24-70/2.8 VR versus the old G version

[ksporry]

<p>I'm going to buy the 24-70, but I'm in dubio about which version to get.<br>

My understanding is that AF is supposed to be much faster and CA is better with the VR version (plus you get VR).<br>

Reading a comparison review at foto-info.si , the VR version supposed to be slightly better in the corners, but greater falloff.<br>

When I look at the images though, the VR version does not look better in the corners, and the images with the film rolls seem to suggest that either the reviewer mis focussed, or the lens needs micro adjustment, because the old G version seems sharper to me.<br>

I might be wrong, but based on my own assessment of the review, I don't think the VR version is any better, and therefore not worth the price which is almost double. However, I heard some people complained about the build quality of the original G version. Is that true? The author of the review states the build quality of the VR version is better (he actually says due to added VR, which makes no sense, as VR addition is independent of build quality). I'm not sure you can say that based on size and weight, and I think experience in the field will tell.<br>

Any opinions?<br>

Has anyone used both and can provide some real life feedback on it?</p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<p>You could start by reading through this thread: <a href="/nikon-camera-forum/00dZ3j">http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00dZ3j</a></p>

[jose_angel]

<p>Links to the reviews you mention:1. <a href="http://foto-info.si/review-of-nikon-af-s-24-70mm-f2-8e-ed-vr/">Review</a>, and 2. <a href="http://foto-info.si/primerjava-nikon-af-s-24-70mm-f2-8g-proti-nikon-af-s-24-70mm-f2-8vr-2/">Old vs. new version test</a>.<br /> Obviously, the reviewer knows nothing about the real construction and durability characteristics of the new lens. Maybe he speaks based on what he takes from Nikon`s literature (at best).<br /> I cannot speak, too, and I have not used both, but sincerely, I expect every new lens this level to be improved with respect to the previous version.<br /> If I were buying again, no doubt I`d buy the new version; only two things makes me avoid upgrading. Size&weight (despite what the reviewer says, the old version is already too large and heavy to my taste), and the "E" compatibility (or lack of it), as far as I know this lenses cannot be used (other than fully opened) with some older cameras which I still like to use from time to time (say, the F6, which has no electronic aperture control).<br /> ---</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"When I look at the images though, the VR version does not look better in the corners, and the images with the film rolls seem to suggest that either the reviewer mis focussed, or the lens needs micro adjustment, because the old G version seems sharper to me."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The reviewer also mentions this, the film cartridges shot is a close up. Close up sharpness with "normal" lenses is another usual trade-off . We cannot expect to have it all; many Nikkors (although not many people mention it) are not great performers at infinity, and others are not at close-up distances. Most of them are "optimized" for medium distances. This review seem to show this issue. No lens is 100% perfect... let`s be realistic... if you want maximum sharpness at close distances, just buy a Micro-Nikkor! :)</p>

[User_5050610]

<p>Here's another review--a real test among 10 copies of the lens:<br>

http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2015/10/nikon-24-70mm-f2-8-ed-af-s-vr-sharpness-optical-bench-testing<br>

Roger seems reasonably unbiased in his reviews.<br>

Paul</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

For a few days I had both. My main issue with the otherwise excellent 24-70G was the field curvature at 24mm which

meant that it was difficult to get everyone in focus in medium to large groups shots. I started to use the 24/1.4 for it with

fantastic quality already at f/4 in 2-row groups.

 

The 24-70 VR solves this problem nicely enough; the image quality at 24mm is much improved. At 70mm I got mixed

results, with short distances the G seemed a bit sharper while at 2m the new lens was a bit sharper. I felt that somehow

the images from the new lens were 'cleaner' in some way, perhaps due to improved coatings.

 

I have also found that the new lens works well for night time architectural shots hand held with VR. I feel it is a good lens

for travel shots of architecture in places where tripod use is not allowed or would be complicated. I quickly forgot about

the larger size of the lens.

 

The vignetting at 24mm, f/2.8 affects a larger area of the frame with the VR version than the G, but the transition is

smooth so it looks ok to the eye. A profile correction can be applied to correct it. With the old lens and my D810/D800, I

found the optimal focus fine tune setting depended strongly on focal length. With the new lens and my D810, the new lens

so far has not given any hint of requiring focus fine tuning at any setting. It focuses very fast and accurately - so far, so

good.

 

I enjoy the new lens a lot. However, it can be debated whether it is worth the rather high asking price. It depends on

individual needs and budget. I think the G version can be had at closeout sale prices now and this makes it a bargain.

Probably the second hand market offers good deals as well.

[evilsivan]

Buy a used non-vr one from a reputable dealer and try it for a week. VR would be great but we all have constraints.

