I’m looking to purchase a Nikon 24-70 f/2.8G to use with my D850. I’ve heard the the image quality of the VR version of this lens is not as good as the non-VR. I have no idea whether or not this is true so, asking here. I’d appreciate any feedback back from the group. I have also considered the Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 G2. The slightly shorter length and image stabilization is attractive to me, but having a hard time making a decision.
I have the non-VR version and see no reason to need the VR. The lens I'm using is great.
--Bob
RonM12 wrote:
I’m looking to purchase a Nikon 24-70 f/2.8G to use with my D850. I’ve heard the the image quality of the VR version of this lens is not as good as the non-VR. I have no idea whether or not this is true so, asking here. I’d appreciate any feedback back from the group. I have also considered the Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 G2. The slightly shorter length and image stabilization is attractive to me, but having a hard time making a decision.
rmalarz wrote:
I have the non-VR version and see no reason to need the VR. The lens I'm using is great.
--Bob
I found the same thing.
Plus the VR version is a beast.
I could use either one at my former job.
Preferred the non VR because of size.
I shoot a lot of PJ stuff.
Some find a use for VR in a zoom of that size, but VR is primarily for longer zooms. I have the non-vr version and it's now become my go-to lens on my D800.
RonM12 wrote:
I’m looking to purchase a Nikon 24-70 f/2.8G to use with my D850. I’ve heard the the image quality of the VR version of this lens is not as good as the non-VR. I have no idea whether or not this is true so, asking here. I’d appreciate any feedback back from the group. I have also considered the Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 G2. The slightly shorter length and image stabilization is attractive to me, but having a hard time making a decision.
Hi Ron, Ive had the Nikon 24-70 f/2.8G non VR for probably 20 (?) years. Never felt I needed VR and have always been happy with the quality of the results. It lives on my D7100 virtually full time.
Only negative comment I would make is that now I am getting older it is a beast to carry. I carried it around South America for 2 months a couple of years ago and it became a hassle to carry.
Almost as soon as I got home I bought a little Lumix LX100 with the Leica 1.7 24-70 lens. I have never enlarged bigger than 8 x 10" but mostly my photos are just seen on a website and I think its difficult to see any difference in quality between the two.
Just a thought to consider for travelling
Tony, thank you for your response. At the moment, weight isn’t an issue for me, but can certainly see that could come into play in the future.
rmalarz wrote:
I have the non-VR version and see no reason to need the VR. The lens I'm using is great.
--Bob
Several have followed Bob in making this comment. I also have the non-VR version and find no need for anything different.
I have the non-VR lens and find it to be superb glass.
VR is necessary if you have longer focal lengths like 300mm+. I don't knock the technology. I own a Nikon VR lens. It's great. But, didn't we manage not to have VR before it was invented.? And some photographers hands are more steady than others. Hands of stone.
RonM12 wrote:
I’m looking to purchase a Nikon 24-70 f/2.8G to use with my D850. I’ve heard the the image quality of the VR version of this lens is not as good as the non-VR. I have no idea whether or not this is true so, asking here. I’d appreciate any feedback back from the group. I have also considered the Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 G2. The slightly shorter length and image stabilization is attractive to me, but having a hard time making a decision.
For a very good price, I bought from a friend his 8 year old non-VR version, who was selling it to buy the VR version of the lens. Suffice to say, he regrets selling it to me. He said he’s giving the non-VR version a minuscule edge in sharpness. Works for me, and I saved about $1,000 from buying new!
VR or Not --- depends on how you will use the lens. My first VR lens was the 70-200. I bought it specifically for shooting from a kayak. VR was a big help. At the same time I was able to use a 300 f/4.0 without VR with both feet on the ground.
If shooting in low light where you are forced to shoot at slow shutter speeds VR can be a plus.
I believe the non VR was performing better in lab tests, but IIRC it wasn't enough to make a difference in the real world.
I still have and use the 70-200 vr as well as the 300 non vr.
--
billnikon
Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont
RonM12 wrote:
I’m looking to purchase a Nikon 24-70 f/2.8G to use with my D850. I’ve heard the the image quality of the VR version of this lens is not as good as the non-VR. I have no idea whether or not this is true so, asking here. I’d appreciate any feedback back from the group. I have also considered the Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 G2. The slightly shorter length and image stabilization is attractive to me, but having a hard time making a decision.
I have and shoot the 24-70 non VR on my D850. I see nothing but sharp well exposed images.
I have the non VR version and find it to be as sharp as any other lens I have even the exotic lenses. This shot was taken with the D850 and the Nikon 24-70mm f2.8 G ED.
RonM12 wrote:
I’m looking to purchase a Nikon 24-70 f/2.8G to use with my D850. I’ve heard the the image quality of the VR version of this lens is not as good as the non-VR. I have no idea whether or not this is true so, asking here. I’d appreciate any feedback back from the group. I have also considered the Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 G2. The slightly shorter length and image stabilization is attractive to me, but having a hard time making a decision.
to carry, use a device like Cotton Carrier. spreads the load, instant access.
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.