Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8E ED VR AF-S NIKKOR Zoom Lens

Does anyone have and use this lens on a FX? I am seriously thinking of purchasing one but want to hear from someone who has experience wth one and if the clarity is as clear a using a prime in those given ranges. Thanks for your input...

Nobody on here owns one??? Just asking....

What's to say ?

Pretty well as good as it gets.

It's my main lens for product and interior photography...

Cheers, Don

Have you considered the Tamron lens?

gizmo285 said:

Does anyone have and use this lens on a FX? I am seriously thinking of purchasing one but want to hear from someone who has experience wth one and if the clarity is as clear a using a prime in those given ranges. Thanks for your input...

Click to expand...

I've shot with both the Nikon version and the Tamron. I own the Tamron version.

Are they both very, very good mid-range zooms? Yes. Is either one as sharp as a prime? Not even.

I'm not sure I've read of any Nikonite owner who has posted about this lens. The lens tests indicate it isn't as sharp as the non-VR Nikon lens. Both the non-VR Nikon lens and the Tamron lens get higher test scores.

Pretty new lens, I think.

Most of the complaints that I've heard about it are the 82mm filter size (same as the Tamron 24-70/2.8), but also larger and heavier than the previous non-VR version.

I haven't gotten hands on to compare myself, but it sounds like the newest 24-70/2.8VR does not have an optical advantage over the previous non-VR variant, and that non-VR variant already had some stiff competition from the likes of Tamron and Sigma. Would really need to do a side by side to say for sure if the IQ of the new VR lens gave you what you want, and is priced appropriately.

I have considered the Tamron but I always look at resale value. The overall picture is I would like the best clarity and was wondeirng if this lens would be a lot different in picture quality from my 85mm and 50mm at the standard focal distances. The convienence of the focal lengths without a lens chahge is appealing. I have a 28-300mm I have used on vacation but the clarity and contrast would probably be better with the shorter focal range and the lower light range of the 24-70mm. Opionions??

I don't own one yet but from all the pictures posted on Flicker taken with various lenses the new VR ll has the best image quality of any lens on Flicker. I am sure people see things differently.

gizmo285 said:

I have considered the Tamron but I always look at resale value. The overall picture is I would like the best clarity and was wondeirng if this lens would be a lot different in picture quality from my 85mm and 50mm at the standard focal distances. The convienence of the focal lengths without a lens chahge is appealing. I have a 28-300mm I have used on vacation but the clarity and contrast would probably be better with the shorter focal range and the lower light range of the 24-70mm. Opionions??

Click to expand...

for the same cost of the nikon, id buy the tamron 24-70 and 15-30 VC lenses. IQ differences between them is very minor. they are all high end zoom lenses. they are no primes though.

gizmo285 said:

I have considered the Tamron but I always look at resale value. The overall picture is I would like the best clarity and was wondeirng if this lens would be a lot different in picture quality from my 85mm and 50mm at the standard focal distances. The convienence of the focal lengths without a lens chahge is appealing. I have a 28-300mm I have used on vacation but the clarity and contrast would probably be better with the shorter focal range and the lower light range of the 24-70mm. Opionions??

Click to expand...

With the price tag of the Nikon, you will still be out more money when you sell it than the lower % return on the Tamron.

From what i hear the new VR lens doesn't offer anything the old lens has optically, at some focal lengths losing out to the old one, at other lengths gaining. I think thats where most peoples gripes lay, that you're basically paying the extra few hundred for the VR, which does actually look impressive

I picked up a 24-70mm non vr in mint condition and am very happy with the IQ results. It is quite a beast to lug around AND is actually longer and heavier than my 28-300. It is worth the price though in looking at the IQ.

gizmo285 said:

I picked up a 24-70mm non vr in mint condition and am very happy with the IQ results. It is quite a beast to lug around AND is actually longer and heavier than my 28-300. It is worth the price though in looking at the IQ.

Click to expand...

I've heard that too from several sources. The newer lens aren't always better. I really like my 24-85 with VR and even have a very old 35-70 f/2.8 so I'm easy to please.