Comparing the new Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8E ED VR to the old 24-70mm and the 24-120mm lenses

Nikon 24-120mm f:4G ED VR vs. 24-70mm f:2.8E ED VR lens
Nikon 24-120mm f:4G ED VR vs. 24-70mm f:2.8E ED VR lens 2
Foto-info.si published a comparison with sample images between the old Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8G ED and the new 24-70mm f/2.8E ED VR lens. Here are some of the tests:


Comparison between Nikon AF-S 24-70mm f2.8G and Nikon AF-S 24-70mm f2.8VR
Nikon 24-120mm f:4 vs. 24-70mm f:2.8E lens
Check out also this comparison between the Nikon 24-120mm f/4G ED VR and the new 24-70mm f/2.8E ED VR lens:

DSC_0388-2-300x300 DSC_0468-2-300x300
Nikon 24-120mm f:4G ED VR vs 24-70mm f:2.8E ED VR lens
I will have a complete review of the new Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8E ED VR lens next week.

This entry was posted in Nikon Lenses and tagged . Bookmark the permalink. Trackbacks are closed, but you can post a comment.
  • true

    Less sharpness in close-ups than older model? Lol, so even more reason to get a different lens (like tamron hehe) instead

    • Patrick O’Connor

      It looked sharper to me but maybe that was due to the lack of CR!? So following your reasoning, since a Bugatti is slightly faster than a Ferrari, I should buy a 1974 Pinto?? 😉

      • true

        porsche > ferrari all the way imo

        on the site which was linked, he shot the films with both new and older lens, and the older looked sharper / didn’t have slight “blur” the newer one had

        Though the CA is much better on the newer one. Though then again, barrel distortion looks higher on newer.

        • Patrick O’Connor

          I didn’t go to the link. I just looked at the blinds. Personally, and this might sound counterintuitive, I prefer the photographer’s impressions over photos since a lot of unknown variables go into a photo but impressions are based on all the photos and the user experience.
          IMO, driving a Porsche is kinda like shooting with a Fuji camera: it’s a lot of fun but you don’t want your friends to see you doing it.

          • true

            “I compared photos of small objects shoot from a distance of approx. 60-70 cm. As I mentioned in the previous tests, Nikon AF-S 24-70 f2.8 VR is less sharp for cose-ups. This is also obvious in compare with Nikon AF-S 24-70 f2.8 G lens. Below are the test pictures, where it is clear that the old version of the lens mk.1 from 2007 is sharper at all focal lengths.” That was the impression he gave

            Why would you diss porsche / compare it to fuji when your initial comparison was comparing bugatti and ferrari (which I both despise) to a pinto? Imo porsche is much better than either of those two super car makers, also much more durable than ferrari.

            • Patrick O’Connor

              Well, I’ll look at his, and other, reviews and maybe buy one or the other. I don’t have a 24-70 right now and can’t decide if I would use it that much or not. Your comment made me look closely at the blinds and respond from my observation.

              I wouldn’t own a Porsche for just one of the same reasons I wouldn’t own a Fuji: while I have nothing against either product (not sure how anyone could “despise” an object), I despise the bulk of their adherents. Generally, they’re full of themselves. Have you ever heard the one about, “What’s the difference between a Porsche and a porcupine? A porcupine’s pricks are on the outside!”

            • true

              Porsche is a “supercar” made for going very fast @ the corners in a race track (you can be enthusiasts or pro racer to do this, own porsche or rent one for track), whilst ferrari / lambo / bugatti is made for middle eastern / monaco ppl to show their wealth among their own little circles. There’s a difference imo, and that’s why I despise the latter.

            • Patrick O’Connor

              Sounds like Nikon vs Canon to me! Each side is confident that his choice reflects his/her own quality, pleasant appearance and good breeding. 😉

            • true

              I don’t think it’s quite like that. Bugatti is not something you will take to the track and rev high rpm without worries. It’s more a status symbol than something to be enjoyed. You arrive @ parties with it, or leave it @ garage with your other exclusive car collection. But it’s not something I’d consider was made to be “driven”. Yeah it can accelerate fast on a straight line, but maybe I’m not into that sort of stuff and am more interested how well / agile / nimble a car is on the corners of street or track.

              Nikon / Canon do pretty much same thing and both share same strengths (fast action being one). I think porsche and luxury cars are different though. Yes porsche is more premium than opel or nissan, but most of the time it’s also a very good performer / good car to drive.

            • Patrick O’Connor

              My analogy was based on folks personalizing their choices, not any objective comparison.
              As for your point, if I had a Bugatti, a Ferrari, or even (bleah!) a Porsche, I’d drive it anywhere except to a party. I’m not much of a “people person.” 🙂

            • Jason Hermosa

              I don’t know about that. Porsche only has one supercar, the 918, and it costs $850k. That’s about 4 Ferrari 488GTs or about 4 Lamborghini Huracans. Seems like if there is a pissing contest for who has the most money, you would drive a Porsche to win that.

            • Patrick O’Connor

              Bugatti Veyron 16.4 – $1.5M

            • Jason Hermosa

              You just said ferrari and lambo in your previous comment, too. -_-

            • Patrick O’Connor

              I don’t really care about cars. It was just a convenient analogy for true’s original statement. In any case, I referred to a Bugatti and a Ferrari.

