Nikon 24-70 ED 2.8 ED - really worth $1700?

I have this lens on my D300, and I love it.

Do I love it $1700 worth? Good question.

In a logical world, something that's 99% would only be 10% more expensive than the 90% product. But, we live in a consumer goods world, and the price for that last few percent of performance will always be way disproportionate.

Yes, the sigma or some other lens could get close for a lot less money. But, if you have the money, and like me, you'd always be kicking yourself over not having that extra couple percent, maybe it is worth it to you. But, if you're going on a straight linear price/performance computation, no, it could never be worth that outrageous price.

Oh and to show you what it can do on D3 with HIGH HIGH ISO here you go...ISO 6400 on the first two
Give you something to wet you lips on till you get your D700

Some people say they love this lens and that's fine but The question is about VR so this acclaim seem like self justification from those who say criticism is horse manure.

As for VR I am glad it does not have it, VR comprises quality and only the skill of the desgner help keep it to obtain good quality, but given it's average quailty overall maybe a little higher than that, the lack of VR does not seem to be an issue. First get Nikon to redesign it and then worry about VR or lack of it.

Mike

average quality? That doesn't seem to be consistent with any of the reviews I've read or my own experience.

VR only can do it's magic in the tele lens, but will worsen the images in the wide angle side, I have found that with the safety shutter speed I get better sharpness then using VR all time.

with VR it is you only can acceptable results, you only get perfect sharpness images with a good tripod, you got the perfect camera and lens, why settle down with acceptable results?

I am keeping the 24-70 2.8 lens and look forward to using it for many years. Thanks to everyone who provided constructive comments. The recurring comment that influenced me the most was the high ISO capability of the D700 (and presumably follow-on models). When I do acquire a FF camera the lack of VR will be moot since I can comfortably bump the ISO in low light situations.

In the meantime, I plan to get more mileage out my D300 since I've only had it for 8 months.

35mm is only wide-ish on FX, it's normal on DX. 24mm is very wide on FX and wide-ish on DX.

--
BJ Nicholls
SLC, UT

Yes well, that would be where the “not to me” part would come in.

I realize it is sacrilege to say this, but 20-35 on DX doesn’t do that much for me. At least such that my old 18-70 can cover it when need be.

-Suntan

The original poster has an excellent point about the lack of VR on this lens. If it had VR it would be a hands down buy for me. But it is not. S.

john said:

VR only can do it's magic in the tele lens, but will worsen the
images in the wide angle side, I have found that with the safety
shutter speed I get better sharpness then using VR all time.

Click to expand...

While safety shutter speed is without question the easiest way to ensure best IQ, the whole idea of VR is to assist when such shutter speeds cannot be achieved.

I personally have very good experience with VR on wide end... I've shot thousands of images indoors at f/3.5 18mm going as slow as 1/5second which I could never do without VR. In fact, since I switched to 17-50 f/2.8 with no VR, I don't dare to go slower then 1/25... and I feel it's a tremendous limitation.

I wonder if the fact that we don't see VR in 24-70 f/2.8 is just a technical limitation which hopefully manufacturers will be able to overcome soon. I'm guessing it's a lot harder to fit all the VR related mechanics into already big f/2.8 glass w/o making it a lot more bigger and more expensive. Looks like L version of Canon's 24-70 also lacks IS... perhaps due to the same reasons.

--
Vadim
http://www.vadimonline.com

malch said:

I do think this lens is a little overpriced and I think it's likely
the price will ease over time if dealers are forced to compete for
business (which they're not currently).

Click to expand...

The demand is so high for this lens that it is often out of stock at many dealers. Expect the lack of supply to become worse now that many Nikon owners are transitioning to FX. As a consequence, there will be no incentive to reduce the price of the 24-70 in the immediate years ahead.

Nikon puts VR on slow f5.6 lenses to compensate for the much slower shutter speeds these lenses require in many settings. F2.8 is not slow and with a 70mm lens 1/70th is the shutter speed at which you should be able to take hand held shots without camera motion blur showing in the images. If it does then the users technique is at fault and not the lens.

Nikon has VR on the 16-85mm as at 85mm and f5.6 the minimum shutter speed has to be 1/4 of that when using the 24-70mm f2.8 lens. Big difference between 70mm at 1/80th as compared to 1/20th of a second shutter speeds when shooting hand held.

With the 70-200mm and needing 3x the shutter speed at 200mm vs. 70mm on the 24-70 zoom, VR is a real necessity for shooting hand held indoors. VR was also a big enhancement with the 400/50/600mm super telephoto lenses.

Nikon is not going to upgrade a lens released 8 months ago in the foreseeable future. If you are suffering buyer's remorse from purchasing the 24-70mm lens then return it. But it is likely to be the lens you use more than any other with the FX camera you plan to buy. Just don't think that VR is necessary for a 24-70mm f2.8 lens - it is not. And consider your shutter speed options when you have a camera that easily handles ISO 4000 settings.