Nikon 24-70 f2.8 VR coming soon? & More

rpsmith79 said:
Hardly a fair comparison price wise though, £1200 vs £5800.................

And i'm sure it's not aimed at people like yourself, i however am very interested as for the reach it would give me for the price it looks like a cracking piece of kit, assuming it is as good (if not better) than the competition (Sigma 150-600 Sport)

I would also like the zoom as i on't just shoot wildlife, i shoot airshows and motorsport too, so would make a fairly decent all round lens for myself
Click to expand...
Agree silly comparing £5-10,000 lenses
 
rpsmith79 said:
Hardly a fair comparison price wise though, £1200 vs £5800.................

And i'm sure it's not aimed at people like yourself, i however am very interested as for the reach it would give me for the price it looks like a cracking piece of kit, assuming it is as good (if not better) than the competition (Sigma 150-600 Sport)

I would also like the zoom as i on't just shoot wildlife, i shoot airshows and motorsport too, so would make a fairly decent all round lens for myself
Click to expand...


To true Rich, it seems a very good choice for your usage, in your position I would give it serious thought :)
 
Mind let's see some tests and reviews we won't know how good it is till then
 
stumeech said:
Nikon have always said they do the 300 f/4 and tc so they don't see the point of a 400 f/5.6.
Click to expand...
I'm with Nikon on this one, why only have a 400 f5.6 lens when the 300 f4 + 1.4tc is a cracking combination that gives the benefit of 300 f4 if the light levels drop. I used that combo for 2 years, it was very useful and worked well.
 
Mikechappers said:
As a birder already using the Nikon 500 f4 vr to me its all about range for the type of birding I do, how often have I being in a situation where the 500mm is to much lens, the answer is almost never, even with a 1.4 converter which is constantly fitted, so from my POV its a lens I will not be considering even with its weight advantage, of course it being a zoom will suit some, I understand that, its just that I am not one of them
Click to expand...

I would guess the 200-500 is aimed at users who don't have the funds or want the weight of 500 f4 and would be looking at the 150-600 tamron/sigma lenses. If you have a 500 f4 that you regularly use it makes sense to keep and not down grade.

It's going to to be interesting to see how good it is at 500mm as that's where most will want to use it. I may be interested in it if it's good at 500 f5.6, I'm not bothered about using a 1.4tc on an f5.6 lens as you are down to at least f8 maybe more if you stop down a little so it really reduces it's useability.
 
rob-nikon said:
I'm with Nikon on this one, why only have a 400 f5.6 lens when the 300 f4 + 1.4tc is a cracking combination that gives the benefit of 300 f4 if the light levels drop. I used that combo for 2 years, it was very useful and worked well.
Click to expand...
Canon have 300 to so why not a 400? Better options for the consumer is better for nikon surely?
 
Last edited:
petert said:
Fair enough, just not what I need I thought the other was good enough always has been?
Click to expand...
Yes it is good, very very good, but you can always improve. Most lenses will need an overhaul at some point as MP keep rising.
 
snerkler said:
Yes it is good, very very good, but you can always improve. Most lenses will need an overhaul at some point as MP keep rising.
Click to expand...
That's what people are brainwashed to think anyway :-o
 
rob-nikon said:
I would guess the 200-500 is aimed at users who don't have the funds or want the weight of 500 f4 and would be looking at the 150-600 tamron/sigma lenses. If you have a 500 f4 that you regularly use it makes sense to keep and not down grade.

It's going to to be interesting to see how good it is at 500mm as that's where most will want to use it. I may be interested in it if it's good at 500 f5.6, I'm not bothered about using a 1.4tc on an f5.6 lens as you are down to at least f8 maybe more if you stop down a little so it really reduces it's useability.
Click to expand...


500mm at f5.6 is not bad at all, and like you say 500mm is where it would probably get the most use. Looking forward to seeing some pics taken with it.
 
petert said:
That's what people are brainwashed to think anyway :-o
Click to expand...
I don't think it's brain washing per se as the charts speak for themselves, but how it translates into real life is questionable.
 
petert said:
Canon have 300 to so why not a 400? Better options for the consumer is better for nikon surely?
Click to expand...

I understand that canon do both the 300 f4 and the 400 f5.6 but my personal use of the nikon 300 f4 (non vr AF-S version) with and without the 1.4tc I got the best of both 'lenses' with minimum outlay (not needing to buy two lens). I understand it gives the consumer the choice of which to go for and there is less outlay if you only want the 400 f5.6 lens then yes its a slight inconvenience/extra cost with nikon.

The 300 f4 and 1.4tc (non vr AF-S version) was very good and image quality was excellent, very little degrading. I have had times when only needing to remove the 1.4tc when light levels dropped was very useful. I have previously taken off teleconverters when lying only 2-3m metres from a Water Vole, getting up to go into my bag for another lens would have likely meant the Water Vole would have dived back into the water.

Rather than a 400 f5.6 I would love to see nikon produce primes like a 400 f4, 500 f5.6 or a 600 f5.6 but I suspect it would have a knock on effect on the sale of f2.8/f4 primes. How many amateurs need a long lens prime at f2.8/f4? The pros may need them for challenging conditions but us morals could easily get away with a f5.6 prime long lens.
 
rob-nikon said:
When you say 500mm at f5.6 are you referring to the 200-500 or the 500 f4? I've had a look at the MTF charts for the 200-500 and it certainly looks interesting.
Click to expand...

