D800 with 24-70mm and VR question.

I have a Nikon D800 which I currently use with a 35mm prime. I am in the market for a mid-range zoom lens and looking very hard at the 24-70mm 2.8 Nikon.

I’ve been doing research and want to get confirmation on some of the conclusions I have made.

I was originally looking at the 24-70mm f2.8 vs. 24-120mm f4 vs. 85mm f1.4

The 24-120mm – the extra range is nice. The construction of the lens is not nearly as good as the 24-70mm. the general consensus is that the IQ is OK

The 85mm – seems like an amazing lens, by all accounts its well-made, produces excellent IQ, and is reasonably priced. My issue here is that it’s still a prime, and I will end up having to switch lenses more then I’d like. I am really looking for the best “walk around” lens I can get

The 24-70 – this really is the lens I am looking at HARD, by all accounts it’s a great lens, excellent IQ, great build, etc. the one thing that has concerned me is the fact that it’s a lens that has been around for 5+ years, and may get an update soon…it also doesn’t have VR which is now becoming more and more standard on Nikon lenses.

Here is where the question comes in...Seeing as I shoot on a D800 which is capable of a pretty high ISO, what am I really giving up by shooting with no VR at higher shutter speeds and higher ISO? Is it just the noise in the images? I can’t imagine the difference between VR and non VR lenses being so drastic that I will end up jacking my ISO that high.

I am posting this in the newbie forum because I may not be thinking of something pretty basic, or maybe am not framing my question correctly...but I am basically looking for a great lens to go with my great camera that will produce great images for most indoor and outdoor occasions.

Looking forward to the responses, and thank you for the help.

I'm in the same boat.  I'll be watching this thread closely.  I actually have both the 24-70 2.8 and the 24 - 120 4 vr sitting infront of me.  Unfortunately 1 has to go back and I just can't decide!

--
“ Your first 10,000 photographs are your worst." – Henri Cartier-Bresson

VR is basically 2 stops...if you can use it.  In other words, if you can live with the slower shutter speed not causing motion blur with your subject, you gain 2 stops of light with VR.  For example, if your exposure at 70mm was 1/80, F2.8 and ISO 6400, VR would allow you to use 1/20, F2.8 and ISO 1600...a visible improvement in IQ.  VR also acts as shake protection at higher shutter speeds, when your technique isn't perfect.

The 24-120 F4 VR is a decent lens, but of course you don't get F2.8 and it won't be as sharp as the 24-70 F2.8, at F4.

There is also Tamron's 24-70 VC to consider.  It has gotten a lot of positive reviews.  I've got one and it is very sharp wide open.

You will find more information on this in the lens forum.

I had the same dilemma. I went for the 24-120 VR but I’m not sure that I have made the right decision.  It'[s a great lens and you can get lower shutter speeds handheld but you can never get f/2.8 to get the shallow depth of field that you may want.

In theory the Tamron should be the best of both worlds, try searching the lens forum.

Good luck with your decision.

Paul

I opted for the 24-70mm f2.8 and could not be happier.  Like the sharpness and I need the VR because my technique is not that great anymore.  Good comment on the 2 stop difference----you definitely will not be disappointed and when linked with the D800---awesome combination.

I shoot the Nikon 24-70 on a D800E and get great IQ with hand-held shooting. I don't really have any problems with the lack of VR on this lens. Its shorter focal lengths don't demand a great deal of shutter speed compensation (1/2 X focal length for the D800/E) and when I need to crank up the ISO, LR, PS or Dfine 2.0 can remove the noise.

I have both the 24-70 and the 24-120 f/4 which I have used extensively on my D700, and now also on a D800.

Both are pretty nice lenses to have and my take on it is this:

1. For general walk-around and travel purposes - the 24-120 f/4 without question. The extra reach means less lens changes, and the VR works great - I don't have steady hands.

2. For critical shots where border to border sharpness is really important, or where f2.8 will make a worthwhile difference, then obviously the 24-70 wins. I must add that the 24-120 is still pretty good as far as centre sharpness is concerned.

I don't think you will be disappointed with either lens, but perhaps have a look at the Tamron 24-70 as Daniel suggested above, it is a highly regarded lens.

Good luck and happy hunting

--
Jacques
Apple & Eve : apple-and-eve.com

Yeah, please have a look at the Tamron VR option!

