hollis

I recently ordered a Nikon D610 Camera and Nikon SB-70 Flash from Nikon and considering to purchase a 24-70 F2.8 lens (it is not the VR version) that is in very good condition with very little usage for a price under $1200.00. Any thoughts or suggestion from fellow members whether I should wait and try to get the VR version which more. I understand from Nikon that the lens of the non VR version is just as sharp as the VR version. I am trying to grapple if the end justify the means. Please keep the conversation as simple as possible. My interests are - taking family pictures, general photography, vacations, and cruises Many thanks
Ray

GoofyNewfie Loc: Kansas City

I don't find VR on a lens this short particularly useful.
I have both and the VR version is bigger, heavier and more costly. They are both very sharp lenses.
Actually, I find the 24-120 more versatile.
I've had it for less than a year and am quite pleased.
More range, lighter....no, not the same build quality and maybe atouch less contrast, but certainly worth a look.
I'm a full-time pro and use this lens now more than any other.

hollis

Very useful information- I have looked at and perhaps give the 24-120 some thought as well
Thanks

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

The VR version is bigger, has a larger filter size (82mm vs 77), heavier and considerably sharper than the non-VR version. And also noticeably sharper than the 24-120 F4, which also has VR. The 24-70 has slightly less center sharpness but much better edge and corner sharpness, and is better at wider apertures than the G. So if you want more even sharpness across the field - get the VR. If you do mainly portrait and subjects where "insane" center sharpness (as Photography Life characterized it) is desirable, then save your money and get the $1200 G. Both are great, but in different ways. I would likely not have bought a new D610 when you can get a used, good condition D800E for about the same price. The D800E is in a class of it's own - better image quality, a "pro" body in construction and handing, just a pleasure to use. The D610 is still aimed at the consumer, and has more of a reliance on menus to access modes and features on the camera, as opposed to buttons on the D800E.

Oh, and I have shot an image at 1 sec with VR at 24mm - so if you don't have a tripod or can't set one up conveniently,. it can be useful for subjects that aren't moving, or if you want to show movement in a subject against a non-moving background - like a waterfall - or people an cars on a street.

Lance Pearson Loc: Viriginia

I actually bought the older fx 28-70mm nikkor instead of the more modern as it is tack sharp and my go to lens for walking around. It has a large front lens element and gives superbly crisp images. I bought from Amazon as a "used very good condition" lens and am very, very satisfied with it at a fraction of the price. I also bought the fx 80-200mm same pro gold lens when I want to get out further lens. Both are f 2.8 and superb. Newer may or may not be necessary for you functionally especially if you have budget limits which most of us do.

queencitysanta Loc: Charlotte, North Carolina

Sigma has just or is about to release 4 new lens in their art series. I would look at these before i buy.

good luck

SteveR Loc: Michigan

Actually, there were times when I wished the 24-70 would go wider. However, on our trip to Taos and Santa Fe, I never took it off the camera.

DirtFarmer Loc: Escaped from the NYC area, back to MA

I bought a 24-70 f/2.8G many years ago and I find it to be a good lens. I recently got a 24-70 f/2.8E VR and find it to be a good lens. Various forum posts on other sites have stated that the VR version is just a smidge less sharp than the old version in the center, but it is much sharper on the edges. Personally I can't see the difference, but then I don't do a lot of pixel peeping. I do find that (for me) the VR makes a difference, particularly in low light, which I encounter a lot. So I'm happy with the new VR version.

However the old version is still a good lens and your opportunity is half the price of the VR version. If you have other lenses (e.g. 70-200) that take 77mm filters you won't have to add a new filter to your collection. An 82mm CPL will probably cost a couple hundred and up.

The VR version is larger and heavier. This does not concern me, but others have expressed an aversion to carrying a lot of extra weight.

DirtFarmer Loc: Escaped from the NYC area, back to MA

There are always times when you wish any given lens would go wider (or longer). I have a 14-24 and there have been times it wasn't wide enough. I rarely carry that one because it doesn't fit well in my bag (with all the other stuff in there). I have found that it is possible to stitch in Photoshop to produce a panorama giving you the effect of a very wide lens. And the newer versions of LR also have a stitching capability (although PS does better). Theoretically to take photos for a panorama you have to be careful about the camera position. Ideally you should rotate the camera and lens around some point in the lens (which you probably have to determine experimentally), but I have had pretty good luck doing it by hand. Just try to rotate the camera and not just turn your body around. Keeping the lens at approximately the same point in space generally works. I usually try it twice because every so often it doesn't work well.

jsmangis Loc: Peoria, IL

I bought my D610 new in August 2014 from Cameta, and bought that lens at the same time used, from a Hogger. It stays on my 610 nearly all of the time, and although it is quite heavy, it takes amazing images.

hollis

Thanks Gene51 for your suggestion on the D800E; I bought the D610 refurbished directly from z nikon for $1079 ($1199.95 with a 10% discount) Ray

hollis

Jsmangis - which lens are you referring to; the VR or standard version of the VR.

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

VR isn't magic. Basically, it lets you shoot "at up to four stops slower with a VR lens than a non-VR lens." (from Nikon) "Up to" is significant because that's not "always."

Acountry330 Loc: Dothan,Ala USA

My 24-70 2.8 non VR is almost always mounted on my D-800 for everyday shooting. I do not think I would pop for the extra cash for the VR version. You will always want wider or a longer reach. But for everyday use none better. Happy shooting.

DirtFarmer Loc: Escaped from the NYC area, back to MA

I bought my 70-200 VR back around 2007. The VR was OK. It helped a bit but I wouldn't say it was better than one stops, occasionally two. I recently picked up the newer version (70-200 E VR) and the VR is significantly better. They've improved the technology in the last decade. I'd say it does better than four stops (although I have not done much testing). The old 24-70 from around 2006 didn't have VR. The new one does, and again, I haven't done much testing, but it seems to be very similar to the one on the new 70-200 E.