Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8 II?

Discussion in 'Nikon' started by long_tin_lo, May 30, 2010.

  1. Anyone have any ideas if Nikon will release a new 24-70mm f/2.8 II later this year?
    Any reliable rumours or estimations?
    Will it worth waiting? Or should I get it now and enjoy it?
    Thank you
  2. The 24-70 f2.8 is a relatively new lens anyway, released in August 2007. You use the term II, which normally refers to VR II, and as to whether they will release a VR version any time soon, I doubt it.
  3. Paul,
    Thank you for your response. I don't think Nikon will add VR to this lens due to its focal length. By using the term 'II', I meant that will Nikon release a new version of this lens, without VR. Such as adding coatings, shorter in size, lighter in weight, etc.
    Any news like that?
  4. Surely that would be insane, it's only just come out!
    It really doesn't need VR, is a G lens, and has Nano coating - and fantastic performance on DX and FX - what more does anyone want?! Built in coffee maker maybe?
  5. There are a number of Nikkors that should be "updated" before Nikon needs to look into the 24-70 again. My guess is that if you're looking for a new version, you might wait a good deal years. I sincerly hope Nikon will keep away from the temptation to include VR in a new version and if so, likely drop speed to f/4 as they did with the 16-35.
    Whilst, like any other lens, the 24-70 AFS is not perfect, it's a darned good over-all performer for its intended areas of use. My main complaint is that it cannot reliably be used for IR, since a hot spot occurs intermittently (when the hot spot does not occur, one enjoys a tremendously sharp lens for IR closeups as well as distant landscapes).
  6. Yes, i know we don't need VR! What's more, if adding VR to the lens and keeping it at f/2.8, the price will be too expensive.
    Seems like everyone's opinion is to buy it now! Just as Bjorn Rorslett said so, this lens is not perfect. I have spoken to some photographers who have this lens, and asked them for some advices.
    In terms of vignetting, focusing speed in dim light, and its size (whether it will be too big to use during trips, weddings, ceremonies), could someone comment on these aspects?
    Thank you
  7. If you're waiting for the perfect lens, you will wait a very long time.
    If you are waiting for an update of a lens as good as this one that is only 3 years old, you will also wait a long time.
    Why not just buy it now and take some great photos?
  8. Maybe in 2015. The 24-70 is a nice lens actually.
  9. Good Morning Long Tin Lo,
    I love these questions as it brings so much to mind. Being a Senior I have learned that it is always best to wait for something due to price, but being a Senior it also brings to mind the days are winding down.
    My advice is to get this lens go out and soot and have some fun with it. There will always be something on the horizon and if we wait for that then we will never get anything.
    Let us know how you like it.
    phil b
    benton, ky
  10. There's no doubt about it, it is big. It's amazing when you look at it on the camera and remind yourself that it's just a 24-70mm lens! Anyone who doesn't know would probably assume it's an 80-200 or something!
    Never really checked the AF speed, but it seems pretty slick to me and is dead silent and smooth. This is one difference I have found when looking at a few Sigma lenses - the motors don't seem to be as smooth. I bought the Sigma 50 1.4 as I tried it next to the Nikon 1.4G and the Sigma was optically better at wide apertures, but I did notice that the Nikon had a smooth quiet motor while the Sigma seemed a bit jerky - probably still as fast but not so nice feeling.

  11. BUY IT NOW !
  12. Thank you again for all your valuable comments.
    My main concern, however, is this. I am currently using a D300s, which is a crop frame body. When mounted onto this body, the lens turns into a 36-105mm lens, which is quite a problem for wide angle.
    I would like to know from people who use the 24-70mm lens on a crop frame body if they have any issues like this and find themselves often changing to a wide angle lens during an event shooting. Or is the lens just good for anything on the D300s?
    Thank you
  13. I, myself, would NEVER buy that lens for a crop-frame body.
    I'd buy the 17-55 f2.8 instead.
    And if you are not sure about a lens of that caliber, wait to spend the money until you are. that's a lot of money to spend on something you're not positive you even need... What do you have now and what are you not happy about with it?
  14. Long, only you can answer that question. Do you need 24mm equivalent or is 35 OK for you? They are what they are, there is no testing or reviews needed to advise you - if 35mm is wide enough then it's wide enough, if not then this lens is not for you even if it was the greatest performer of all time.
  15. The only possible thing that some people find would help is the VR.
    Since you say: "I meant that will Nikon release a new version of this lens, without VR. Such as adding coatings, shorter in size, lighter in weight, etc."
    If you do not want VR in this lens, then there will be no new release of this lens. For DX you are thinking about a "shorter in size, lighter in weight", but this lens is made for FX format, so that is why it is large and heavy, and expensive.
  16. Rent one to see how you like it. It does not sound like it is wide enough for you with the DX format. You should probably look at a 17-55mm type zoom or pair a wide zoom to the 24-70mm, that would mean more lenses, weight and money but some great glass.
  17. I agree with Bjorn that there are many other Nikkors that Nikon should update before the 24-70mm, but I don't understand why it would be a bad idea to have the option of a mid-range FX zoom with VR (one that doesn't suck like the 24-120mm). I would think that the Nikon range would be well served by the addition of high-quality f/4 VR zooms, while, of course, also keeping f/2.8 zooms. An f/4 lens can be made smaller and lighter, which can be very advantageous. For moderate close-up work in-low light I would love to have a 24-70mm f/4 VR or a 28-70 with a good minimum focusing distance.
    Not wanting VR in a lens sounds a bit to me like not wanting a DSLR to be able to record video. Just because the feature is there doesn't mean you have to use it!
  18. Not wanting VR in a lens sounds a bit to me like not wanting a DSLR to be able to record video. Just because the feature is there doesn't mean you have to use it!
    It's not the same thing. Not all optical designs can be easily amended with VR. Even if it can be made, you get either of two things: 1) increased weight and size due to the additional elements (now, hands up, who thinks the 24-70/2.8 isn't already very large and heavy for a standard zoom lens) or reduced level of optical correction i.e. inferior image quality. You may also get both. Nikon should not put VR into lenses that don't need it.
  19. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

    I am closing this discussion. Please do not ask about rumors on this forum. As we always point out: those who have actual advanced information from inside Nikon are under non-disclosure agreement and will never post such information to a public forum such as this one. Those who post have no idea.
    There is no such thing as "reliable rumors." There are plenty of web site that specialize in various rumors. Most of their posts are of course just pure nonsense. You are more than welcome to visit those sites on your own; just don't be surprised if you don't get much useful information out of any one them.

Share This Page