Would you have preferred a new 24-70 F2.8 that was smaller and lighter rather than bigger and better

Humm....

Seems you omitted a few voting options in your poll:

__ No opinion, since I'm not in the market for a 24-70 f/2.8

__ Neither one. I plan to take the money I saved by not buying either lens and invest in the P90X Extreme Home Fitness program (or equiv.) so I can quit whining about having to carry around a 2-pound lens.

__ Ha! You call that big? (Spoken by anyone owning anything Nikon 200mm and up having a maximum aperture of f/2.8 or better.)

__ Whimps! (Spoken by owners of the Zoom-Nikkor 1200-1700mm f/5.6-8P IF-ED) :-D

They added 5 more elements to drain color, flatten contrast, and diffuse light for what? Its almost the same size as my 70-200 F/2.8 VRII with the same number of elements. No thanks, I'll take the current lens over the new one.

Lance B said:

RickD said:

The new 24-70 looks like an awesome lens but for me its improved optical performance and VR are more than offset by the increase in size and weight. I think that Nikon went in the wrong direction by aiming at "bigger and better" rather than "more user-friendly".

I am not tempted by this upgrade, but would have strongly considered a lighter and smaller (perhaps PF) lens without VR that was optically equivalent to the older version.

I think Nikon missed an opportunity with this upgrade, and the purpose of this poll is to find out how many others think the same.

Click to expand...

Question 1)

"I would have considered purchasing an upgraded 24-70 that was significantly smaller and lighter than the previous version with equivalent optical quality over the recently announced version."

I don't know that this would have been possible. If Nikon could have designed a smaller and lighter version they would have done it. I don't see why they would make a lens unnecessarily large and heavy for no reason.

Click to expand...

nikon could have designed a smaller lens by leaving out the VR

Lance B said:

Question 2)

"I am considering purchasing the recently announced Nikon 24-70 with improved optical quality and VR, and would choose this over a lighter and smaller lens that did not have these features."

This is the most likely scenario for me, but it really depends if the IQ is worth it or not. If it is no better than the previous 24-70, then I won't bother upgrading. However, I really don't think that Nikon would allow it to be the same or of lesser IQ.

Question 3)

"The previous Nikon 24-70 meets all my needs. I am completely happy with it and would not consider upgrading to a either a "bigger and better" or "smaller and lighter" replacement."

Well, there is much to be said for this option. The old lens is a superb "standard zoom" option and I wonder whether Nikon will still keep making it for a non VR smaller lighter option for those that don't want the larger version.

Click to expand...

sgoldswo said:

Lance B said:

RickD said:

The new 24-70 looks like an awesome lens but for me its improved optical performance and VR are more than offset by the increase in size and weight. I think that Nikon went in the wrong direction by aiming at "bigger and better" rather than "more user-friendly".

I am not tempted by this upgrade, but would have strongly considered a lighter and smaller (perhaps PF) lens without VR that was optically equivalent to the older version.

I think Nikon missed an opportunity with this upgrade, and the purpose of this poll is to find out how many others think the same.

Click to expand...

Question 1)

"I would have considered purchasing an upgraded 24-70 that was significantly smaller and lighter than the previous version with equivalent optical quality over the recently announced version."

I don't know that this would have been possible. If Nikon could have designed a smaller and lighter version they would have done it. I don't see why they would make a lens unnecessarily large and heavy for no reason.

Click to expand...

nikon could have designed a smaller lens by leaving out the VR

Click to expand...

Yes, I do realise that. However, I do believe, and obviously Nikon also believe, that there would not have been enough people wanting to change to a lens that only offered slight IQ advantage with a slightly smaller size. I think they believe, as I do, that they will attract more buyers with a VR equiped lens that also offers slightly better IQ but with a slight size and weight penalty.

Maybe this is a good reason for Nikon to employ in body stabilisation which would work in conjuction with VR or where VR is not available in the lens.

sgoldswo said:

sgoldswo said:

Question 2)

"I am considering purchasing the recently announced Nikon 24-70 with improved optical quality and VR, and would choose this over a lighter and smaller lens that did not have these features."

This is the most likely scenario for me, but it really depends if the IQ is worth it or not. If it is no better than the previous 24-70, then I won't bother upgrading. However, I really don't think that Nikon would allow it to be the same or of lesser IQ.

Question 3)

"The previous Nikon 24-70 meets all my needs. I am completely happy with it and would not consider upgrading to a either a "bigger and better" or "smaller and lighter" replacement."

Well, there is much to be said for this option. The old lens is a superb "standard zoom" option and I wonder whether Nikon will still keep making it for a non VR smaller lighter option for those that don't want the larger version.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

I've never had a problem with my current 24-70. I just want better image quality so that I get even MORE out of my 800e. Somebody will get my old one at a really good price!

At $2400 I cannot see the gain in image quality as being worth the extra expense. It would take a D8xx camera at 36MP and a specific type of scene or subject and very large print to begin to see the difference. I would bet that in 99% of the pictures taken with a 24-70mm lens that no one can tell the difference at normal viewing distances with a print hanging on the wall.

The VR is a gimmick to justify the 50% jump in price. When photographing people at events I am at 1/80s or faster to avoid blurring from subject movement. At 1/80s I do not need VR even at 70mm. VR also slows down the autofocus and that is the last thing I need when photographing people.

When shooting landscapes and using this lens or panoramics or HDR, I will be using a tripod and I will have VR turned off.

