Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register ☰
Main Photography Discussion
PRE VR NIKKOR 24-70 F2.8
Page <<first <prev 3 of 4 next>
Dec 28, 2022 13:54:08   #
DoyleY Loc: Worland, Wyoming
 
cjc2 wrote:
I enjoy having VR sometimes, but all is well without it. Yes, I had BOTH versions of that lens. Best of luck.


Thanks

Reply
Dec 28, 2022 13:56:16   #
DoyleY Loc: Worland, Wyoming
 
photon-collector wrote:
The Nikkor pre-VR 24-70mm is a superb optic. I had a choice of either the non-VR or the VR version when I purchased the lens. I chose the non-VR version because there were some data to suggest it was a tad sharper than the VR version. I am 73 years old and love this lens.


Thanks

Reply
Dec 28, 2022 13:58:08   #
DoyleY Loc: Worland, Wyoming
 
Bridges wrote:
I have the non-VR version and never considered upgrading to the VR model. It is a very sharp lens which I use (along with a flash) mostly for people photography. Most of this shooting was done indoors and as someone else mentioned, I would drag the shutter so there was a hint of detail in the background so it did not look like the people were pasted on a black background. Recently though I've been doing those kind of shots with the z24-70 f4. If Nikon comes out with just the right body in the z-line (a z8 perhaps), I may go all-in with the z cameras and sell off most of my F lenses. This along with the two other "Holy Trinity" lenses would be the last to go. It is a very good lens and I can absolutely recommend it even without VR.
I have the non-VR version and never considered upg... (show quote)


Thank you.

Reply
 
 
Dec 28, 2022 17:03:19   #
Judy795
 
I have had that lens since 2016 Non VR. Love it. Always tack sharp.

Reply
Dec 28, 2022 17:20:31   #
William Royer Loc: Kansas
 
I used the 24-70 non-VR for many years on my D810, and previous model DSLR’s and SLR’s.
Did not have any particular problems with ‘Shake’. (If the lighting situation seemed marginal at the time, would occasionally use a monopod or, less so, tripod.
(An excellent lens. Fwiw, over time my only minor dissatisfaction was that too frequently I wanted just a little more reach.)

Reply
Dec 28, 2022 20:13:05   #
romanmel7 Loc: New Hartford, NY
 
DoyleY wrote:
Any of you Hoggers have any luck using this lens handheld or say with a monopod? Seems like with the speed of this lens you should be able to compensate the lack of VR some at least with faster shutter speeds. I'm sure nothing would beat using a tripod but I'm curious just the same.


I have this lens and have routinely used it on my Nikon d750 and now on my Z 7II, with adapter. I only occasionally use it on a tripod and mostly use it handheld. I’m 65 and have had no issues with taking sharp photos with this lens. I would probably brace myself if shooting at a shutter speed of 1/40 or slower, but no problems at all when shooting faster than that. Hope this helps.

Reply
Dec 28, 2022 21:49:45   #
DoyleY Loc: Worland, Wyoming
 
William Royer wrote:
I used the 24-70 non-VR for many years on my D810, and previous model DSLR’s and SLR’s.
Did not have any particular problems with ‘Shake’. (If the lighting situation seemed marginal at the time, would occasionally use a monopod or, less so, tripod.
(An excellent lens. Fwiw, over time my only minor dissatisfaction was that too frequently I wanted just a little more reach.)


I'll have the 24-70, the 70-200, and Tamron 150-600. I'm trying to cover a wide margin but. I think I can skip anything below 24.

Reply
 
 
Dec 28, 2022 22:52:11   #
DoyleY Loc: Worland, Wyoming
 
Judy795 wrote:
I have had that lens since 2016 Non VR. Love it. Always tack sharp.


Nice.

Reply
Dec 29, 2022 02:16:24   #
Bridges Loc: Memphis, Charleston SC, now Nazareth PA
 
DoyleY wrote:
I'll have the 24-70, the 70-200, and Tamron 150-600. I'm trying to cover a wide margin but. I think I can skip anything below 24.


