Does anyone know if and when Nikon is going to release a 24-70 F2.8 VR2?? to equal Canon's
Nikon 24-70 VR 2
(24 posts) (12 voices)-
Posted 1 year ago #
-
Subject of many threads. As far as I know, nobody really knows. I think we've all agreed that adding VR would likely increase weight as well as price and it's already a weighty lens. I must admit though, I've considered selling my 24-70mm f/2.8 and buying the 24-120mm VR as a walk around. With the extra cash I could put toward a full frame camera since I have a 35mm 1.8, 50mm 1.4, and the Nikon 105mm VR Micro that I could use as portrait lenses.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Canon's new 24-70 does not have image stabilization, so it wouldn't be an equal. I am waiting to see how Tamron's upcoming 24-70mm f/2.8 VC performs. If those turn out to be adequately sharp, I will certainly pick up one of those personally.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Great, thanks..
Posted 1 year ago # -
I was going to buy a 24-70 f/2.8 the other day but I have a feeling that there will be an update to the current one this year or perhaps next.
That's fine but judging by the new Canon 24-70, my concern is that the new Nikon one will be smaller and a tad lighter which means I'd rather have the new one instead.So now I'm not really sure what to get in the mean time..?
I bought an old 28-105 macro off eBay which I got duped on, the zoom ring sticks and it won't go to f/3.5 when at 28mm, so I really want something newer until the new 24-70 comes out.
Any ideas?
Thanks :)
Posted 1 year ago # -
elbeasto said:
I bought an old 28-105 macro off eBay which I got duped on, the zoom ring sticks and it won't go to f/3.5 when at 28mm, so I really want something newer until the new 24-70 comes out.
Is it in macro mode by any chance? If so that might cause the problem you are having (although if macro mode is turned on you cannot zoom wider than 50mm).
Posted 1 year ago # -
Nah, it won't go wider than 50mm if it's in macro mode.
I thought it may have been at setting to begin with as well but no, the lens is just stuffed.The focal length in EXIF data reports 75mm no matter what focal length you're shooting at too, so it's a bit of a pain to work with on all fronts.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Mmmm.... I bought the 24-120mm f/4 VR because of the non VR of the 24-70. One f/stop would not seem enough to justify the new lens.... maybe an f/2? But with the better sensor on the new bodies, a slightly higher ISO is possible and the need for one f/stop is ???
Check this out for the 24-120, a full size, and one might see why the 24-70 VR will never make it.http://www.flickr.com/photos/fantinesfotos/7014984231/sizes/o/in/photostream/
Posted 1 year ago # -
-
sevencrossing said:
Me too, but with the D800 for maximum IQ I want to shoot at ISO 100 so an f2.8 mid range zoom with VR would be nice( yes, I know, I should stop down to f8 and use a tripod )
Awww, come on.....go to ISO 200..... ha, ha, ha..... you must be trying to whip up on those Hassy shooters, huh, sevencrossing?
Posted 1 year ago # -
Any more news on this?
I'm ready to just pull the trigger on a 24-70 now, I only have a 50 Prime at the moment so I'm really needing something more versatile.I don't really care about VR and I seriously doubt the replacement will have VR anyway.
So yeah, I'm preparing for some extra weight in the camera bag! :DPosted 1 year ago # -
I don't think they will although a refresh might be due eventually as the 24-70 came out in 2007? Usually the lifespan for nikon's mid range zoom is about 7-9 years. A 24-70mm 2.8 with VR would be insanely expensive I can assure you that. They might drop it to an F4 lens, which I wouldn't be interested in. If your on the fence right now, I'd just spring for the 24-70mm like I am going to do come July. I have had three of them, but have sold them or traded them in. When I obtain one again this July I will be keeping it a long time as its a truely fantastic lens...
Posted 1 year ago # -
+1 Kanuk - most of Nikon's lenses get a 7-9 year span before updates. The current 24-70mm still outperforms anything out there, so I doubt they will updated it anytime soon.
Love the lens, but I'm not a fan of that focal length on DX if I need wider than 24mm (35mm eqv.) I added a 12-24mm to handle the wide stuff.
The 24-120mm f/4 VR is a great option if you want a bit longer.Posted 1 year ago # -
Tamron & Canon 24-70 both use 82mm filter!!
It's hopeless for Nikon 24-70 2.8 VR, may be it will 82mm filter too.
PS. Look at the Tamron & Canon price it's very scary and I think Nikon will not cheaper!!! :P
Posted 1 year ago # -
-
I am wondering exactly what would be the advantage of a 24-70mm VR? The VR issue is covered by 16-35mm, 24-120mm. The 24-70mm f/2.8 is already a very sharp lens. Why would NIKON produce another $2500 lens, when the coverage of the lenses in production is so excellent already? And, as sevencrossing has pointed out, the primes are 1.4 and of course 1.8 in the latest 85mm. So, I suppose there may be some reason, but as I happen to have the two VRs mentioned, my expansion is in the PC area.
Am I missing something?
Posted 1 year ago # -
elbeasto said:
I was going to buy a 24-70 f/2.8 the other day but I have a feeling that there will be an update to the current one this year or perhaps next.