I cannot think of a single situation where I need VR with a 24-70mm lens. I do not need it with my 105mm lenses.

calson said:

At $2400 I cannot see the gain in image quality as being worth the extra expense. It would take a D8xx camera at 36MP and a specific type of scene or subject and very large print to begin to see the difference. I would bet that in 99% of the pictures taken with a 24-70mm lens that no one can tell the difference at normal viewing distances with a print hanging on the wall.

The VR is a gimmick to justify the 50% jump in price. When photographing people at events I am at 1/80s or faster to avoid blurring from subject movement. At 1/80s I do not need VR even at 70mm. VR also slows down the autofocus and that is the last thing I need when photographing people.

When shooting landscapes and using this lens or panoramics or HDR, I will be using a tripod and I will have VR turned off.

I cannot think of a single situation where I need VR with a 24-70mm lens. I do not need it with my 105mm lenses.

Click to expand...

LOL. What a self centered response. Just because it may not suit you doesn't mean it may not suit most others. VR is not a gimmick and is very handy in this zoom range to many people and the slight increase in sharpness may be at the edges where the current 24-70 is let down, especially at the wider apertures. How about waiting until it's released and we can see how good it is before lambasting it.

Lance B said:

RickD said:

The new 24-70 looks like an awesome lens but for me its improved optical performance and VR are more than offset by the increase in size and weight. I think that Nikon went in the wrong direction by aiming at "bigger and better" rather than "more user-friendly".

I am not tempted by this upgrade, but would have strongly considered a lighter and smaller (perhaps PF) lens without VR that was optically equivalent to the older version.

I think Nikon missed an opportunity with this upgrade, and the purpose of this poll is to find out how many others think the same.

Click to expand...

Question 1)

"I would have considered purchasing an upgraded 24-70 that was significantly smaller and lighter than the previous version with equivalent optical quality over the recently announced version."

I don't know that this would have been possible. If Nikon could have designed a smaller and lighter version they would have done it. I don't see why they would make a lens unnecessarily large and heavy for no reason.

Click to expand...

Then why is the Canon EF 24-70mm f2.8 L USM II smaller and lighter (and sharper)? And the Tamron 24-70mm f2.8, with VC, is also smaller and lighter.

Meaning: the lens does not have to be bigger to be sharper, nor does the inclusion on a VR group mean that the lens has to be bigger.

Lance B said:

Question 2)

"I am considering purchasing the recently announced Nikon 24-70 with improved optical quality and VR, and would choose this over a lighter and smaller lens that did not have these features."

This is the most likely scenario for me, but it really depends if the IQ is worth it or not. If it is no better than the previous 24-70, then I won't bother upgrading. However, I really don't think that Nikon would allow it to be the same or of lesser IQ.

Question 3)

"The previous Nikon 24-70 meets all my needs. I am completely happy with it and would not consider upgrading to a either a "bigger and better" or "smaller and lighter" replacement."

Well, there is much to be said for this option. The old lens is a superb "standard zoom" option and I wonder whether Nikon will still keep making it for a non VR smaller lighter option for those that don't want the larger version.

--
Lance B
http://www.pbase.com/lance_b
http://i.pbase.com/o4/21/489821/1/53232844.SydneyPanoVertSmall.jpg

Click to expand...

calson said:

The VR is a gimmick to justify the 50% jump in price. When photographing people at events I am at 1/80s or faster to avoid blurring from subject movement. At 1/80s I do not need VR even at 70mm. VR also slows down the autofocus and that is the last thing I need when photographing people.

When shooting landscapes and using this lens or panoramics or HDR, I will be using a tripod and I will have VR turned off.

I cannot think of a single situation where I need VR with a 24-70mm lens. I do not need it with my 105mm lenses.

Click to expand...

Are you using a monopod ever with this short range or are you super steady without flash? There are times when I could get careless or someone will bump into me and smear a 70mm shot at 1/80. VR could still be handy.

You don't need VR at 105mm? Is all VR just a gimmick then?

I would think pros of all people would know to get the lens that gets them the highest number of keepers and just put up with the weight. The pros I see just use the biggest and best two lenses they carry around with them all day. It's the weekend warriors who do the moaning.

With the Tamron 24-70mm we already have a lens that's lighter, has VR and around the same IQ as the Nikon 24-70mm, build and AF performance isn't as good but price wise it can often he had sub £700(got mine sub £600).

Would I pat say £1300 for a Nikon then with those advantages in build and AF but the same performance? no I don't think I would.

Would I pay £1600ish for a Nikon with better optical performance? maybe if my demands/income increase in the future.

What I would say is that I think theres a market for a MUCH smaller/cheaper F/2.8 mid range zoom, say a 28-70mm with consumer build coming in around 600g and £500-600.

brightcolours said:

Lance B said:

RickD said:

The new 24-70 looks like an awesome lens but for me its improved optical performance and VR are more than offset by the increase in size and weight. I think that Nikon went in the wrong direction by aiming at "bigger and better" rather than "more user-friendly".

I am not tempted by this upgrade, but would have strongly considered a lighter and smaller (perhaps PF) lens without VR that was optically equivalent to the older version.

I think Nikon missed an opportunity with this upgrade, and the purpose of this poll is to find out how many others think the same.

Click to expand...

Question 1)

"I would have considered purchasing an upgraded 24-70 that was significantly smaller and lighter than the previous version with equivalent optical quality over the recently announced version."

I don't know that this would have been possible. If Nikon could have designed a smaller and lighter version they would have done it. I don't see why they would make a lens unnecessarily large and heavy for no reason.

Click to expand...