[eric_arnold]

<p>i think it depends on what you're going to use the lens for. the AF-S G version has done everything ive needed it to do (no complainst/issues with build either); for me, better corners, slightly uneven overall IQ, and VR arent worth the "upgrade." i mainly shoot events with this though. if this was going to be your main, go-to lens for events, landscape, architecture, low-light, etc., the extra $$ might be worth it. Personally i would want something lighter for landscape; you dont need 2.8 if you're just gonna stop down anyway. And the G version is too physically large for travel IMO; the new one is even bigger and heavier. But i suppose to some degree that comes down to how one travels. In general, i dont think there's really all that much real-world difference between both Nikon 24-70s and the older 28-70 for high-performance event use; the new lens is a bit more versatile overall, and is probably better for heavy video shooters and landscapists. But that price is difficult to justify: $2400 for a standard zoom is a lot. If VR matters to you in that focal range, i'd look hard at the Tamron too. if it were me, i'd probably either get the older lens and save $600, or get the Tamron and save $1100 (!), and get a lighter or faster lens with the remainder.</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>The 24-70's weight doesn't bother me for landscape photography because I feel a lens should be robust to take on the Lee filter holder that I may use for ND / ND grad / polarizer, which means the front barrel should be firmly mounted to the main chassis of the lens. With some zooms, there is a bit of wobble between the barrels and I can't help but think that this may get worse over time if filters are used and adjusted often. I don't use filters often but still a robust build adds confidence. In my experience the use of 24-70/2.8 is quite common among landscape photographers, both Canon and Nikon. </p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>In addition to the robustness concerns, the corner sharpness of the 24-85 VR and 24-120/4 VR at typical landscape apertures (e.g. f/9) are not as good as that of the 24-70mm Nikkors. In the 24-120/4 I find that the sharpness in general varies significantly as a function of focal length whereas with the 24-70mm and both current Nikon 70-200mm's it is more even. I think an important factor is whether you have to carry a lot of other stuff when trekking with landscape photography in mind. If you have camping gear, tent, food, climbing equipment etc. (or a family!) then I think it is more likely the tripod is left at home and the camera and lens should be as light weight as possible to minimize the overall weight of the gear that must be carried. For this maybe a D7200 and 16-80mm would be a good compromise. I typically carry only photography gear (and maybe a thermal bottle) when I'm doing photography so I can deal with equipment weight more easily. I'm not saying carrying a lot of gear makes me happy but the photographs and photography opportunities do. ;-) I don't normally photograph wildlife so that again frees some capacity for other things (if I were to photograph wildlife I would feel the urgency to cover the wide end with something as small and light weight as possible). I guess for travel photography again many people travel with spouse and/or children in which case it is a totally different experience from traveling alone, with eyes and travel destination decided based on photographic opportunities. I do save weight by using lenses such as the 20/1.8 and 300/4 PF, so I'm not suggesting that I would always choose the heaviest option - in fact on the contrary I pay attention to weight of the kit, but try to maintain consistent quality.</p>

[chuck]

Also, my 24-120f/4 is much more susceptible to flare than the 24-70.

[eric_arnold]

<blockquote>

<p>the corner sharpness of the 24-85 VR and 24-120/4 VR at typical landscape apertures (e.g. f/9) are not as good as that of the 24-70mm Nikkors. In the 24-120/4 I find that the sharpness in general varies significantly as a function of focal length whereas with the 24-70mm and both current Nikon 70-200mm's it is more even.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>yes and no. you are generally correct about the 24-85 VR compared to the 24-70, although the margin also varies with focal length. but--surprise!-- the 24-120 has better corners than the 24-70 AF-S at some focal lengths, <a href="http://www.photozone.de/nikon_ff/574-nikkorafs24120f4vrff?start=1">according to photozone</a>. the 24-70 has sharp centers throughout the range, but is weakest at the corners in the middle of its range, while the 24-120 has its best performance when stopped down to f/8 at 50mm, and is pretty decent overall between 35 and 85mm, though it does drop off expectedly past 85. So i don't know that there's a conclusive finding on the 24-70's superiority. the new version should have more even performance in the corners throughout the range.</p>

<blockquote>

<p> I think an important factor is whether you have to carry a lot of other stuff when trekking with landscape photography in mind.<br>

I guess for travel photography again many people travel with spouse and/or children in which case it is a totally different experience from traveling alone, with eyes and travel destination decided based on photographic opportunities.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>this is totally subjective and depends on personal preference and also how one is traveling or trekking, as well as whether photography is the main purpose. Obviously for speed hiking and situations where you may have to climb to a high altitude, a light kit is preferable. Similarly for travel, if you are doing a lot of walking through cities, taking local transportation, etc., heavy gear may not be optimal. On the other hand, if you're out there mainly to do landscape photography and just packing photo gear for a day trip, then maybe you want to take heavier equipment. Personally, i probably wouldnt take the 24-70 and a pro FX body overseas unless i was on photo assignment and would instead substitute a lighter option, either a DX kit or a mirrorless setup.</p>

