How come no 24-70 VR ?

<p>Hello, anybody home at Nikon ? I see that Nikon has released an updated version of its already great 70-200mm VR, but no 24-70mm VR Pro lens.<br>

I cant think of a reason not to, they would literally fly off the shelves. It's what every Nikon Wedding/Event photographer has been waiting for. Come on guys get busy - Xmas is coming. (BTW: it would go great with a D700X to rival Canon's 5DMkII & 24-105 IS combo)</p>

 

<p>What good would VR do in the 24-70? Let's see if you're at f/2.8 ISO 3200 f/100s typical wedding situation. You get subtle movement blur. You engage VR and go f/5.6 1/25s ISO 3200 and people turn into short trails. No thanks, there's nothing worse than a fuzzy main subject in a sharp surround. I prefer it the other way around.</p>

<p>The other reason why it's not a VR lens is that the optical quality would be affected by the incorporation of VR elements - and not in a positive way.</p>

<p>add a couple hundred bucks to the present price of the 24-70, and even with VR they'd fly off the shelves like the proverbial lead balloon. i hear this argument from time to time, like VR is all that's standing between the photographer and great photographs. i don't buy it. while the 24-70 is no lightweight, i like the way it handles -- it's got enough concentrated heft that i don't think it needs any additional stablization. if they ever do replace it with a VR model, i for one will keep the one without.</p>

<p>I like my copy just fine without VR. Can't really see how it would serve to make this lens any better.</p>

<p>It would be a help to me, especially in my typical shooting conditions. They need one because the Canon equiv. is IS.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

<p>24-70 does not need VR, it will just make it awfully expensive and heavier. This is lens is meant for FX and with high ISO you won't need VR. If it is so dark that you need ISO 6400 f/2.8 and VR odds are it is going to be a dark and bad photo any ways.</p>

<p>Canon 24-70 is NOT an IS lens.</p>

<p>Not everyone is shooting a D700 at 6400 ISO. Not everyone wants to be always at f2.8. I could very eqsily see how this lens could benefit from VR, at 70mm, one could get 3 stops of handholding ability and around 2 stops at 24mm. Canon's 24-105 f4 IS has certainly proven that this feature is useful and desireable in a midrange zoom. </p>

<p>if it's f/2.8 in that short range there is really no need for VR. like ilkka said, the image quality will just be compromised. the 16-85mm was made for that market. the 24-70mm addresses a different one........................BUT each one has his own style and preferences. and nikon r&d cannot always make each one happy :-)</p>

<p>VR would definitely help in certain situations, but this is one of the lenses that don't need VR very badly. At least it's fast. Something like the 300 f/4 would actually make good use of VR a lot more. </p>

<p>Neither the 24-70's Canon nor Sony Carl Zeiss counterparts have VR/IS.</p>

<p>The CZ lens has VR build in the camera.</p>

<p>Oh my goodness! No! Please!</p>

<p>Isn't the 24-70 HEAVY ENOUGH already? Does it need added weight, size, and complexity?</p>

<p>What good will VR do at 24 - 50 mm? You can already shoot at 1/30th of a second in this range handheld. In my experience VR doesn't help at shutter speeds slower than 1/30th.</p>

<p>At a wedding, you need a shutter speed that's fast enough to FREEZE human movement anyway. Higher ISO and faster apertures are preferable to VR in this regard.</p>

<p>VR isn't the holy grail. It often recomposes the shot - high, low, off to the side.</p>

<p>When in doubt: monopod.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>hey need one because the Canon equiv. is IS.</p>

<p>BTW: it would go great with a D700X to rival Canon's 5DMkII & 24-105 IS combo</p>

</blockquote>

<p>A 24-105 lens is different. It's slower and longer. Nikon should upgrade the 24-120 VR to make it a serious competitor for the Canon lens. I would buy one if the IQ were decent. My very first Nikon lens was a 24-120 (before VR). I loved it.</p>

<p>We have no idea how future Nikon bodies will compare to any current of future Canon bodies, so speculation is merely guesswork.</p>

<p>If you really like Canon's products, they're available at a retailer near you.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>What good would VR do in the 24-70? Let's see if you're at f/2.8 ISO 3200 f/100s typical wedding situation. You get subtle movement blur. You engage VR and go f/5.6 1/25s ISO 3200 and people turn into short trails.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>But wait ... if VRII can give you a four stops advantage, you can shoot the same scene with ISO800, 1/125 to further freeze the movement and to shoot at lower ISO, an important consideration for those who do not own a D700/D3. Or you can now shoot ISO1600, 1/125 or ISO3200, f3.0, 1/250, etc ... As for the price and weight, it is up to Nikon to make it both lighter and cheaper (will that ever happen ...)</p>

<p>It's a BIG lens to begin with and VR isn't nearly as useful in this focal length range as with teles. Furthermore, Nikon pulled all stops to get the optical quality of this lens as good as they could while keeping the price manageable, VR would surely reduce quality and raise price.<br>

Not that I'm going to buy the lens, but VR would probably make it even less desirable for me.</p>

<p>I have this lens, and would buy a non-VR version over the VR version, even at the same price. I have the D700, and I can get clean photographs at high ISOs, and wouldn't even use the VR. It adds unnecessary (in my opinion) complexity to a lens, and is just another thing that could go wrong. And as others have said, it's not very useful at this focal length. Also, who is spending nearly $2k on a lens to shoot it on a DX body? Its image quality is exceptional, but there are more affordable options.</p>

<p>VR is nice if you like it, but just because the technology exists, that doesn't mean we should be throwing it in every lens just for the hell of it.</p>

<p>I just check on B&H and both the USA and Imported version is on back order...So they seem to be "Flying off the self" without VR.</p>

<p>"But wait ... if VRII can give you a four stops advantage, you can shoot the same scene with ISO800, 1/125 to further freeze the movement and to shoot at lower ISO, an important consideration for those who do not own a D700/D3. Or you can now shoot ISO1600, 1/125 or ISO3200, f3.0, 1/250, etc"<br>

Im afraid your a bit confused here. If you shoot the same scene with ISO800 1/125, you will have a drastically underxposed image. What Nikon means that you shoot at a shutter speed, handheld, at a claimed 4 stops lower speed. This allows you to handhold at slow shutter speeds, but things that are moving will be badly blurred.<br>

VR kind of acts likes a tripod as it stops or minimises camera shake. It cant freeze motion</p>