Then why is the Canon EF 24-70mm f2.8 L USM II smaller and lighter (and sharper)? And the Tamron 24-70mm f2.8, with VC, is also smaller and lighter.

Meaning: the lens does not have to be bigger to be sharper, nor does the inclusion on a VR group mean that the lens has to be bigger.

Click to expand...

Well, actually it might, if Nikon's new lens is better than these two. I am sure they have designed a lens to be better than the competition not just as good or less as good. That's the point. Unbelievable that I need to spell this out, but then that wouldn't suit your agenda.

brightcolours said:

brightcolours said:

Question 2)

"I am considering purchasing the recently announced Nikon 24-70 with improved optical quality and VR, and would choose this over a lighter and smaller lens that did not have these features."

This is the most likely scenario for me, but it really depends if the IQ is worth it or not. If it is no better than the previous 24-70, then I won't bother upgrading. However, I really don't think that Nikon would allow it to be the same or of lesser IQ.

Question 3)

"The previous Nikon 24-70 meets all my needs. I am completely happy with it and would not consider upgrading to a either a "bigger and better" or "smaller and lighter" replacement."

Well, there is much to be said for this option. The old lens is a superb "standard zoom" option and I wonder whether Nikon will still keep making it for a non VR smaller lighter option for those that don't want the larger version.

--
Lance B
http://www.pbase.com/lance_b
http://i.pbase.com/o4/21/489821/1/53232844.SydneyPanoVertSmall.jpg

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

--
Lance B
http://www.pbase.com/lance_b
http://i.pbase.com/o4/21/489821/1/53232844.SydneyPanoVertSmall.jpg

Lance B said:

brightcolours said:

Lance B said:

RickD said:

The new 24-70 looks like an awesome lens but for me its improved optical performance and VR are more than offset by the increase in size and weight. I think that Nikon went in the wrong direction by aiming at "bigger and better" rather than "more user-friendly".

I am not tempted by this upgrade, but would have strongly considered a lighter and smaller (perhaps PF) lens without VR that was optically equivalent to the older version.

I think Nikon missed an opportunity with this upgrade, and the purpose of this poll is to find out how many others think the same.

Click to expand...

Question 1)

"I would have considered purchasing an upgraded 24-70 that was significantly smaller and lighter than the previous version with equivalent optical quality over the recently announced version."

I don't know that this would have been possible. If Nikon could have designed a smaller and lighter version they would have done it. I don't see why they would make a lens unnecessarily large and heavy for no reason.

Click to expand...

Then why is the Canon EF 24-70mm f2.8 L USM II smaller and lighter (and sharper)? And the Tamron 24-70mm f2.8, with VC, is also smaller and lighter.

Meaning: the lens does not have to be bigger to be sharper, nor does the inclusion on a VR group mean that the lens has to be bigger.

Click to expand...

Well, actually it might, if Nikon's new lens is better than these two. I am sure they have designed a lens to be better than the competition not just as good or less as good. That's the point. Unbelievable that I need to spell this out, but then that wouldn't suit your agenda.

Click to expand...

Especially the last part is very funny :-D

Lance B said:

Lance B said:

Lance B said:

Question 2)

"I am considering purchasing the recently announced Nikon 24-70 with improved optical quality and VR, and would choose this over a lighter and smaller lens that did not have these features."

This is the most likely scenario for me, but it really depends if the IQ is worth it or not. If it is no better than the previous 24-70, then I won't bother upgrading. However, I really don't think that Nikon would allow it to be the same or of lesser IQ.

Question 3)

"The previous Nikon 24-70 meets all my needs. I am completely happy with it and would not consider upgrading to a either a "bigger and better" or "smaller and lighter" replacement."

Well, there is much to be said for this option. The old lens is a superb "standard zoom" option and I wonder whether Nikon will still keep making it for a non VR smaller lighter option for those that don't want the larger version.

--
Lance B
http://www.pbase.com/lance_b
http://i.pbase.com/o4/21/489821/1/53232844.SydneyPanoVertSmall.jpg

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

--
Lance B
http://www.pbase.com/lance_b
http://i.pbase.com/o4/21/489821/1/53232844.SydneyPanoVertSmall.jpg

Click to expand...

brightcolours said:

Lance B said:

brightcolours said:

Lance B said:

RickD said:

The new 24-70 looks like an awesome lens but for me its improved optical performance and VR are more than offset by the increase in size and weight. I think that Nikon went in the wrong direction by aiming at "bigger and better" rather than "more user-friendly".

I am not tempted by this upgrade, but would have strongly considered a lighter and smaller (perhaps PF) lens without VR that was optically equivalent to the older version.

I think Nikon missed an opportunity with this upgrade, and the purpose of this poll is to find out how many others think the same.

Click to expand...

Question 1)

"I would have considered purchasing an upgraded 24-70 that was significantly smaller and lighter than the previous version with equivalent optical quality over the recently announced version."

I don't know that this would have been possible. If Nikon could have designed a smaller and lighter version they would have done it. I don't see why they would make a lens unnecessarily large and heavy for no reason.

Click to expand...

Then why is the Canon EF 24-70mm f2.8 L USM II smaller and lighter (and sharper)? And the Tamron 24-70mm f2.8, with VC, is also smaller and lighter.

Meaning: the lens does not have to be bigger to be sharper, nor does the inclusion on a VR group mean that the lens has to be bigger.

Click to expand...

Well, actually it might, if Nikon's new lens is better than these two. I am sure they have designed a lens to be better than the competition not just as good or less as good. That's the point. Unbelievable that I need to spell this out, but then that wouldn't suit your agenda.

