’t bother, back in the MF era we expected lenses to have calibrated “infinity stops”, which you couldn’t do with an FL lens because of the temperature instability.

              (And Canon may have had a patent on the artificial fluorite crystal production process as well, not sure)

              But there are lots of fancy techniques and glasses other than FL that can be used to increase lens performance, depending on the tradeoffs you are willing to make. (See: Otus)

            • outkasted

              thanks for the schoolin’ ๐Ÿ™‚

          • Justtakethepicture

            When you say many are not buying it, where are you getting that info, forum anecdotes?

    • outkasted

      It has to. With a lens that has sacrificed sharpness compared to other lens it does not cause anyone wanting to upgrade. Nikon should have also put FL Glass in this beast. I dunno its like Nikon is its own worse enemy often shooting itself in the foot.

      • HF

        Sharpness at MFD, medium or large distance? Sharpness in the center or also close to the borders? Reviews and user reports seem to indicate, that it performs much better towards the APSC-crop border and edges. So if you put your subject off center, it seems to perform better. But judgment is difficult as often different distances are tested.

        • outkasted

          I’ve also some of the test picture samples….they look flat!

      • Justtakethepicture

        Why should they have put FL glass in it exactly?

        • outkasted

          lighter weight

          • Justtakethepicture

            There’s no guarantee there would have been much weight difference, and FL is known to cause design problems in areas such as bokeh. Just because a new technology exists, doesn’t mean it’s applicable to all future products.

            • outkasted

              ah ok …schooled me. So maybe that 600mm fl may not be the cats meow

            • PhilK

              FL is a very good tech in a long lens, it helps get very very high chromatic aberration correction. The MTF curves on the Nikon FL teles are scarily flat as a ruler..

  • Thom Hogan

    Looks like another round of the big boys trying to figure out how to get around MAP when something doesn’t sell. I’m not sure this one passes the test, though. My understanding is that, yes, you can bundle to add value, but you can’t undercut the MAP without violating the agreement.

    Put another way: if you’re really interested in this, I’d jump on it fast. If enough dealers complain to NikonUSA, Amazon is likely going to have to backtrack.

    • Eric Calabros

      How rebates work then?

      • Thom Hogan

        Not sure what you mean. Rebates are endorsed by NikonUSA and provided to all compliant dealers. In essence, the MAP is essentially reduced (though generally NikonUSA insists on the form “US$X dollars less US$Y instant rebate”).

        A few big dealers tried their own rebate system (e.g. “US$X dollars less US$Y Company Z rebate”), but that form was rejected by NikonUSA after dealer complaint. The current allowed practice is for a dealer to be able to provide a credit towards a future purchase, but to not list that as a change to the cost (e.g. B&H’s 4% Reward).

    • doge

      Except this is being sold by Nikon, not by Amazon.

      • nwcs

        Actually if you look at the listing “Sold by Service Photo, Inc. and Fulfilled by Amazon.”

        • Strange, I see: โ€œShips from and sold by Amazon.comโ€

          • nwcs

            Interesting. I clicked on the link again and it said sold by K&M Camera. If I click the second option it now says “Ships from and sold by Amazon.com.” What that tells me is that it’s probably being fulfilled by whoever the “sold by” is on the non-deal offer to Amazon who then bundles it further. Or the Sold By agent is doing the whole thing and that can change based on who is selling it when you click the link.

          • nwcs

            Did some looking. At https://vendorexpress.amazon.com/ you can sell items directly to Amazon for Amazon to sell. So I suspect that a vendor has sold some lenses to Amazon and so Amazon is bundling them together. Since Amazon itself isn’t a dealer affiliated with Nikon they may be able to get around the MAP.

            • I try to avoid third party sellers on Amazon.

            • PhilK

              I agree but you can’t always do that. One of my biggest annoyances with Amazon is that if I want to re-order something from a reseller I had a great experience with buying a product from in the past via Amazon, oftentimes they aren’t an option at the time I try to re-order it.

              I got a very nice deal and an overall fabulous experience with a used D700 from a dealer across the country that sold via Amazon. Tho I called them up and discussed it with them prior to “pulling the trigger”. 100% happy.

          • PhilK

            I think Amazon changes the default reseller on a lot of items on practically a second-by-second basis. And they are also known to game their system depending on who is logged-on shopping.

        • doge

          Where do you see that? When I go to the link it says it’s being sold by Nikon.

  • George T

    I’ve seen this for a few weeks, but still too expensive to pull the trigger.

    • VanHoff

      The sad thing is even if the price drops with the upcoming months/years, its quality will never be the benchmark what all of us were expecting from the begining….

  • DikkeMurmeln

    Still mediocre and gets it’s azz handed by the 1 k Tamron

  • nicolaie

    This lens is 3000 dollars regular price in my country. Nikon is f#cking crazy and they will go bankrupt. A 14-24 is 2500 list price, 70-200 VR2 is 3000, a bloody 70-200 f/4 VR is almost 2000 US dollars.

  • NicP

    Nikon must release a lighter smaller better Non VR 24-70 ASAP. Dont mind if the price is same as VR version as long as it covers the above.

  • Back to top