[thomasherren]

<p>I have the old version which I bought used from a fellow member of my photoclub. It is a lens with superb quality overall, but too big and too heavy for me to feel comfortable with. I also have a 16-35mm f/4, so an overlapping in the 24 - 35mm range.<br>

I am thinking about selling the two zooms and to replace them by the 20mm f/1.8, 35mm f/1.8 and a 85mm f/1.8 (a 50mm f/1.8 I already have). The 24-70mm VR version is definitely not an option for me due to its (over)prize, size and weight. Walking around with such a lens (already the old 24-70) is in many situations simply too intimidating.</p>

[daniel_smithson]

<p>VR is useless in certain circumstances, if those are the circumstances that you will be using, then stay away from VR like the plague. I could repost k.e.n.r.o.c.k.w.e.l.l.s but if you google (vr vs non vr ) it will be there. If you shoot fast action you will need to turn the VR off, which means if you are using VR and fast action jumps at you, you will miss the shot while you are fumbling to turn the VR off, or take the shot with VR and get a blur.</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>You don't <em>have to</em> turn off VR for action shots or when using fast shutter speeds. There may be ever so slight decrease in image quality in VR ON compared to VR OFF in some circumstances at very fast shutter speeds (with some VR lenses) but usually this is an imperceptibly small effect in the final reproduction. If you know you won't need VR for some situation you may want to turn it off, but it's not like anyone will notice the difference if you forget to do so for fast shutter speed shots. If your shutter speeds are in the border where you don't quite know if VR will help or not, then you might as well leave it on so that it will help you if the shutter speed dips a bit or you shake a bit more than usual. If you don't like VR for some reason you can just leave it off for good. The 24-70VR is still an excellent lens even if you never use the VR.</p>

<p>With some lenses e.g. the 80-400 AF-S VR, there are reports of funky things going on during VR operation at fast shutter speeds (as the slit moves across the image the action carried out by the VR group may change during the exposure leaving uneven blur bands across the direction of travel of the shutter curtains) but I'm unaware of any such effect having been reproduced with another lens than that one. I have certainly not seen it with other lenses and usually I don't turn off VR when hand holding a lens if there is any chance that my shutter speed will dip into the region where camera shake might affect the results. I think it's possible to see a very slight VR related degradation at very fast shutter speeds but usually it's not something to worry about, its magnitude is just so small. If I <em>know</em> that I am solidly in fast shutter speed territory or using a tripod then I will turn VR off. I don't think I've ever fumbled with VR switches and lost an image because of that. I certainly haven't lost an image due to forgetting to turn VR off for high shutter speeds but I've gotten some blur in shots when I've forgotten to turn VR on or had false ideas about my hand holding skill. E.g. I've noticed some improvement in sharpness at fast shutter speeds with the 300/4 PF VR AF-S after switching VR to SPORT at shutter speeds between 1/500s and 1/800s.</p>

<p>Rather than copy what someone else said it's better to do your own experiments with lenses that you are going to speak about. VR performance is something that depends on the lens implementation and the situation where you are using it. Thus it's better to try the different settings on a lens and see where it will lead you. I find VR useful in many lenses, though I don't expect tripod-like results when hand holding a lens, VR or not, unless the shutter speed is very fast (and even then probably the tripod based shots are sharper and more precisely composed due to the fact that the tripod holds the lens still for composition, focusing and minimizes camera shake). But sometimes I'm not willing to carry a tripod or its use is not possible so having VR in a lens can help in such circumstances to obtain shots that could not otherwise be made so easily. Again this comes with the caveat that VR is not a replacement for a tripod. If you can use a tripod then its use is usually conductive to good photography, at least that's my experience with static subjects in particular.</p>

<p>I was cynical about the addition of VR to the 24-70/2.8 but after having used the lens for a while I must say that my scepticism about its usefulness on this type of a lens, at least in Nikon's current implementation, were largely unfounded. It <em>is</em> useful for some subjects and the optical design of the lens is excellent even though VR has made it bigger than it might have been without VR. I find use for VR in this lens and am very satisfied about the results. Of course I recognize the VR use at slow speeds is a game of numbers and if shooting at a slow speed such as 1/15s it's good to grab a few shots to get at least one that is truly sharp. It is added versatility, e.g. for night time or twilight architectural shots. I don't plan on using the VR for landscape photography though, as I'm very particular about their technical quality and want to work on my shots using a tripod's support. And in portrait and event photography VR is most of the time not needed, but occasionally it can add options that wouldn't exist otherwise, such as going for more depth of field in a church shot by utilizing a slow speed with stopped down aperture for an overview shot in a situation where the main participants of the ceremony are not moving. </p>