You would be surprised how useful a 12 or 14-mm lens can be. I have the Nikon 14-24 and the 16-35, and the 14-30 z lens. I usually take the 16-35 when shooting with a DSLR because of the weight. Both lenses are very useful for interior shots as well as good for wide-open scenic shots where a lot of sky is a main part of the scene. Good for capturing the night sky as well. While the 24 you have will do most of what you want a wide-angle for, keep an eye out for a good deal on a wider lens. You won't regret having one.

Reply
Dec 29, 2022 07:42:14   #
DoyleY Loc: Worland, Wyoming
 
Bridges wrote:
You would be surprised how useful a 12 or 14-mm lens can be. I have the Nikon 14-24 and the 16-35, and the 14-30 z lens. I usually take the 16-35 when shooting with a DSLR because of the weight. Both lenses are very useful for interior shots as well as good for wide-open scenic shots where a lot of sky is a main part of the scene. Good for capturing the night sky as well. While the 24 you have will do most of what you want a wide-angle for, keep an eye out for a good deal on a wider lens. You won't regret having one.
You would be surprised how useful a 12 or 14-mm le... (show quote)


They would fill a gap. You're probably right. I'd rather have it and not need it that need it and not have it.

Reply
Dec 29, 2022 07:58:42   #
DirtFarmer Loc: Escaped from the NYC area, back to MA
 
Bridges wrote:
You would be surprised how useful a 12 or 14-mm lens can be. I have the Nikon 14-24 and the 16-35, and the 14-30 z lens. I usually take the 16-35 when shooting with a DSLR because of the weight. Both lenses are very useful for interior shots as well as good for wide-open scenic shots where a lot of sky is a main part of the scene. Good for capturing the night sky as well. While the 24 you have will do most of what you want a wide-angle for, keep an eye out for a good deal on a wider lens. You won't regret having one.
You would be surprised how useful a 12 or 14-mm le... (show quote)


I have the Nikon 14-24 and it's a great lens. I find the distortion low but perspective effects can be significant if the lens is not held horizontally. I don't do much in the way of landscapes (where I suspect it would be most useful). Architectural shots are frequently plagued by perspective effects, which are exacerbated by non-horizontal shots (but correctible in post). I find it most useful for group shots when in a confined space with a large group. Some postprocessing is necessary occasionally at the edges. The only drawback to the lens is that it is bulky and I usually have too much stuff in my bag so the lens stays in the car if I take it at all. For that reason it's one of my least used lenses. If I need an ultrawide my usual approach is to stitch a pano. Normally a 30% overlap is needed to do a good pano, but if you are shooting a group of people or some other semi-dynamic scene, I find a 60-70% overlap really helps.

Reply
 
 
Dec 29, 2022 09:31:06   #
larryepage Loc: North Texas area
 
DoyleY wrote:
I'll have the 24-70, the 70-200, and Tamron 150-600. I'm trying to cover a wide margin but. I think I can skip anything below 24.


I bought a Nikkor 14-24 f/2.8 about 5 years ago for use at a night sky workshop that my wife gifted me. It was invaluable for that. The 16-35 variable aperture lens I already had wouldn't have cut it at all. I still use that lens fairly frequently. But...it's not a "casual use" lens. You have to learn how to use it.

As others have pointed out, managing perspective requires some knowledge and skill. As a rectilinear lens, it seeks to preserve straight lines, but in doing so, it distorts angles. This can be disconcerting. (A fisheye lens preserves angles, but bends lines.)

Lots of folks feel that they just must have an extreme wide angle lens until they get one and find that they don't. That's why there always seem to be tons of gently used ones for sale.

Please note that I'm not saying not to add one of these to your equipment inventory. I'm just encouraging you to have a plan around how you will use it. And just a note...it's really not that great as a landscape lens...it pushes too much otherwise interesting detail way too far into the background.