Several months ago when I bought my 24-120/4 I combined it with 50/1.4G for low light situations and bokeh. It worked technically well but the standard prime was boring. Since then I replaced it with 35/1.4 and I’m a happy camper now (Nikon refurb decently priced).

Looking back I’m still amazed how sharp and reliable my Nikon mid-range zoom is (perhaps I have a really good copy). It is also an ideal video lens.

One small bonus is that all my Nikon lenses deliver identical color rendition and other optical characteristics. NEF processing is much easier that way…

Vlad3

i just want to thank you for the input. looks like my threads from this and the beginner forum somehow ended up on the same page...but thank you.

the ergonomics of the 24-70 are so nice! i love holding that lens...as heavy as it is. the 24-120 feels more like my DX lenses...

No, it's not.

24/1.4G, 35/1.4G, 85/1.4G, 28/1.8G, 50/1.8G, 85/1.8G, 18-35/3.5-4.5G, 40/2.8G DX Micro, all fairly new lenses, all in the same general focal length range as the 24-70 and all without VR.

Canon has just updated their 24-70/2.8 and did not include IS (VR).

I have very little doubt that when Nikon renews its 24-70/2.8 that it will not have VR.

Nikon has a great opportunity here when they renew their 24-70.  As Canon just did theirs and did not include IS, many customers have been disappointed.  If Nikon includes VR on their new one, it will be a huge seller, Nikon quality also.

--
“ Your first 10,000 photographs are your worst." – Henri Cartier-Bresson

The new Canon 24-70/2.8 is a $2300 lens. Will adding VR plus the associated cost and weight still leave Nikon with a very successful lens? Would you pay $2500 (my estimated price) for a Nikon 24-70/2.8VR?

I highly doubt those considering the Canon 24-70/2.8 will be somehow swayed to Nikon solely because Nikon added VR to their 24-70/2.8. The customer who's buying that lens will likely own, or plan to buy, several other lenses as well making the decision far more complicated.

I have posted this image before with an acknowledgement that it is just a snapshot and doesn't qualify for pixel peeping. It does show a D800 with a Nikon 24-70 at 1/40sec, ISO800, no noise reduction, in poor lighting, shot handheld by a 66 year old man with not very steady hands. It's been converted raw to jpeg at 1/3 the normal Mbs for inclusion here.

focal point is near truck hinge

The hinge on the near truck was the focal point using an offcenter focus point.  It's obviously not in critical focus but it does show that the D800/non VR (and I love VR as much as anybody) combo works. A steady rest would have put this image in fine focus, no problem.

I love the 24-70. I have the 70-200 f/2.8 Nikon and some primes including my favorite macro 105 f/2.8 VRll and use all of them, but just for a walkaround, all purpose lens the 24-70 is hard to beat. It is always capable in any light and paired with the D800 it can deliver superb images. Highly recommended.

the onion bockeh really kills it. I tried it, shot about 20 pictures with my D600, the VC works great, you can get sharp 1/8th pictures, it stabilizes handled video too, but the onion bokeh (VC on or OFF) brakes the 1000$ deal to me. Even his smaller DX twin, 17-50mm 2.8 VC doesn't suffer from this issue...

Hmmm... good to know... I had no idea because I don't own this lens...

Thanks for the intel!

Vlad3

no prob, some will love it, some will not - a nice review here : http://photographylife.com/reviews/tamron-24-70mm-f2-8

another one here:

http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/741-tamron2470f28eosff?start=1

The lens is very sharp in the center, a bit less on the borders, it is very well build, with one little flaw, the back of the lens has an open space and when you zoom in or out, it acts like an air-dust vacuum (but who will zoom with an unmounted lens?). The price is great too, but the bokeh is just killing the whole deal. (to me)

My dream zoom lens  - come on Nikon ! Ouch, wallet is hurting already.

The higher the ISO setting, the lower the dynamic range. Here is a chart that tells you the stops of DR at a given ISO on the D800.

You should read this article on VR to get a better understanding of when to use it and when not to.

I mostly shoot landscapes and want the great detail. So I typically use a tripod. I have two lenses with VR. I can't recall the last time I turned it on with either of them.

The 24-70mm f/2.8 is a very good lens. I'm glad it doesn't have VR.

--
Robin Casady
http://www.robincasady.com/Photo/index.html

D800 works better with VR