Click to expand...

Especially the last part is very funny :-D

Click to expand...

Yes, you're right, the truth can be funny. :-D

brightcolours said:

brightcolours said:

brightcolours said:

brightcolours said:

Question 2)

"I am considering purchasing the recently announced Nikon 24-70 with improved optical quality and VR, and would choose this over a lighter and smaller lens that did not have these features."

This is the most likely scenario for me, but it really depends if the IQ is worth it or not. If it is no better than the previous 24-70, then I won't bother upgrading. However, I really don't think that Nikon would allow it to be the same or of lesser IQ.

Question 3)

"The previous Nikon 24-70 meets all my needs. I am completely happy with it and would not consider upgrading to a either a "bigger and better" or "smaller and lighter" replacement."

Well, there is much to be said for this option. The old lens is a superb "standard zoom" option and I wonder whether Nikon will still keep making it for a non VR smaller lighter option for those that don't want the larger version.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Lance B said:

brightcolours said:

Lance B said:

brightcolours said:

Lance B said:

RickD said:

The new 24-70 looks like an awesome lens but for me its improved optical performance and VR are more than offset by the increase in size and weight. I think that Nikon went in the wrong direction by aiming at "bigger and better" rather than "more user-friendly".

I am not tempted by this upgrade, but would have strongly considered a lighter and smaller (perhaps PF) lens without VR that was optically equivalent to the older version.

I think Nikon missed an opportunity with this upgrade, and the purpose of this poll is to find out how many others think the same.

Click to expand...

Question 1)

"I would have considered purchasing an upgraded 24-70 that was significantly smaller and lighter than the previous version with equivalent optical quality over the recently announced version."

I don't know that this would have been possible. If Nikon could have designed a smaller and lighter version they would have done it. I don't see why they would make a lens unnecessarily large and heavy for no reason.

Click to expand...

Then why is the Canon EF 24-70mm f2.8 L USM II smaller and lighter (and sharper)? And the Tamron 24-70mm f2.8, with VC, is also smaller and lighter.

Meaning: the lens does not have to be bigger to be sharper, nor does the inclusion on a VR group mean that the lens has to be bigger.

Click to expand...

Well, actually it might, if Nikon's new lens is better than these two. I am sure they have designed a lens to be better than the competition not just as good or less as good. That's the point. Unbelievable that I need to spell this out, but then that wouldn't suit your agenda.

Click to expand...

Especially the last part is very funny :-D

Click to expand...

Yes, you're right, the truth can be funny. :-D

Click to expand...

Your screen is very reflective as you seem to be talking about yourself.

I often praise qualities of lenses from many brands, yet you try to do this cheap shot because you know I have a Canon DSLR. I often am critical of certain Canon lenses and recommend certain Nikkors for their specific qualities (and I am aware of other brand's good lenses too).

Guess what is the difference with you and me?

Thanks for the personal attack. :-D

Lance B said:

Lance B said:

Lance B said:

Lance B said:

Lance B said:

Question 2)

"I am considering purchasing the recently announced Nikon 24-70 with improved optical quality and VR, and would choose this over a lighter and smaller lens that did not have these features."

This is the most likely scenario for me, but it really depends if the IQ is worth it or not. If it is no better than the previous 24-70, then I won't bother upgrading. However, I really don't think that Nikon would allow it to be the same or of lesser IQ.

Question 3)

"The previous Nikon 24-70 meets all my needs. I am completely happy with it and would not consider upgrading to a either a "bigger and better" or "smaller and lighter" replacement."

Well, there is much to be said for this option. The old lens is a superb "standard zoom" option and I wonder whether Nikon will still keep making it for a non VR smaller lighter option for those that don't want the larger version.

--
Lance B
http://www.pbase.com/lance_b
http://i.pbase.com/o4/21/489821/1/53232844.SydneyPanoVertSmall.jpg

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

--
Lance B
http://www.pbase.com/lance_b
http://i.pbase.com/o4/21/489821/1/53232844.SydneyPanoVertSmall.jpg

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

--
Lance B
http://www.pbase.com/lance_b
http://i.pbase.com/o4/21/489821/1/53232844.SydneyPanoVertSmall.jpg

Click to expand...

brightcolours said:

Lance B said:

brightcolours said:

Lance B said:

brightcolours said:

Lance B said:

RickD said:

The new 24-70 looks like an awesome lens but for me its improved optical performance and VR are more than offset by the increase in size and weight. I think that Nikon went in the wrong direction by aiming at "bigger and better" rather than "more user-friendly".

I am not tempted by this upgrade, but would have strongly considered a lighter and smaller (perhaps PF) lens without VR that was optically equivalent to the older version.

I think Nikon missed an opportunity with this upgrade, and the purpose of this poll is to find out how many others think the same.

Click to expand...

Question 1)

"I would have considered purchasing an upgraded 24-70 that was significantly smaller and lighter than the previous version with equivalent optical quality over the recently announced version."

I don't know that this would have been possible. If Nikon could have designed a smaller and lighter version they would have done it. I don't see why they would make a lens unnecessarily large and heavy for no reason.

Click to expand...

Then why is the Canon EF 24-70mm f2.8 L USM II smaller and lighter (and sharper)? And the Tamron 24-70mm f2.8, with VC, is also smaller and lighter.

Meaning: the lens does not have to be bigger to be sharper, nor does the inclusion on a VR group mean that the lens has to be bigger.

Click to expand...

