Nikkor 24-70 2.8
Oct 24, 2016 21:44:35 #
Is paying more for the 24-70 2.8VR worth the extra money? Around $600 difference for new at B&H
Oct 24, 2016 22:06:31 #
Only you can decide ... both the Nikon and Tamron get good reviews.
I use the Tamron and very satisfied ( images available if needed )
A few links to look at :
http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-176428-1.html
http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-245217-1.html
http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-246270-1.html
I use the Tamron and very satisfied ( images available if needed )
A few links to look at :
http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-176428-1.html
http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-245217-1.html
http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-246270-1.html
Oct 25, 2016 06:32:12 #
Robeng
Loc: California
Davet wrote:
Is paying more for the 24-70 2.8VR worth the extra money? Around $600 difference for new at B&H
I thought so because I shoot a lot of hand held. If you're just shooting landscape off a tripod I would save my money and get the old version. I love my 24mm-70mm VR. But again only you can really decide.
Oct 25, 2016 06:36:37 #
mas24
Loc: Southern CA
This topic has been discussed before and for good reasons. The Nikon 24-70mm was ranked the best, with Canon and Tamron ranking 2nd and 3rd in a test by Pro Photographer Matt Granger. The Tamron is going for $1099 after a $200 mail in rebate expiring December 3rd. I cannot afford the Nikon's price. But Nikon's is the best glass. IMO. Get it if you can afford it. It is sweet, according to Matt Granger.
Oct 25, 2016 07:23:25 #
Davet wrote:
Is paying more for the 24-70 2.8VR worth the extra money? Around $600 difference for new at B&H
Sorry Davet ... I misunderstood your question.
Oct 25, 2016 07:44:00 #
Davet wrote:
Is paying more for the 24-70 2.8VR worth the extra money? Around $600 difference for new at B&H
You mean the current lens, or the brand new one. If you're going to spend that much for a lens, and it's such a high quality lens, you'll probably regret not getting it.
Oct 25, 2016 10:17:59 #
jerryc41 wrote:
You mean the current lens, or the brand new one. If you're going to spend that much for a lens, and it's such a high quality lens, you'll probably regret not getting it.
I use the old 24-70, and it is great. But, if you are going in. go the whole hog. No regrets later.
Oct 25, 2016 10:19:35 #
I have the older version 24-70 2.8 which is a great lens but big and heavy. The new VR is even bigger and heavier with a larger filter size which could add $200 easily . More money and more weight, you really must need the VR to upgrade. Frankly, I never felt the need for VR in that range but certainly appreciate it in the 70-200.
Oct 25, 2016 10:59:13 #
Davet wrote:
Is paying more for the 24-70 2.8VR worth the extra money? Around $600 difference for new at B&H
The 24-85 is much less money and higher rated by DXOMark. It has VR.
You'd have to really need the f2.8 for it to matter. With the high ISO capability of today's cameras it is only if you need the shallow DOF f2.8 offers.
Oct 25, 2016 10:59:14 #
Davet wrote:
Is paying more for the 24-70 2.8VR worth the extra money? Around $600 difference for new at B&H
Not really. VR is an absolute must for the larger lenses like the 70-200, not the smaller mm lenses like this. I also didn't like the fact that Nikon strayed away from the standard 77mm filters which just adds more cost to the lens.
Save the money and buy a good tripod instead....
Oct 25, 2016 10:59:50 #
Davet wrote:
Is paying more for the 24-70 2.8VR worth the extra money? Around $600 difference for new at B&H
I have the older version of the 24-70mm f/2.8 (no VR) and love it. I do use a tripod a lot, but have taken plenty of hand-held photos with it. Of course, hand-held does carry the risk of camera shake if the shutter speed is not high enough.
This is one of Nikon's all-time great lenses, and you should not hesitate about purchasing it over the other brand choices. Definitely worth it. If you are not in a hurry, you should look for it on sale - check B&H, get on their email list, to know when these will occur.
Oct 25, 2016 12:01:13 #
Bazbo
Loc: Lisboa, Portugal
Davet wrote:
Is paying more for the 24-70 2.8VR worth the extra money? Around $600 difference for new at B&H
This is one of my favorites in my entire inventory. Worth every penny IMO.
Oct 25, 2016 14:11:21 #
Kmgw9v wrote:
I use the old 24-70, and it is great. But, if you are going in. go the whole hog. No regrets later.
I have an older 35-70mm f/2.8, without VR, of course, and that's fine.
Oct 25, 2016 16:47:54 #
RichieC
Loc: Adirondacks
VR absolutely works, I can tell when I forget to turn it on-on my 105 Nikkor prime, ( You turn it off for tripod use) and will allow you to successfully take more demanding shots, allowing your more choices in settings than without- there is no argument in this. I figured out long ago, that the most interesting shots come from the most interesting light... and that usually means demanding situations....
I am betting you won't look back nor regret getting it, nor will you have to replace that lens , but you may put another two or more bodies behind it. Without VR it is an absolute fantastic lens... with, even more so.
The middle lens of the "trinity"... you'll want the 70-200 next lol.
I am betting you won't look back nor regret getting it, nor will you have to replace that lens , but you may put another two or more bodies behind it. Without VR it is an absolute fantastic lens... with, even more so.
The middle lens of the "trinity"... you'll want the 70-200 next lol.
Oct 25, 2016 16:49:14 #
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.