NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8E ED VR
Apr 7, 2016 06:59:44 #
robtenn
Loc: Eau Claire, Wisconsin
I am looking at purchasing the NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8E ED lens and I have a question. Is it worth the extra $600 to get the VR version of this lens?
Apr 7, 2016 07:10:06 #
DaveHam
Loc: Reading UK
If you shoot in conditions where a slow exposure is required and you cannot use a tripod yes. Otherwise no.
Apr 7, 2016 07:19:31 #
There are many reviews to be read and filtered. A place to start might be the reviews provided with the lens on a sight like B&H or Amazon,etc,to help you make your decision.
Apr 7, 2016 07:36:08 #
DaveO wrote:
There are many reviews to be read and filtered. A place to start might be the reviews provided with the lens on a sight like B&H or Amazon,etc,to help you make your decision.
Site not "sight".
Apr 7, 2016 07:48:34 #
robtenn wrote:
I am looking at purchasing the NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8E ED lens and I have a question. Is it worth the extra $600 to get the VR version of this lens?
Yes, the VR does a good job and gives you an extra couple of f/stops. If you can afford the extra money, my opinion is to buy it. I can be turned off, but if you get the lens that doesn't have it and you need it, you can't turn it on. So, don't take the chance. It does work well.
Apr 7, 2016 08:09:19 #
It is all a matter of whether of not the $600 could be better spent on something else. Except for those with a lot of excess cash, that is always the (and a personal) question.
The shortest lens I have with VR is a 70 - 200 which I bought to use while kayaking. I never felt the need on anything shorter. While VR will allow you to handhold at a slower shutter speed, the better results we get today with higher ISO settings gives you the opportunity to shoot at higher shutter speeds. That's a tradeoff as VR or the option to shoot with higher speeds will accomplish 'similar' results.
Before making a decision I would read the reviews where they compare the optics of the lenses instead of just the features. If one is better than the other, choose the superior optics.
--
The shortest lens I have with VR is a 70 - 200 which I bought to use while kayaking. I never felt the need on anything shorter. While VR will allow you to handhold at a slower shutter speed, the better results we get today with higher ISO settings gives you the opportunity to shoot at higher shutter speeds. That's a tradeoff as VR or the option to shoot with higher speeds will accomplish 'similar' results.
Before making a decision I would read the reviews where they compare the optics of the lenses instead of just the features. If one is better than the other, choose the superior optics.
--
Apr 7, 2016 08:30:05 #
Tomcat5133
Loc: Gladwyne PA
This will help you. Ken Rockwell review is very thorough.
He thinks the 2.8 is one of the very best lens anywhere.
Good Luck
http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/70-200mm-ii.htm
He thinks the 2.8 is one of the very best lens anywhere.
Good Luck
http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/70-200mm-ii.htm
Apr 7, 2016 08:39:21 #
Tom Daniels wrote:
This will help you. Ken Rockwell review is very thorough.
He thinks the 2.8 is one of the very best lens anywhere.
Good Luck
http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/70-200mm-ii.htm
He thinks the 2.8 is one of the very best lens anywhere.
Good Luck
http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/70-200mm-ii.htm
OP is looking at a 24-70, not a 70-200
---
Apr 7, 2016 08:47:03 #
Apr 7, 2016 09:02:55 #
DaveO wrote:
Gee,thanks for your help......
Pleasure......
Apr 7, 2016 15:31:28 #
robtenn wrote:
I am looking at purchasing the NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8E ED lens and I have a question. Is it worth the extra $600 to get the VR version of this lens?
I have been using this lens for many years and never even consider it hasnt got VR. Never think about it and it's never been an issue.
Think back to before someone invented this feature.
i never thought to myself, gosh I wish someone would invent VR.
In tricky situations I either compensated in camera or found something to rest against (or used a tripod). Still do.
Personally, I wouldn't spend the $600 extra.
It's a brilliant lens and on my D7100 90% of the time.
Apr 7, 2016 15:57:24 #
I have tried and compared three copies of the new 24-70 against my old copy of the 24-70. In every case, my old lens was - overall - just as good and there was no practical optical purpose to switch. In fact, my old lens was sharper in the center and easily beat the new less above 35mm. So, unless you need VR, I'd say stick with the old one.
Apr 7, 2016 16:16:02 #
robtenn wrote:
I am looking at purchasing the NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8E ED lens and I have a question. Is it worth the extra $600 to get the VR version of this lens?
You do think VR is needed? If so buy it. A year down the road you won't even remember the $600.
Yes it gets you a few extra stops but so does higher ISO.
It can slow your focus in some situations and its one more thing that can fail.
Apr 7, 2016 19:55:09 #
joer wrote:
You do think VR is needed? If so buy it. A year down the road you won't even remember the $600.
Yes it gets you a few extra stops but so does higher ISO.
It can slow your focus in some situations and its one more thing that can fail.
Yes it gets you a few extra stops but so does higher ISO.
It can slow your focus in some situations and its one more thing that can fail.
:thumbup: :thumbup:
Apr 8, 2016 07:01:05 #
robtenn wrote:
I am looking at purchasing the NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8E ED lens and I have a question. Is it worth the extra $600 to get the VR version of this lens?
I got an older version of that, the 35-70mm f/2.8, and that wasn't available with VR. I wouldn't mind having VR, but I can live without it.
Since you're getting a top quality lens and spending a lot of money for it, why no take the next step and get the VR? Maybe you'll be satisfied without it, and maybe you won't, but every time you use the non-VR version, you'll wonder what you're missing..
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.