Well, actually it might, if Nikon's new lens is better than these two. I am sure they have designed a lens to be better than the competition not just as good or less as good. That's the point. Unbelievable that I need to spell this out, but then that wouldn't suit your agenda.

Click to expand...

Especially the last part is very funny :-D

Click to expand...

Yes, you're right, the truth can be funny. :-D

Click to expand...

Your screen is very reflective as you seem to be talking about yourself.

Click to expand...

Oh no, not the thinly veiled jibe. LOL.

brightcolours said:

I often praise qualities of lenses from many brands, yet you try to do this cheap shot because you know I have a Canon DSLR.

Click to expand...

Ha. Until you just told me, I didn't know what brand you used.

brightcolours said:

I often am critical of certain Canon lenses and recommend certain Nikkors for their specific qualities

Click to expand...

How would you recommend a Nikon lens to a Canon user? Hmmm?

brightcolours said:

(and I am aware of other brand's good lenses too).

Click to expand...

Well, so am I. I own a Zeiss 21 f2.8 and a Sigma 35 f1.4. I have recommended the Tamron and Sigma 150-600 to many people.

brightcolours said:

Guess what is the difference with you and me?

Click to expand...

I'm smart and you're not.

brightcolours said:

Thanks for the personal attack. :-D

Click to expand...

Please be honest. It's quite a simple thing to understand that Nikon obviously decided to make a no-holds-barred 24-70, yet you had to come up with some comment that trying to make out that you know better than Nikon and that they couldn't make one smaller than the Canon and Tamron. I mean, Pllleease.

brightcolours said:

brightcolours said:

brightcolours said:

brightcolours said:

brightcolours said:

brightcolours said:

Question 2)

"I am considering purchasing the recently announced Nikon 24-70 with improved optical quality and VR, and would choose this over a lighter and smaller lens that did not have these features."

This is the most likely scenario for me, but it really depends if the IQ is worth it or not. If it is no better than the previous 24-70, then I won't bother upgrading. However, I really don't think that Nikon would allow it to be the same or of lesser IQ.

Question 3)

"The previous Nikon 24-70 meets all my needs. I am completely happy with it and would not consider upgrading to a either a "bigger and better" or "smaller and lighter" replacement."

Well, there is much to be said for this option. The old lens is a superb "standard zoom" option and I wonder whether Nikon will still keep making it for a non VR smaller lighter option for those that don't want the larger version.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

MoreorLess said:

With the Tamron 24-70mm we already have a lens that's lighter, has VR and around the same IQ as the Nikon 24-70mm, build and AF performance isn't as good but price wise it can often he had sub £700(got mine sub £600).

Would I pat say £1300 for a Nikon then with those advantages in build and AF but the same performance? no I don't think I would.

Would I pay £1600ish for a Nikon with better optical performance? maybe if my demands/income increase in the future.

What I would say is that I think theres a market for a MUCH smaller/cheaper F/2.8 mid range zoom, say a 28-70mm with consumer build coming in around 600g and £500-600.

Click to expand...

In the real world I never found the Tamron to match the current Nikon 24-70 optically. The Nikon was perceptibly sharper with better local contrast and as you note, much faster to focus (and capable of focus in low light where the Tamron hunted). The weak points of the existing Nikon were 24mm and 70mm (and arguably VR, though I would disagree).

I assume the main point of this lens is to score much higher on test charts (similar to the Canon LII) and out Sigma the Sigma Art line.

Lance B said:

brightcolours said:

Lance B said:

brightcolours said:

Lance B said:

brightcolours said:

Lance B said:

RickD said:

The new 24-70 looks like an awesome lens but for me its improved optical performance and VR are more than offset by the increase in size and weight. I think that Nikon went in the wrong direction by aiming at "bigger and better" rather than "more user-friendly".

I am not tempted by this upgrade, but would have strongly considered a lighter and smaller (perhaps PF) lens without VR that was optically equivalent to the older version.

I think Nikon missed an opportunity with this upgrade, and the purpose of this poll is to find out how many others think the same.

Click to expand...

Question 1)

"I would have considered purchasing an upgraded 24-70 that was significantly smaller and lighter than the previous version with equivalent optical quality over the recently announced version."

I don't know that this would have been possible. If Nikon could have designed a smaller and lighter version they would have done it. I don't see why they would make a lens unnecessarily large and heavy for no reason.

Click to expand...

Then why is the Canon EF 24-70mm f2.8 L USM II smaller and lighter (and sharper)? And the Tamron 24-70mm f2.8, with VC, is also smaller and lighter.

Meaning: the lens does not have to be bigger to be sharper, nor does the inclusion on a VR group mean that the lens has to be bigger.

Click to expand...

Well, actually it might, if Nikon's new lens is better than these two. I am sure they have designed a lens to be better than the competition not just as good or less as good. That's the point. Unbelievable that I need to spell this out, but then that wouldn't suit your agenda.

Click to expand...

Especially the last part is very funny :-D

Click to expand...

Yes, you're right, the truth can be funny. :-D

Click to expand...

Your screen is very reflective as you seem to be talking about yourself.

Click to expand...

Oh no, not the thinly veiled jibe. LOL.

Lance B said:

I often praise qualities of lenses from many brands, yet you try to do this cheap shot because you know I have a Canon DSLR.

Click to expand...

Ha. Until you just told me, I didn't know what brand you used.

Click to expand...

That is nonsense, Lance. You have attacked me often enough, also in the Canon FF forum, to know which camera I use. It is not as if I make a secret of using a 6D.

