Nikon 24-70mm 2.8 with VR??? Do you think Nikon will ever introduce this lens with VR. Tamron offers it. But I would not compare Tamron glass to Nikon glass. If Sigma offers one with...

wsa111 Loc: Goose Creek, South Carolina

Do you think Nikon will ever introduce this lens with VR.
Tamron offers it.
But I would not compare Tamron glass to Nikon glass.
If Sigma offers one with OS, I might be tempted???
With VR the Nikon would put it in the high end carry lens.

MT Shooter Loc: Montana

wsa111 wrote:

Do you think Nikon will ever introduce this lens with VR.
Tamron offers it.
But I would not compare Tamron glass to Nikon glass.
If Sigma offers one with OS, I might be tempted???
With VR the Nikon would put it in the high end carry lens.

Stabilization offers little advantage in a wide angle fast lens. Tamron did it to seek a niche market. Don't expect anyone else to follow suit soon.

traveler90712 Loc: Lake Worth, Fl.

I would select the Tamron lens and here is why;

http://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Compare/Side-by-side/AF-S-Nikkor-24-70mm-f-2.8G-ED-on-Nikon-D800-versus-24-70mm-F2.8-IF-EX-DG-HSM-Nikon-on-Nikon-D800-versus-Tamron-SP-24-70mm-F28-Di-VC-USD-Nikon___175_792_300_792_885_0

$1300 at B&H for the Tamron.

kymarto Loc: Portland OR and Milan Italy

Of course it is useful in a wide lens! Nikon has it on the 16-35 for instance. It basically reduces movement 8x, allowing you to use 3 stops slower shutter speed for the same amount of blur. So let's say a 250mm lens, using the reciprocal rule, can be handheld at 1/250 without VR--with VR it is OK at 1/30. Now a 30mm lens is holdable with VR at 1/4. Also, it is brilliant with video. Nikon's 24-120 also has VR, so why not the 24-70? I guessNikon and Canon are both working on it...

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

The Tamron lens is very similar in performance to the Nikon. It uses a bigger filter, 82mm I believe, and it is heavier. But it is extremely well made. If I didn't already own the Nikon I would purchase the Tamron without hesitation, and use the extra money to buy another lens or accessory. :)

drmarty Loc: Pine City, NY

MT Shooter wrote:

Stabilization offers little advantage in a wide angle fast lens. Tamron did it to seek a niche market. Don't expect anyone else to follow suit soon.

I've used this lens for years and find it to be excellent. My concern with adding VR is an increase I weight for an already heavy lens. Not sure any benefit would be worth it.

RAK Loc: Concord Ca

Thanks!

MT Shooter Loc: Montana

kymarto wrote:

Of course it is useful in a wide lens! Nikon has it on the 16-35 for instance. It basically reduces movement 8x, allowing you to use 3 stops slower shutter speed for the same amount of blur. So let's say a 250mm lens, using the reciprocal rule, can be handheld at 1/250 without VR--with VR it is OK at 1/30. Now a 30mm lens is holdable with VR at 1/4. Also, it is brilliant with video. Nikon's 24-120 also has VR, so why not the 24-70? I guessNikon and Canon are both working on it...

The 24-120mm VR is NOT a fast lens, it is an F4 and the 6x zoom range can be beneficial at the long end of that lens.
True the 16-35mm F4 has VR, but it was added solely because its the first lens Nikon is marketing with the new VR III system which is sensitive enough to even counteract the mirror slap vibrations when the lens is used on a tripod for long exposures.
As I stated before, a "WIDE-ANGLE FAST LENS" benefits little from the addition of VR and it will suffer the consequences of the additional diameter and weight associated with that option added.
I personally choose to shoot with an older 70-200mm F2.8 without stabilization as I never need or use it on that lens and don't want to pack the extra weight it adds to that lens either. Going to 300mm it has benefits, as in my Sigma 120-300mm F2.8, I use it on that lens, and appreciate its benefits often.

RJNaylor Loc: Delmar, New York

One should not say categorically that VR does not help a fast lens at lower magnifications. Of course at f/2.8 you can have a higher shutter at a given light level but light levels vary and just because the lens will shoot at 2.8 does not mean you want a narrow dof.

Here is a quote from Photozone's review of the Nikon 16-35 "f/4The lens features optical stabilization (VR II) which Nikon claims allows for up to 4 stops slower shutter speeds. Actual results will vary depending on the photographer, of course. In our field tests up to three stops longer shutter times were easily possible at the long end and up to two stops at the short end of the focal range (given a steady subject)."

Also, one person might be able to hand hold a camera at 1/20, me not so well.

wsa111 Loc: Goose Creek, South Carolina

traveler90712 wrote:

I would select the Tamron lens and here is why;

http://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Compare/Side-by-side/AF-S-Nikkor-24-70mm-f-2.8G-ED-on-Nikon-D800-versus-24-70mm-F2.8-IF-EX-DG-HSM-Nikon-on-Nikon-D800-versus-Tamron-SP-24-70mm-F28-Di-VC-USD-Nikon___175_792_300_792_885_0

$1300 at B&H for the Tamron.

Nice comparison.
Can one notice the chromatic aberration with the Tamron lens??

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

Actually if you shoot raw files (no reason not to) you can easily remove the CA.

wsa111 Loc: Goose Creek, South Carolina

Gene, in lightroom & what area or CS6??
How noticeable is the CA? Bill

wsa111 Loc: Goose Creek, South Carolina

Disregard, the Tamron is too soft on the edges of a FX full frame.
I'll just save my $$$.

kymarto Loc: Portland OR and Milan Italy

wsa111 wrote:

Disregard, the Tamron is too soft on the edges of a FX full frame.
I'll just save my $$$.

I came to the same decision.

SteveR Loc: Michigan

To expand on what MT said, handshake is really a problem on telephotos, which is where VR is really needed. Shorter focus lengths don't require VR since you'll be shooting faster than the focal length for the most part.