Nikon 24-70 vr finally!

[d_ponce]

<p>Finally, the 'coming this year' rumors that I have seen posted for the past 3 years have come true. I waited and waited -- and could wait no longer -- and bought the Tamron of the same model a few months back. This is a great lens -- but am excited to see how the Nikon is, at almost twice the price. Will it be twice as good -- lol! :-) good luck to all you other Nikonians that have been chomping at the bit. :-)</p>

[evilsivan]

If you want the best picture and you are willing to drop some serious cash and carry some serious weight then you are going to go with the Nikkor. I used a tamron 24-70 2.8 and I was surprised how good it was, but it was not as good as the Nikon 24-70 2.8 (non vr). I'm sure the new one will be even better. Enjoy your spare cash and lightweight gear!

[ShunCheung]

<p>We already had a long thread on the three recent new lenses: <a href="/nikon-camera-forum/00dQEB">Nikon Introduces 24-70mm/f2.8 E AF-S with VR, 200-500mm/f5.6 E and 24mm/f1.8 AF-S</a><br>

Those who have the Tamron can always upgrade to the Nikkor, of course. If you manage to sell your Tamron at a decent price, the cost for the upgrade could be around $1500, much cheaper than the full $2400 price. As a bonus, Nikon has also increased the filter size to 82mm so that any filters you may have for the Tamron are usable on the Nikon 24-70mm/f2.8 AF-S VR such that you don't need to get new filters. :-)</p>

[rodeo_joe1]

<blockquote>

<p>"...but it was not as good as the Nikon 24-70 2.8 (non vr)."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I'm surprised at this. The Tamron VC lens gets a slightly higher score than the Nikon on DXOmark. They're pretty much neck-and-neck in most categories except for a clear trouncing of the Nikon WRT lateral CA. However I know that Tamron's QC isn't all that it should be and sample variation might have a lot to do with Ofer's experience. I was handed a demo Tamron 24-70 VC at a trade fair that showed obvious decentring, with one corner being decidedly less sharp than the other 3. But if you persevere and get a good un....</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

It is the manufacturer's responsibility to ensure that all buyers get a similar lens and that variations are negligible. Not the user's unless they don't value their time at all.

 

Since dxomark focus on a flat target based on the center of the image, in the presence of field curvature a real world user who focuses on the subject instead of center of the image is likely to get better results than indicated by such tests. Personally I find dxomark's lens tests of wide angles worthless for this reason.

 

The existing Nikon 24-70G has according to some user reports and tests better bokeh than the Tamron. What Nikon is good at is balanced design (IMO). Possibly the new lens further improves upon it.

[chuck]

<p>24-120 f/4VR and 24-70 f/2.8 non-VR seem like a substantially more flexible combination than a single 24-70VR, and if you buy the 24-120VR at kit lens discount, these two lenses combined cost about as much as the new one alone. You also save the cost of a new set of filters.<br>

Unless absolute maximum quality with low speed hand held shot at f/2.8 is a must, I am not seeing how this one lens can justify its cost.</p>

 

[ShunCheung]

<p>I am re-posting this from the previous news thread.</p>

<p>On Nikon's lens web site nikkor.com, they have an article on the design philosophy for the new 24-70mm/f2.8 AF-S with VR: http://www.nikkor.com/philosophy/03.html<br>

The video there is kind of boring, typical public relations stuff, but the text is interesting if you are interested in the lens design trade offs.</p>

[evilsivan]

Rodeo Joe,

I did not do any scientific testing but the Tamron did not track AF as well as the Nikon and the contrast, though good, was not as uh, contrasty (that's a word right?). Also there was some definitely some chromatic aberration but hey... I was surprised at how fast the tamron did focus and how contrasty it was, but it was still not as good, in my unscientific opinion. Also the Nikon is more solid, but it also weighed a lot more.

[d_ponce]

<p>@ Shun: Yes, it is very convenient that the thread size is the same :-) (thank you Nikon! :-) Sorry I missed the "long thread" -- did a search but it did not come up - sorry for the duplicate, guys.<br>

@Ilkka: I wish that were the case -- Nikon included. I have purchased a bad 'copy' in the past, but always buy from a reputable Nikon dealer so returns have been stress-free -- and have had the dealer quite surprised at the poor quality as well -- but everyone has bad days sometime :-)<br>

@Chuck: I do have a lot of primes and zooms - all at least 2.8 fixed -- but thanks for the suggestion!<br>