Lance B said:

Lance B said:

I often am critical of certain Canon lenses and recommend certain Nikkors for their specific qualities

Click to expand...

How would you recommend a Nikon lens to a Canon user? Hmmm?

Click to expand...

Why would I recommend a Nikkor lens to a Canon user? That makes no sense at all. Unless it is a particularly nice older MF Nikkor. Dear Lance, of course it would be recommending a certain lens to someone who either has a Nikon camera, or is looking to buy one.

Lance B said:

Lance B said:

(and I am aware of other brand's good lenses too).

Click to expand...

Well, so am I. I own a Zeiss 21 f2.8 and a Sigma 35 f1.4. I have recommended the Tamron and Sigma 150-600 to many people.

Lance B said:

Guess what is the difference with you and me?

Click to expand...

I'm smart and you're not.

Lance B said:

Thanks for the personal attack. :-D

Click to expand...

Please be honest. It's quite a simple thing to understand that Nikon obviously decided to make a no-holds-barred 24-70, yet you had to come up with some comment that trying to make out that you know better than Nikon and that they couldn't make one smaller than the Canon and Tamron. I mean, Pllleease.

Click to expand...

Nice straw man. However, it was you who claimed that the lens has to be big because otherwise it could not be better. I simply pointed out that the better Canon 24-70mm f2.8 L USM II is smaller and lighter, and that the smaller and lighter Tamron includes VC.

Lance B said:

Lance B said:

Lance B said:

Lance B said:

Lance B said:

Lance B said:

Lance B said:

Question 2)

"I am considering purchasing the recently announced Nikon 24-70 with improved optical quality and VR, and would choose this over a lighter and smaller lens that did not have these features."

This is the most likely scenario for me, but it really depends if the IQ is worth it or not. If it is no better than the previous 24-70, then I won't bother upgrading. However, I really don't think that Nikon would allow it to be the same or of lesser IQ.

Question 3)

"The previous Nikon 24-70 meets all my needs. I am completely happy with it and would not consider upgrading to a either a "bigger and better" or "smaller and lighter" replacement."

Well, there is much to be said for this option. The old lens is a superb "standard zoom" option and I wonder whether Nikon will still keep making it for a non VR smaller lighter option for those that don't want the larger version.

--
Lance B
http://www.pbase.com/lance_b
http://i.pbase.com/o4/21/489821/1/53232844.SydneyPanoVertSmall.jpg

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

--
Lance B
http://www.pbase.com/lance_b
http://i.pbase.com/o4/21/489821/1/53232844.SydneyPanoVertSmall.jpg

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

--
Lance B
http://www.pbase.com/lance_b
http://i.pbase.com/o4/21/489821/1/53232844.SydneyPanoVertSmall.jpg

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

--
Lance B
http://www.pbase.com/lance_b
http://i.pbase.com/o4/21/489821/1/53232844.SydneyPanoVertSmall.jpg

Click to expand...

brightcolours said:

Lance B said:

brightcolours said:

Lance B said:

brightcolours said:

Lance B said:

brightcolours said:

Lance B said:

RickD said:

The new 24-70 looks like an awesome lens but for me its improved optical performance and VR are more than offset by the increase in size and weight. I think that Nikon went in the wrong direction by aiming at "bigger and better" rather than "more user-friendly".

I am not tempted by this upgrade, but would have strongly considered a lighter and smaller (perhaps PF) lens without VR that was optically equivalent to the older version.

I think Nikon missed an opportunity with this upgrade, and the purpose of this poll is to find out how many others think the same.

Click to expand...

Question 1)

"I would have considered purchasing an upgraded 24-70 that was significantly smaller and lighter than the previous version with equivalent optical quality over the recently announced version."

I don't know that this would have been possible. If Nikon could have designed a smaller and lighter version they would have done it. I don't see why they would make a lens unnecessarily large and heavy for no reason.

Click to expand...

Then why is the Canon EF 24-70mm f2.8 L USM II smaller and lighter (and sharper)? And the Tamron 24-70mm f2.8, with VC, is also smaller and lighter.

Meaning: the lens does not have to be bigger to be sharper, nor does the inclusion on a VR group mean that the lens has to be bigger.

Click to expand...

Well, actually it might, if Nikon's new lens is better than these two. I am sure they have designed a lens to be better than the competition not just as good or less as good. That's the point. Unbelievable that I need to spell this out, but then that wouldn't suit your agenda.

Click to expand...

Especially the last part is very funny :-D

Click to expand...

Yes, you're right, the truth can be funny. :-D

Click to expand...

Your screen is very reflective as you seem to be talking about yourself.

Click to expand...

Oh no, not the thinly veiled jibe. LOL.

brightcolours said:

I often praise qualities of lenses from many brands, yet you try to do this cheap shot because you know I have a Canon DSLR.

Click to expand...

Ha. Until you just told me, I didn't know what brand you used.

Click to expand...

That is nonsense, Lance. You have attacked me often enough, also in the Canon FF forum, to know which camera I use. It is not as if I make a secret of using a 6D.

Click to expand...

LOL. The problem here is that I don't keep a dossier on everyone on the forum. In other words, I have better things to do than worry about what equipment you use and added to that, you obviously have an inflated idea of your importance to my world.

brightcolours said:

brightcolours said:

brightcolours said:

I often am critical of certain Canon lenses and recommend certain Nikkors for their specific qualities

Click to expand...

How would you recommend a Nikon lens to a Canon user? Hmmm?

Click to expand...