            • true

              Some exclusive / rare lambos or ferraris are similiarly prices though. Recent example might be LaFerrari. What I was trying to say though, is that porsche is generally more durable, needs less servicing, is more towards track usage than luxury car.

            • Ferrari’s counterpart for the 918 Porsche is the LaFerrari, 1.2 mil.
              The 488GTB equivalent is more like a Carrera GT2… Also more expensive. All Ferraris are more expensive than their correspondent Porsche counterparts and some by a considerable margin.

            • Patrick O’Connor

              Okay so I read his review. The film shots made the difference in close focus sharpness much more obvious than with the blinds. Personally, I wouldn’t worry about that since I would always use my macro lenses for such a situation but that’s not to excuse the difference for a newer, more expensive lens. The thing that surprised me was the vignetting from a lens that seemed built to avoid it (82mm filter threading).
              I’m still not considering the Pinto…er, I mean Tamron. 😉

            • true

              Tamron is better than the older one, cheaper than the older one, and probably very similar in performance as the newer Nikon. Not sure why you’re referring to it as Pinto.

            • Patrick O’Connor

              The Pinto reference was a joke.
              From what I’ve read, the consensus is, it’s slightly less sharp than the 24-70 G. Either way, the difference is slight.
              You’re a very serious person, aren’t you? :-/

            • true

              I just think nikon could be doing alot better job with their lenses. I’m grateful they made 300 PF, but other than that I don’t think I’ve seen them releasing much of quality lately. Most of their lenses (50 1.4 , 85 1.8) have too much CA, and the 16-35 I had had terrible terrible distortion. Sigma’s been doing better job lately and Tamron too. I just don’t think there’s convincing reason for them to be “premium” anymore with these distortion / CA filled in their lenses. Canon got it right with their 11-24 imo, most of the nasty stuff (especially the distortion) is fixed in-lens.

            • Patrick O’Connor

              1. Don’t sweat the small stuff.
              2. It’s all small stuff.

          • Once you drive a 911 you won’t care much whether you’re seen in it or not. You’ll have too much fun. Trust me.

            • Patrick O’Connor

              🙂

          • Once you drive a 911 you won’t care much whether you’re seen in it or not. You’ll have too much fun. Trust me.

    • Dan

      I tried the newer 24-70 in the store and immediately dumped my Tamron and the older 24-70. It is that much better. Faster and more accurate focus, better light transmission and color rendition. It is well worth the price!

      http://vigorotaku.blogspot.com/2015/10/nikon-24-70mm-f28-vr.html

      I hope that you find this helpful

  • lorenzo

    Pretty tough to see differences between photos when the subjects aren’t identical. I do believe the new 24-70 is better but can’t tell from here.

  • Jonathan P Soffa

    Interesting… old version looks sharper..

    • Jason Hermosa

      Seems like newer has less fringing, though.

      • Aldo

        if it is less sharp…. automatically has less fringing.

  • Lee Myers

    There is no way I would make a decision based on these photos.

    • true

      It’s possible that the tester has a bad copy of the VR lens (lensrentals had slighlt-off first copy of first 300PF too) , but it still doesn’t look too good if a newer/much more expensive lens cannot be superbly better / sharper in every way than something that is older/cheaper (especially if one adds the tamron to comparison, which is even much more cheaper)

  • verytoxic

    So, do I send the bill to Nikon if my new 24-70 injures my back?

    • Patrick O’Connor

      No. You sue your parents for siring a wimp.

  • Marcelo Tezza

    This is looking like another shoot on the foot…
    If it was meant for the videographers that barrel distorcion seems to be an issue. I will wait for the sigma, but the tamrom is tempting right now.

  • Mansgame

    I’ve owned the non-VR version for 3 years now and love it, but I won’t lie, if I was buying a new one today, I’d probably get the VR version since sometimes the VR is essential, even if you have a tripod (like low light shooting on a bridge that shakes or on a boat) . Then again, there is a big price difference too so for the next 3-5 years, I’m happy with the older one.

  • stormwatch

    Was this shot in Slovenia?

  • Ryan

    Seems like if you have or get either of these lenses, there isn’t enough difference to change to another. They are all great lenses and I’m not selling my 24-70 F2.8G in a hurry.

  • Aldo

    Interesting to see how the 24-120mm held up against the new trinity member…. Distortion on the f4 is pretty horrendous though.

  • mikeswitz

    we’re back to talking about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, and of course price per angel ;+}

    • Patrick O’Connor

      I think it really comes down to whether or not you want VR. That will determine if the angels can dance drunk without falling off the head. 🙂

  • nikon fan

    Those people below comparing sharpness of new and old 24-70 f/2.8’s to cars from Porsche to Ferrari to Lamborghini to Bugatti, even a Pinto., They don’t even had the chance to drive or even sit one… Laugh Out Loud

  • aseed

    i thought the old one was already too big… price and size increase, it is not going in the right way for me… and i was not a big fan of the old one, maybe i had a bad release but mine is not sharp at all in corner and even in the center it can compete with any fix lens…

  • Andy

    I do NOT buy zoom lens that telescope. They always have play in the barrel that drives me nuts.

  • Back to top