If some are thinking that the Tamron may have some issues compared to a Nikkor, then I am very excited about getting the Nikon! -- I'm not a 'tester' and do not test beyond how good my image comes out as expected and, to be honest, I am beyond impressed with the quality of the Tamron. I admit, I don't do a lot of difficult tracking, so it's hard to say how it compares in that regard. I had purchased a Tamron or two, many years ago, and did not get much - so was reluctant to even bite the bullet for this one, in the hopes that the rumors that Nikon was "right there" with their model -- but this one rivals all of my Nikkor lenses (to my untested naked eye for the kind of images that I take :-). I can honestly say, I have never taken a critical shot with it and thought "I wish this was a Nikon..." Funny, but I'll miss it. Who knows, maybe I'll keep it for those times I want to travel light -- unless they are getting good money on eBay. :-) I can be bought. :-) thanks for your comments, guys! </p>

[rodeo_joe1]

<p>Ilkka, I'll echo the fact that Nikon aren't blameless or perfect when it comes to QC. My 14-24mm AF-S Zoom Nikkor also shows some decentring and unevenness of corner sharpness. However it's only noticeable at wider apertures and high magnification - not worth the hassle of wrangling with Nikon UK over. But still, for such an expensive lens it ought to be closer to perfection. And many of Nikon's early AF lenses were undoubtedly inferior to their MF predecessors - despite having the same optical formulation in some cases.</p>

<p>Just an observation, but IME decentring seems to be a fairly common issue with lenses that contain aspherical elements - especially zooms and IF lenses where there has to be some play in the mechanical parts holding the glassware in place.</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>Rodeo, my point isn't to claim that Nikon has low sample variability (it may be or not - I wouldn't know since I don't typically buy a lot of samples of the same lens) but that one parameter of product quality is the the quality of the worst example that is sold to a customer and those reports of unlucky people should not be ignored. Sample variability particularly affects second hand value of lenses since bad samples are probably cost prohibitative to fix if purchased in the second hand market (where manufacturer's warranty does not apply) and the purchaser of a first hand lens will also be affected through the products' eventual resale value (even if one gets a lucky sample it might be hard to convince the buyer of that).</p>

<p>Lensrentals have studied sample variation across several brands of 24-70 lenses:</p>

<p>http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2015/07/24-70-f2-8-zoom-mtf-and-variation</p>

 

[Dieter Schaefer]

<p>Need to wait a little longer for the lens; Nikon just announced that shipment originally scheduled to stary Aug 27 is delayed until October:<a href="/nikon-camera-forum/%20https:/translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=www.nikon-image.com%2Fproducts%2Finfo%2F2015%2F0820.html&edit-text=&act=url"> http://www.nikon-image.com/products/info/2015/0820.html</a></p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>Interesting, a week before the new 24-70mm/f2.8 AF-S VR is due to ship, Nikon is now delaying it by roughly two months. I wonder what kind of problem they have encountered.</p>

<p>If one doesn't have some sense of adventure, it is probably best to wait at least a couple of weeks after Nikon starts shipping before getting one.</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Thank you for the philosophy link, Shun. I'm curious that they claim the bulk of the VR unit was why it was excluded. I'm sure I read (but I've no idea where, now) that Nikon asked NPS members whether they wanted the old 24-70 AF-S or a more optically-compromised VR version - that the concern was about image quality, not girth. It's not hard to hand-hold much bigger lenses than the 24-70!</p>

[d_ponce]

<p>@Dieter, I could not find the English version of your article and of the sites that I checked where you can pre-order, they still are showing the Aug 27th date (B&H states they will contact me if the item will be delayed but have not heard from them yet) -- but if what you have shared is correct, I am glad Nikon has found out about the problem before they released it and decided to correct it before it was issued, pro-actively. Thanks, Nikon! So much better than asking everyone to send it back for repair -- so maybe I'll keep my Tamron a bit longer. lol!! thanks for the info!</p>

[chuck]

I wonder if Nikon is being extra cautious because of the flak it took when it released the D600 somewhat half baked. It wouldn't want any QC issues to besmirch the name of a lens so important to the reputation of its high end lens line.