Reply
Dec 29, 2022 09:54:50   #
DirtFarmer Loc: Escaped from the NYC area, back to MA
 
larryepage wrote:
I bought a Nikkor 14-24 f/2.8 about 5 years ago for use at a night sky workshop that my wife gifted me. It was invaluable for that. The 16-35 variable aperture lens I already had wouldn't have cut it at all. I still use that lens fairly frequently. But...it's not a "casual use" lens. You have to learn how to use it.

As others have pointed out, managing perspective requires some knowledge and skill. As a rectilinear lens, it seeks to preserve straight lines, but in doing so, it distorts angles. This can be disconcerting. (A fisheye lens preserves angles, but bends lines.)

Lots of folks feel that they just must have an extreme wide angle lens until they get one and find that they don't. That's why there always seem to be tons of gently used ones for sale.

Please note that I'm not saying not to add one of these to your equipment inventory. I'm just encouraging you have a plan around how you will use it. And just a note...it's really not that great as a landscape lens...it pushes too much otherwise interesting detail way too far into the background.
I bought a Nikkor 14-24 f/2.8 about 5 years ago fo... (show quote)


+1

Reply
Dec 29, 2022 11:39:07   #
Bridges Loc: Memphis, Charleston SC, now Nazareth PA
 
larryepage wrote:
I bought a Nikkor 14-24 f/2.8 about 5 years ago for use at a night sky workshop that my wife gifted me. It was invaluable for that. The 16-35 variable aperture lens I already had wouldn't have cut it at all. I still use that lens fairly frequently. But...it's not a "casual use" lens. You have to learn how to use it.

As others have pointed out, managing perspective requires some knowledge and skill. As a rectilinear lens, it seeks to preserve straight lines, but in doing so, it distorts angles. This can be disconcerting. (A fisheye lens preserves angles, but bends lines.)

Lots of folks feel that they just must have an extreme wide angle lens until they get one and find that they don't. That's why there always seem to be tons of gently used ones for sale.

Please note that I'm not saying not to add one of these to your equipment inventory. I'm just encouraging you to have a plan around how you will use it. And just a note...it's really not that great as a landscape lens...it pushes too much otherwise interesting detail way too far into the background.
I bought a Nikkor 14-24 f/2.8 about 5 years ago fo... (show quote)


You say it isn't so great for landscapes and that is true if you are shooting a landscape from a standing position or mounted high on a tripod. If however, you want to shoot a mountain scene across a lake and want the mountains to be in focus as well as the interesting moss-covered rocks only two feet in front of you, it works very well. I like using extreme wide angles to bring the foreground, middle ground, and background all in focus. And your advice for having a plan is spot on. If landscape or architectural is not the main interest, then a 24mm lens is all that is needed.

Reply
Dec 29, 2022 12:17:07   #
larryepage Loc: North Texas area
 
Bridges wrote:
You say it isn't so great for landscapes and that is true if you are shooting a landscape from a standing position or mounted high on a tripod. If however, you want to shoot a mountain scene across a lake and want the mountains to be in focus as well as the interesting moss-covered rocks only two feet in front of you, it works very well. I like using extreme wide angles to bring the foreground, middle ground, and background all in focus. And your advice for having a plan is spot on. If landscape or architectural is not the main interest, then a 24mm lens is all that is needed.
You say it isn't so great for landscapes and that ... (show quote)


There are other excellent uses for focal lengths less than 24mm. Night skyscape photography is probably the best (at least in my mind). Emulating the tilts of a view camera, as you describe, can be fun, but I find the results to generally be underwhelming, with the background more often than not being reduced to insignificance. Stitched panoramas with somewhat more moderate focal lengths usually seem to create significantly stronger results.

My point here isn't that it can't be done (and be done well), but that doing it requires more study and effort than most folks are willing to invest. This is evidenced by the large numbers of abandoned lenses.

Reply
Page <<first <prev 3 of 4 next>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main Photography Discussion
Home | Latest Digest | Back to Top | All Sections
Contact us | Privacy policy | Terms of use | DMCA
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.