Why would I recommend a Nikkor lens to a Canon user? That makes no sense at all. Unless it is a particularly nice older MF Nikkor. Dear Lance, of course it would be recommending a certain lens to someone who either has a Nikon camera, or is looking to buy one.

Click to expand...

How can you recommend a Nikkor to a Canon user? You specifically said, "I often am critical of certain Canon lenses and recommend certain Nikkors for their specific qualities". You said recommend Nikkors for their specific qualities, but you can't recommend a Nikkor to anyone but a Nikon user anyway. It's just a meaningless comment by you in some forlorn attempt to make out that you're somehow unbiased. That's a crock. It'd be no different than me recommending Canon lenses to a Canon user. LOL.

brightcolours said:

brightcolours said:

brightcolours said:

(and I am aware of other brand's good lenses too).

Click to expand...

Well, so am I. I own a Zeiss 21 f2.8 and a Sigma 35 f1.4. I have recommended the Tamron and Sigma 150-600 to many people.

brightcolours said:

Guess what is the difference with you and me?

Click to expand...

I'm smart and you're not.

brightcolours said:

Thanks for the personal attack. :-D

Click to expand...

Please be honest. It's quite a simple thing to understand that Nikon obviously decided to make a no-holds-barred 24-70, yet you had to come up with some comment that trying to make out that you know better than Nikon and that they couldn't make one smaller than the Canon and Tamron. I mean, Pllleease.

Click to expand...

Nice straw man.

Click to expand...

LOL. Oh pleease. Talk about clutching at straws....literally.

brightcolours said:

However, it was you who claimed that the lens has to be big because otherwise it could not be better. I simply pointed out that the better Canon 24-70mm f2.8 L USM II is smaller and lighter, and that the smaller and lighter Tamron includes VC.

Click to expand...

According to who? The Nikon gets better resolution scores than both the Canon and Tamron at LenScore. Now, before you go off quoting other sites showing that maybe the Canon is sharper or possibly the Tamron, the fact that there is conjecture amongst sites proves that it isn't cut and dried. Therefore, I don't call that "better" (whatever you mean by that all encompassing generalisation). So, now Nikon has obviously decided to up the ante which has meant making a larger lens. But of course, you, being a lens engineer know better, don't you. LOL.

brightcolours said:

brightcolours said:

brightcolours said:

brightcolours said:

brightcolours said:

brightcolours said:

brightcolours said:

brightcolours said:

Question 2)

"I am considering purchasing the recently announced Nikon 24-70 with improved optical quality and VR, and would choose this over a lighter and smaller lens that did not have these features."

This is the most likely scenario for me, but it really depends if the IQ is worth it or not. If it is no better than the previous 24-70, then I won't bother upgrading. However, I really don't think that Nikon would allow it to be the same or of lesser IQ.

Question 3)

"The previous Nikon 24-70 meets all my needs. I am completely happy with it and would not consider upgrading to a either a "bigger and better" or "smaller and lighter" replacement."

Well, there is much to be said for this option. The old lens is a superb "standard zoom" option and I wonder whether Nikon will still keep making it for a non VR smaller lighter option for those that don't want the larger version.

--

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Lance B said:

brightcolours said:

Lance B said:

brightcolours said:

Lance B said:

brightcolours said:

Lance B said:

brightcolours said:

Lance B said:

RickD said:

The new 24-70 looks like an awesome lens but for me its improved optical performance and VR are more than offset by the increase in size and weight. I think that Nikon went in the wrong direction by aiming at "bigger and better" rather than "more user-friendly".

I am not tempted by this upgrade, but would have strongly considered a lighter and smaller (perhaps PF) lens without VR that was optically equivalent to the older version.

I think Nikon missed an opportunity with this upgrade, and the purpose of this poll is to find out how many others think the same.

Click to expand...

Question 1)

"I would have considered purchasing an upgraded 24-70 that was significantly smaller and lighter than the previous version with equivalent optical quality over the recently announced version."

I don't know that this would have been possible. If Nikon could have designed a smaller and lighter version they would have done it. I don't see why they would make a lens unnecessarily large and heavy for no reason.

Click to expand...

Then why is the Canon EF 24-70mm f2.8 L USM II smaller and lighter (and sharper)? And the Tamron 24-70mm f2.8, with VC, is also smaller and lighter.

Meaning: the lens does not have to be bigger to be sharper, nor does the inclusion on a VR group mean that the lens has to be bigger.

Click to expand...

Well, actually it might, if Nikon's new lens is better than these two. I am sure they have designed a lens to be better than the competition not just as good or less as good. That's the point. Unbelievable that I need to spell this out, but then that wouldn't suit your agenda.

Click to expand...

Especially the last part is very funny :-D

Click to expand...

Yes, you're right, the truth can be funny. :-D

Click to expand...

Your screen is very reflective as you seem to be talking about yourself.

Click to expand...

Oh no, not the thinly veiled jibe. LOL.

Lance B said:

I often praise qualities of lenses from many brands, yet you try to do this cheap shot because you know I have a Canon DSLR.

Click to expand...

Ha. Until you just told me, I didn't know what brand you used.

Click to expand...

That is nonsense, Lance. You have attacked me often enough, also in the Canon FF forum, to know which camera I use. It is not as if I make a secret of using a 6D.

Click to expand...

LOL. The problem here is that I don't keep a dossier on everyone on the forum. In other words, I have better things to do than worry about what equipment you use and added to that, you obviously have an inflated idea of your importance to my world.

Lance B said:

Lance B said:

Lance B said:

I often am critical of certain Canon lenses and recommend certain Nikkors for their specific qualities

Click to expand...