That's fine but judging by the new Canon 24-70, my concern is that the new Nikon one will be smaller and a tad lighter which means I'd rather have the new one instead.So now I'm not really sure what to get in the mean time..?
I bought an old 28-105 macro off eBay which I got duped on, the zoom ring sticks and it won't go to f/3.5 when at 28mm, so I really want something newer until the new 24-70 comes out.
Any ideas?
Thanks :)
Ebay has made significant changes, and a buyer should never get stuck with a lens that is broken. You are able to return the lens, even if the seller does not accept returns. Pay-Pal is also very helpful, and between the two you should get a full refund. Your welcome to PM me if you need help doing so. Always send a returned item with delivery confirmation/tracking, after you get the go-ahead from Ebay/Pay-Pal.
OK, back to the thread. The 24-70 kicks butt if that's the lens you're looking for. I couldn't imagine it with VR, because that lens is already a brick. I would hate for Nikon to sacrifice build quality (more plastic) to fit it with VR.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Thanks Frankie & yep, PayPal found in my favour in a dispute over that lens, just waiting on my money. Makes me feel a whole lot better about eBay but it does seem to attract people trying to get money for their junk rather than just throwing it out.
On the 24-70, the 24-70 has been out for what? 5 years now?
Posted 1 year ago # -
Ebay's working on that. It seems that a lot of the changes they have made is geared towards making the buyer happy, and chased away the scammers and flaky sellers. I think they are trying to compete with Amazon and have more newer items, instead of being a virtual flea-market.
Yes, the 24-70 has been around for about 5 years, but as a member of the holy trinity, I'm curious to see how much more they can improve upon an already great lens. There are probably other lenses in the FX line that need improving, or replacing. I would never let the age of a lens put me off from a purchase. I have the discontinued 70-180 zoom, and it's great. The long discontinued Nocturn is a legend, and many of the older film MF lenses are a wonderful deal and the quality and craftsmanship is missing from some of the newer and more expensive modern lenses.
I bought a 24-70 recently and it's a great addition to anyone's kit, the build quality is superb, and it, along with the 70-200, for my needs, are the most practical of the holy trinity. As often stated, renting one might be the way to go before dropping serious coin on one of these, or if you decide to just go for it, you wouldn't lose very much selling a slightly used copy.
Posted 1 year ago # -
I agree Frankie, I've only tried out the 24-70 once in a camera shop but I used my own camera & CF card. The files were very impressive & while it is an expensive lens, it's just so good optically, so well built and so versatile that I think it's worth it.
Another option I considered was the 16-35 F4 VR, amazingly sharp in the middle but the distortion I found to be a little much. Also, said lens in Australia is around $1750, if it were priced fairly at around $1100-$1200 the decision would be a lot harder.
Rant:
Alas, I live in Australia and Nikon Au pricing is just rude, our dollar is stronger than the USD yet we always are charged literately hundreds more and in some cases around $1000!!! The 17-35 f/2.8 comes to mind, an unbelievable gouge in this country. Not only are we paying so much extra but the warranty we get is one year not 5 like the states & Canada too I believe.I've almost changed systems a number of times, not because Canon gouge any less here but because their pricing is lower to begin with. There's like $300-$500 difference between every Canon lens equivalent.
Sorry to go on about this but it's such an issue here & it never improves.
\RantPosted 1 year ago # -
elbeasto, I have some good friends who live in Perth, and I am shocked when they tell me how much stuff costs in the land down under. They travel stateside yearly, and they get much of their shopping done while they are here, and the exchange rate works in their favor. If you're too busy to visit, you're welcome to buy me a round trip ticket and any camera gear you want me to bring you! ;)
Posted 1 year ago # -
Thats correct sevencrossing the updated 24-120 VR is the ticket Nikon thinks anyways. I hear there will be a 70-200mm VR F4 like Canons this summer with the D600 release. That might be useful. The 24-70 is already excellent though. If it wasn't great on the new D800 cameras then there would be a problem, and a call for a refresh earlier than necessary but thats just not the case.
Posted 1 year ago # -
I have been bouncing back and forth between the 24-120 and the 24-70 for a while now as to which to buy. I have had the cahnce to rent both lenses and shoot them side by side and I will say that as of right now, I will definitley be buying the 24-120 over the 24-70. The lack of vibration reduction cost me on several photo shoots since I had shots that ended up having motion blur in them that the 24-120 would not have had. Some of the shots I lost were actually some of the best shots and now are unusble as a result of the motion blur that I didn't see in the camera monnitor. I will also be getting the 16-35 over the 14-24 for the same reason. One stop isn't going to effect me. If I get into lower light situations, that is what my tripod is for. I have seen the results of my D800 with an average grade lens (the 70-300 ED f4.5-5.6 VRII) on it mounted on a tripod getting better and sharper shots than almost any of my handhled shots with the 24-70. To me, and this is my opnion, the extra $700 for the 24-70 and not getting the VR and gainging one stop isn't worth the money.
Posted 1 year ago #
Reply
You must log in to post.