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>tAndrew, the thing is that if you plan to sell 3000 copies of a lens it can be huge and still sell that number of copies. But if you want to sell 1 million copies of a lens, it has to suit a lot of people with different requirements, some will have smaller hands than others, and I'm sure that this is why Nikon has made both 24-70's fairly narrow and long (the 28-70/2.8D is wider and shorter). The serial number range reported in Roland Vink's database spans 130k numbers for the 28-70/2.8D vs. 807k for the 24-70/2.8G (whether those numbers accurately reflect sales I cannot know). Both lenses were manufactured for approximately the same number of years. I suspect that a lot of people the handling comfort is very important in a general purpose lens that is often on the camera.</p>

<p>Hopefully the new 24-70 E reduces the field curvature of the G version - that would make a significant difference to me, and be sufficient to justify the increase in size and weight, since it would mean I wouldn't have to switch to a special lens for group shots at events. However the cost remains an issue.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>Another difference is that Nikon introduced the 28-70mm/f2.8 AF-S in the tail end of the film era, when Canon had taken over as the #1 pro SLR/DSLR brand leaving Nikon as a distant second, and at the beginning of the digital era, all of Nikon's DSLRs were DX, and the 28-70 is not that suitable.</p>

<p>The 24-70mm/f2.8 AF-S was introduced at the same time as the D3 (and D300, 14-24, the original 400mm, 500mm, and 600mm AF-S lenses with VR). The D3 was a major turning point for Nikon and recaptured a lot of the pro market. Canon may still be #1, but Nikon is at least a close second now. I would imagine that the popularity of the D3, D4 as well as D700, D800, and D810 help sell a lot of 24-70mm/f2.8 AF-S.</p>

<p>However, a thinner lens is indeed easier to hold. Version 1 of the 70-200mm/f2.8 AF-S VR is thinner and a bit longer than version 2. While version 2 is optically better, I prefer holding version 1.</p>

[chuck]

Another thing is during middle of 28-70's production, canon upstaged it with its highly regarded 24-70. But during 24-70

i's entire production life, canon did not manage to really upstage it.

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Ilkka: Okay, I buy that. I'm prepared for everyone not to be like me. :-) And agreed about the field curvature.<br />

<br />

Chuck: Well, I think the 24-70 EF L-II <a href="http://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Compare/Side-by-side/Canon-EF-24-70mm-F28L-II-USM-on-Canon-EOS-5D-Mark-III-versus-AF-S-Nikkor-24-70mm-f-2.8G-ED-on-Nikon-D610__886_795_175_915">upstaged</a> it. It did test quite well. I'll wait to see what the new glass can do. Even without this comparison, I was never quite convinced by the performance.</p>

[dmanthree]

<p>Maybe it's not ready for prime time. This reviewer seems to think it's not quite as sharp as the older version at some points.<br>

http://foto-info.si/review-of-nikon-af-s-24-70mm-f2-8e-ed-vr/</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Well, he's mainly complaining about close focus distances (I'm having flash backs to the 80-200 AF-D). Depending on how bad it actually is, I'm not panicking yet - fixing the field curvature could be a bigger difference than this (and it's the reason I typically shoot my 14-24 at smaller apertures than I'd otherwise need). The vignetting does look a bit ugly, though, and I don't think the bokeh will win prizes. That may or may not matter for typical uses - a 24-70 isn't really a typical portrait lens. I'll await other reviews, but I'm lowering my expectations...</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>We need to keep in mind that Nikon has not officially shipped the 24-70mm/f2.8 E AF-S VR yet. Even the originally release date was going to be late August, which apparently has been pushed back to some time in October.</p>

<p>Whatever "review" is out there is either based on some pre-production item. Typically Nikon does not allow people who have access to those pre-production items to release images. If it is at some trade shows, they may let you handle such pre-production item but they don't allow you to have your memory card in the camera; you can play around with a new lens or new camera, but you can't take any image with you. Or worse yet, we all know that certain "reviews" that are not even based on actual experience with a pre-production item, let alone production item.</p>

<p>I am still trying to check with Nikon about what the delay is all about. So far I have only seen a delay announcement from a Nikon Japan web site: http://www.nikon-image.com/products/info/2015/0820.html<br>

It is not clear why there is a delay, but there is no shortage of speculation about that. :-)</p>

[dmanthree]

<p>In the meantime, Tokina has released their version, so we have yet another choice. LensRentals tested the Tokina and found it to be just a little better than the Tamron (which is a very nice lens). Stay tuned, I guess.</p>

[d_ponce]

<p>Looks like Shun was right on the money -- my 24-70 came in today! I'm going to do some 'side-by-side' testing on the D810 - comparing it to the Tamron (which, you may recall, I am very pleased with) -- I'm curious to see the results, but keeping in mind, my testing is strictly what looks good on my screen at 100% magnification -- nothing fancy; if it's tack sharp where focused, without distortion, I'm satisfied (leave the micro analysis to those that care :-). <br>

So far, out of the box, they both feel about the same weight -- and, compressed, the Nikon is definitely a longer lens. But interestingly, the extension is just the opposite of each other: the Nikon is fully extended at the 24mm spot, while the Tamron is fully extending at the 70mm end -- where they are both about the same length. Good luck to any of you others that took the plunge! :-)</p>