How would you recommend a Nikon lens to a Canon user? Hmmm?

Click to expand...

Why would I recommend a Nikkor lens to a Canon user? That makes no sense at all. Unless it is a particularly nice older MF Nikkor. Dear Lance, of course it would be recommending a certain lens to someone who either has a Nikon camera, or is looking to buy one.

Click to expand...

How can you recommend a Nikkor to a Canon user? You specifically said, "I often am critical of certain Canon lenses and recommend certain Nikkors for their specific qualities".

Click to expand...

And where in that line does it say that I recommend "a Nikon lens to a Canon user"?

Lance B said:

You said recommend Nikkors for their specific qualities, but you can't recommend a Nikkor to anyone but a Nikon user anyway. It's just a meaningless comment by you in some forlorn attempt to make out that you're somehow unbiased. That's a crock. It'd be no different than me recommending Canon lenses to a Canon user. LOL.

Click to expand...

The point, undear fellow, is that I have no specific love for a certain brand when it comes to lenses. I have interest in all brands, and know a few things about a number of lenses of different brands. So you won't hear me waxing about how every Canon lens ever is just awesome or how every new Canon lens must be better than every other comparable lens out there. Nor do I do that with Nikon. Or Fuji. Or Sigma. Or Zeiss. Or Voigtlander. And so on.

You won't hear me drool over this new Nikkor 24-70mm f2.8 VR like you do, even when there are no tests of the lens yet. I merely look at the sample images and see that the bokeh is decidedly swirly, which points to quite significant mechanical vignetting, and look at the specs and find the size and weight a bit over the top for such a lens.

For the rest I wait till (test)data and images and personal accounts emerge, to form a more complete opinion on this new Nikkor.

Lance B said:

Lance B said:

Lance B said:

Lance B said:

(and I am aware of other brand's good lenses too).

Click to expand...

Well, so am I. I own a Zeiss 21 f2.8 and a Sigma 35 f1.4. I have recommended the Tamron and Sigma 150-600 to many people.

Lance B said:

Guess what is the difference with you and me?

Click to expand...

I'm smart and you're not.

Lance B said:

Thanks for the personal attack. :-D

Click to expand...

Please be honest. It's quite a simple thing to understand that Nikon obviously decided to make a no-holds-barred 24-70, yet you had to come up with some comment that trying to make out that you know better than Nikon and that they couldn't make one smaller than the Canon and Tamron. I mean, Pllleease.

Click to expand...

Nice straw man.

Click to expand...

LOL. Oh pleease. Talk about clutching at straws....literally.

Lance B said:

However, it was you who claimed that the lens has to be big because otherwise it could not be better. I simply pointed out that the better Canon 24-70mm f2.8 L USM II is smaller and lighter, and that the smaller and lighter Tamron includes VC.

Click to expand...

According to who? The Nikon gets better resolution scores than both the Canon and Tamron at LenScore.

Now, before you go off quoting other sites showing that maybe the Canon is sharper or possibly the Tamron, the fact that there is conjecture amongst sites proves that it isn't cut and dried. Therefore, I don't call that "better" (whatever you mean by that all encompassing generalisation). So, now Nikon has obviously decided to up the ante which has meant making a larger lens. But of course, you, being a lens engineer know better, don't you. LOL.

Lance B said:

Lance B said:

Lance B said:

Lance B said:

Lance B said:

Lance B said:

Lance B said:

Lance B said:

Question 2)

"I am considering purchasing the recently announced Nikon 24-70 with improved optical quality and VR, and would choose this over a lighter and smaller lens that did not have these features."

This is the most likely scenario for me, but it really depends if the IQ is worth it or not. If it is no better than the previous 24-70, then I won't bother upgrading. However, I really don't think that Nikon would allow it to be the same or of lesser IQ.

Question 3)

"The previous Nikon 24-70 meets all my needs. I am completely happy with it and would not consider upgrading to a either a "bigger and better" or "smaller and lighter" replacement."

Well, there is much to be said for this option. The old lens is a superb "standard zoom" option and I wonder whether Nikon will still keep making it for a non VR smaller lighter option for those that don't want the larger version.

--

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

--
Lance B
http://www.pbase.com/lance_b
http://i.pbase.com/o4/21/489821/1/53232844.SydneyPanoVertSmall.jpg

Click to expand...

brightcolours said:

Lance B said:

"I would have considered purchasing an upgraded 24-70 that was significantly smaller and lighter than the previous version with equivalent optical quality over the recently announced version."

I don't know that this would have been possible. If Nikon could have designed a smaller and lighter version they would have done it. I don't see why they would make a lens unnecessarily large and heavy for no reason.

Click to expand...

Then why is the Canon EF 24-70mm f2.8 L USM II smaller and lighter (and sharper)? And the Tamron 24-70mm f2.8, with VC, is also smaller and lighter.

Meaning: the lens does not have to be bigger to be sharper, nor does the inclusion on a VR group mean that the lens has to be bigger.

Click to expand...

From the Canon 24-70 2.8 ii review (http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/canon-ef-24-70mm-f-2-8l-ii-usm):

"One feature the lens doesn't offer, though, is image stabilization - Canon says this would require too great a compromise in either image quality or size."

Not a definitive proof that it has to be bigger when you add IS/VR - but Canon says it as well. So may be something to it. Canon has taken a choice to skip IS/VR to keep it lighter which works for some users - Nikon has made the opposite choice to make the lens more useful for others even if it means heavier.