Nikon 24-70 F/2.8 lens: I am thinking buying Nikon 24-70 f 2.8 lens. There is a big price difference between VR and non VR lens. Wondering if it is necessary to have VR lens? Does it...

dandekarv Loc: Lake Forest, Ca, US

I am thinking buying Nikon 24-70 f 2.8 lens. There is a big price difference between VR and non VR lens. Wondering if it is necessary to have VR lens? Does it justify the price difference?

Can some experts give some insight?

Vasant

Jim Bob

dandekarv wrote:

I am thinking buying Nikon 24-70 f 2.8 lens. There is a big price difference between VR and non VR lens. Wondering if it is necessary to have VR lens? Does it justify the price difference?

Can some experts give some insight?

Vasant

Depends on how steady you are. VR never hurts.

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

dandekarv wrote:

I am thinking buying Nikon 24-70 f 2.8 lens. There is a big price difference between VR and non VR lens. Wondering if it is necessary to have VR lens? Does it justify the price difference?

Can some experts give some insight?

Vasant

If I were spending that much for the lens, it would be to get the best images I could - better than what my lenses are giving me now. I wouldn't want to spend a lot of money but leave out a feature that could make the images better. VR is somewhat controversial in that some people don't think it's necessary if you know what you're doing. I figure that if it's available, it's worth getting and using. Yes, the cost is a lot higher, but think of all the research and parts Nikon had to put into that lens.

dandekarv Loc: Lake Forest, Ca, US

My hand is staedy and I take good pictures without shake.

Vasant

dandekarv Loc: Lake Forest, Ca, US

I get the point. If VR takes batter picture then why not.

Thanks for the reply

Vasant

dandekarv Loc: Lake Forest, Ca, US

Thanks for the reply

Nikonman44

dandekarv wrote:

I am thinking buying Nikon 24-70 f 2.8 lens. There is a big price difference between VR and non VR lens. Wondering if it is necessary to have VR lens? Does it justify the price difference?

Can some experts give some insight?

Vasant

How steady can you hold your camera and lens?

Thats all you need to know and of course what are you going to be shooting

SonyBug

I had that lens on a D810 and shot a pano of the Tn State Capitol building. I was about 3/4 mile away, and you could easily see the stairway inside the peak tower. So, for me, that lens does not really need a VR feature. Of course, you could always tripod a shot if really necessary. I took many pano's of the night sky and am looking at the Milky Way hung on my living room wall. Perfectly clear. A stupendous lens!

rmm0605 Loc: Atlanta GA

dandekarv wrote:

I am thinking buying Nikon 24-70 f 2.8 lens. There is a big price difference between VR and non VR lens. Wondering if it is necessary to have VR lens? Does it justify the price difference?

Can some experts give some insight?

Vasant

I bought a used non-VR lens and I love it. It's on the camera 90% of the time.

Nikonman44

nikonbug wrote:

I had that lens on a D810 and shot a pano of the Tn State Capitol building. I was about 3/4 mile away, and you could easily see the stairway inside the peak tower. So, for me, that lens does not really need a VR feature. Of course, you could always tripod a shot if really necessary. I took many pano's of the night sky and am looking at the Milky Way hung on my living room wall. Perfectly clear. A stupendous lens!

There you have it. How steady are you at your camera usage?

The tripod of course would obviously remove the need for the extra assist.

joer Loc: Colorado/Illinois

dandekarv wrote:

I am thinking buying Nikon 24-70 f 2.8 lens. There is a big price difference between VR and non VR lens. Wondering if it is necessary to have VR lens? Does it justify the price difference?

Can some experts give some insight?

Vasant

An unimaginable number of excellent images have been taken by millions of photographers that never new image stabilization other than tripods and such. That speaks to the necessary question.

Is VR a feature that will increase your keeper rate...of course it is. Is it worth the money?...it depends on you.

gary8803

How high of a shut speed and the MP of your camera make a difference. I don't but VR lens because I shot High shutter speed or with a flash to freeze motion. I also use a tripod for landscape shots which I don't do very often.

camerapapi Loc: Miami, Fl.

I am no expert on VR but with that set aside I have shot with that lens setting the camera to Aperture Priority but making sure I watch the shutter speed if I hand hold the camera. If the shutter speed is kept at 1/125sec or better yet at 1/250sec. the images are going to be sharp with still subjects. Moving subjects could require a higher shutter speed. Using a tripod things are different as I am sure you know and the images will be sharp.
VR is about convenience when using the camera hand held and we pay for that convenience if we are lazy enough to forget about our tripod.

billnourse Loc: Bloomfield, NM

My best friend has the non-VR and my sister has the VR. I have the Canon non-VR. Image quality wise, I can't tell any difference. My friend has his on the camera most of the time and takes some amazing shots. The 24-70 f2.8 is a low light lens to start with so that helps, and at 70mm, most people can handhold at 1/60 to 1/80 sec without camera shake. The old "shutter speed=focal length" rule. If it's subject blur, the VR won't help that anyway.

I would buy the VR model myself, just for the extra insurance, but is it really necessary, probably not. One problem for me is when I know I have VR I tend to get a little sloppy with my technique.

Bill

Fotomacher Loc: Toronto

dandekarv wrote:

I am thinking buying Nikon 24-70 f 2.8 lens. There is a big price difference between VR and non VR lens. Wondering if it is necessary to have VR lens? Does it justify the price difference?

Can some experts give some insight?

Vasant

I am no t best commentator since I already own the non-VR version and have had it for many years. With a max aperture of f/2.8 i find i can use shutter speeds to reduce the possibilibity of hand held shake blur. I also do quite a bit of travelling so have even more electronics in the lens body is not that attractive. But everyone has to assess their needs in the context of their budget.