Nikon 24-70 F/2.8 lens (Page 3): No need for VR! Just another trick to get your $$.

Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum

Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register ☰

Main Photography Discussion

Nikon 24-70 F/2.8 lens

Page <<first <prev 3 of 5 next> last>>

Mar 8, 2018 06:16:15 #

mleuck

No need for VR! Just another trick to get your $$.

Mar 8, 2018 06:18:46 #

BridieMcKenna

Research the ratings & read some reviews online- I just had the same question & when I researched, most users liked the original without VR better, especially for the price difference.

Mar 8, 2018 07:12:14 #

Jim Bob

SteveR wrote:

I don't believe that VR on this lens was meant to help with camera shake. I think it's main purpose was for low-light conditions. If your concern is camera shake, it can be handled through shutter speed....except, perhaps, in low-light conditions.

WTF? And how would VR assist in low light situations? By reducing the effect of camera shake of course.

Mar 8, 2018 07:44:56 #

Ava'sPapa Loc: Cheshire, Ct.

If price, quality and VR are concerns...check out the new Tamron 24-70 f2.8 G2. Do a little homework online with comparisons. I did and I bought the Tamron with no regrets. BIG difference in price from the equivalent Nikon. Just saying...

Mar 8, 2018 07:45:15 #

Bullfrog Bill Loc: CT

Consider filter size and extra weight.

Mar 8, 2018 07:45:42 #

Sdubois Loc: Narragansett RI

If you shoot at very low shutter speeds or in the dark than bring along a tripod or monopod. General speaking VR isn’t all that useful for any lens below 100mm. Keep you shutter speed above 1/100 of a sec and your images will be sharp. If your hands tend to shake than keep your shutter speed above 1/1000 of a second.
I use monopods and tripods almost every chance I get. And use VR on only my 300mm and up lenses.

Mar 8, 2018 07:52:11 #

billnourse Loc: Bloomfield, NM

Hammer wrote:

I am no expert but a consideration might be the capacity of the sensor on your camera. If its a Nikon D850 compared to say a D5, I should imagine that the VR would come in very useful . In low light it would also help with longer exposures and reduce the ISO needed. I don't really know enough but do have shaky hands and do like to crop in on my photos.

Good point. The higher the resolution the more noticeable movement will be. My friend had to really hone his techniques when he went from a 60D to his high res. D810. and I noticed the same thing going from the 70D to the 5D Mk 4.

Bill

Mar 8, 2018 08:11:17 #

ngentzler284

Ava'sPapa wrote:

I agree. I've never tried the Nikon version to compare (can't justify the expense), but I am a big fan of the Tamron!

Mar 8, 2018 08:35:57 #

Festus Loc: North Dakota

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

You are not just paying for VR. Take a look at his review" http://www.dslrbodies.com/lenses/nikon-lens-reviews/nikkor-zoom-lens-reviews/nikon-24-70mm-f28e-af-s-vr.html

Mar 8, 2018 09:02:01 #

treadwl Loc: South Florida

I have the non VR model and do not feel I'm missing anything. VR will not help with moving subjects because you need a faster shutter speed anyway. If I am shooting in low light my camera will be on a tripod simply because I want sharp photos. I use lots of slow shutter speeds and high f-stops (16 and higher) so the tripod is a must.

I just finished a week long road trip that was solely for capturing images. The partner that I was with noted that every time I got out of the car I picked up my tripod. He didn't. When we returned he marveled at the clarity and sharpness of my photos. That 24-70 is a truly great lens, its true greatness comes when it is on a tripod so the lens can do its job.

Mar 8, 2018 09:22:09 #

Nikon Shooter17 Loc: Glenwood, MN

Not a pro here but I recently bough the Tamron 24-70 f 2.8 new for under 1,100 and it has VR. Like I said, I am no pro but that thing lives on my D7200 and I am extremely happy with its performance and cost

Mar 8, 2018 09:30:25 #

jjfried40

dandekarv wrote:

I am thinking buying Nikon 24-70 f 2.8 lens. There... (show quote)

Mar 8, 2018 09:31:59 #

gvarner Loc: Central Oregon Coast

I'm no expert but I don't think VR is needed for shorter lenses. 70mm isn't very long on either a FF or crop sensor camera.

Mar 8, 2018 09:40:05 #

Steamboat

dandekarv wrote:

Isn't it a once in a life time lens purchase and your basic hammer? Your thinking spending $1800 why skimp and not get the latest technology? Buy the best lens you can afford.
Of course you don't need VR we have been working around lens technology for years.

Now the big question is do you really need f/2.8? I have been using a 28~70 f/2.8 for 17 years.....with today's sensors I'd go with the 24~120mm ...... VR

If you say yes I need 2.8 I shoot a lot of low light situations,without a tripod .......then yes YOU need VR

That lens will be with you a while why not have VR?

Mar 8, 2018 09:52:03 #

jaimeblackwell Loc: Lewiston, Maine

I have an older model. non-vr but its a pretty fast lens. it will depend on where you're using it. I use mine in well-lit areas 90 percent of the time because of what I shoot. so I'm usually shooting at over 125 to 350th of a sec. no shake or movement. ever noticed and the pictures are very sharp. If you're going to be shooting indoors a lot in low light and want to keep in the f 8 area than VR is probably what you're after unless you're using a flash. But in all, I use mine and love it. there are not a lot of limits and if I am Indoors I use a flash in low light and it is fine. good luck

Page <<first <prev 3 of 5 next> last>>

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

UglyHedgehog.com - Forum