Nikon 24-70 f2.8 VR

[spareparts]

Hallejujah. About time!

http://www.europe-nikon.com/en_GB/product/nikkor-l...

[ssray]

I`m not rich enough

[budfox]

This is the one that interests me:

http://www.nikonusa.com/en/Nikon-Products/Product/...

About time Nikon had an affordable lens that reached over 300mm. I'll be all over that bad boy when it's released for sale. So glad I didn't go for the Tamron or Sigma 150-600mm offerings.

[RobDickinson]

Its 50% more than the sigma 150-600 (at least here) why would you buy the nikon? The sigma is a great lens

[Ledaig]

That's a hell of a premium over the existing lens though (24-70), wex are suggesting £1849 compared to £1199 for the current one.

I've found the focus to be snappy enough and never really felt the need for VR with this lens.

I would also add to Rob's comment that not only the Sigma, but the Tamron 150-600 is not a bad lens either (might be even better now I've had the firmware updated for panning ).

[spareparts]

Ledaig said:

That's a hell of a premium over the existing lens though (24-70), wex are suggesting £1849 compared to £1199 for the current one.

I've found the focus to be snappy enough and never really felt the need for VR with this lens.

You're not wrong about the speed - but shooting action in really low light, there have been many times when I wished VR had been available without being forced to push ISOs. But at what price?! At some point in time, these lenses need to be made of carbon fibre for the asking price to counter. 1kg!

[RobDickinson]

spareparts said:

but shooting action in really low light

I'm assuming if you are shooting action then VR will be of no help whatsoever... Still need to keep those shutter speeds up.

[budfox]

RobDickinson said:

Its 50% more than the sigma 150-600 (at least here) why would you buy the nikon? The sigma is a great lens

Because when I sell the lens the cost of ownership won't have been much different and I like Nikon lenses.

[chrismarr]

I do love my 24-70, i would rather it was lighter mind you than had VR!

[spareparts]

RobDickinson said:

spareparts said:

but shooting action in really low light

I'm assuming if you are shooting action then VR will be of no help whatsoever... Still need to keep those shutter speeds up.

Yes, sadly at the expense of high ISO.

[budfox]

chrismarr said:

I do love my 24-70, i would rather it was lighter mind you than had VR!

I had the 24-70 non-VR for a couple of year and I must admit that it was technically superb. The problem though was that for the kind of shooting I did it was never quite wide enough or never quite long enough, so these days I use two bodies. A D700 with an 18-35mm and a D7000 with a 80-200mm.

[GetCarter]

I also have the non VR 24-70. Second best lens I've ever owned. (70-200 being the best - astonishingly good).

I'm sure the VR is probably better... newer generally is - but I wouldn't trade my current lens for anything. Attached to the D800 it's a monster! Sharp as a sharp thing.

[ian in lancs]

Agreed!