The 200-500, sorry I was not clear, the 500f4 becomes 5.6 with the 1.4 teleconverter, so all your loosing with the 200-500 is some range if its good at the long end.
 
snerkler said:
I don't think it's brain washing per se as the charts speak for themselves, but how it translates into real life is questionable.
Click to expand...
What people need and what they want are totally different things, whether it be mobile phones, computers, games machines etc etc canon and nikon are all in the same game and charts? Well they're are all part of the selling brainwashing machine,that's how they make money. Believe everything your brainwashed
 
petert said:
What people need and what they want are totally different things, whether it be mobile phones, computers, games machines etc etc canon and nikon are all in the same game and charts? Well they're are all part of the selling brainwashing machine,that's how they make money. Believe everything your brainwashed
Click to expand...
my d700 and £100 prime will produce as good as anything far more expensive and modern. 50mp will be next because it will sell not because it's needed but that's the way world moves
 
Last edited:
petert said:
What people need and what they want are totally different things, whether it be mobile phones, computers, games machines etc etc canon and nikon are all in the same game and charts? Well they're are all part of the selling brainwashing machine,that's how they make money. Believe everything your brainwashed
Click to expand...
But also you can't instantly dismiss everything. Charts etc can be useful, but real world testing is what I judge on. The 24-70 was a step up from the 28-70, so I've no reason the believe that the 24-70 VR won't be a step up again. How much of a step up, and whether it's good enough to justify an upgrade time will tell. I personally doubt it will be £600 better than the outgoing model, nor £1200 better than the Tamron 24-70mm f2.8 VC, but that all comes down to the individual.
 
Exactly it's only going to produce pictures the same as every other similar lens on the market the differences will I suspect be so minimal if noticeable at all but nikon will market to make people think differently and it works, always has done:|
 
Last edited:
petert said:
my d700 and £100 prime will produce as good as anything far more expensive and modern. 50mp will be next because it will sell not because it's needed but that's the way world moves
Click to expand...
Well that's a pretty bold statement, and I'm sure there are many combinations that will surpass it.

MP count is a bit of a sales trick I agree. A lot of people don't print these days and even on a 4k monitor its only 8mp so anything more than this is wasted, unless you want to marvel in how much you can zoom into an image ;) MP are useful for those that need to crop heavy, and product work. For the average joe it just means unnecessarily big files.
 
snerkler said:
Well that's a pretty bold statement, and I'm sure there are many combinations that will surpass it.

MP count is a bit of a sales trick I agree. A lot of people don't print these days and even on a 4k monitor its only 8mp so anything more than this is wasted, unless you want to marvel in how much you can zoom into an image ;) MP are useful for those that need to crop heavy, and product work. For the average joe it just means unnecessarily big files.
Click to expand...
Not a bold statement fact of results,but pp comes so much into nowadays what people take is a million miles from the final product so photography skill is debatable
 
Last edited:
petert said:
Exactly it's only going to produce pictures the same as every other similar lens on the market the differences will I suspect be so minimal if noticeable at all but nikon will market to make people think differently and it works, always has done:|
Click to expand...
Some people 'need' that extra 3 or 4% better IQ, and if they can justify it what's wrong with that? I can't, but that's just me. I'm sure AF will be better though, as well as coatings and of course VR.
 
petert said:
You could pick any
Click to expand...
Well you said your D700 and £100 prime could match anything, so I'm interested to know which £100 prime you're referring to as I would love to buy that prime.
 
petert said:
50 1.8
Click to expand...
Well if you think that matches any other prime then that's great for you. I have that lens, and it's a bargain for sure, but as good as the 58mm, or 85mm f1.8 or f1.4? Not for me. Sharpness yes. Bokeh, contrast, pop, the way they render? Nah. Is the 58mm a grand better? Probably not. The 85mm f1.8 £200 better? For me yes, all day long.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ST4
snerkler said:
Well if you think that matches any other prime then that's great for you. I have that lens, and it's a bargain for sure, but as good as the 58mm, or 85mm f1.8 or f1.4? Not for me. Sharpness yes. Bokeh, contrast, pop, the way they render? Nah. Is the 58mm a grand better? Probably not. The 85mm f1.8 £200 better? For me yes, all day long.
Click to expand...
Not tried the 85 so can't really comment though the differences I suspect aren't as big as you make them sound but I'm not getting into this lens is better than that one debate, at the end of the day if you took a dozen pictures with a dozen different lenses you wouldn't know which had taken which, you get what you need. Many fall onto the gear envy trap and buy what they don't need because they want the latest and so called greatest. A pro can write the expenses off and buy the best available, for most us it would be a waste of money. You can spend £2 or 3k on a lens, doesn't mean you'll get better pictures.
 
Last edited:
I don't think I'll be a customer for the 24-70 (been there and am now a prime kind of guy) but I can see why this is a crucial lens for Nikon. It's the bread and butter of the professional market and systems will be bought or not based on the performance of this lens alone. Canon currently have a better offering so seems to make perfect sense that Nikon saw fit to up their game too. I suspect another 70-200 may follow within the next couple of years too...
 
Those with a 1 series may buy the 200-500 :exit: but its been said it will need to be good to take many sales from the 150-600 lenses.
 
petert said:
Not tried the 85 so can't really comment though the differences I suspect aren't as big as you make them sound but I'm not getting into this lens is better than that one debate, at the end of the day if you took a dozen pictures with a dozen different lenses you wouldn't know which had taken which, you get what you need. Many fall onto the gear envy trap and buy what they don't need because they want the latest and so called greatest. A pro can write the expenses off and buy the best available, for most us it would be a waste of money. You can spend £2 or 3k on a lens, doesn't mean you'll get better pictures.
Click to expand...
No it doesn't, but you seem to write everything off other than the cheapest of gear saying it's all brain washing and advertising. I can see a big difference between the 50mm f1.8 and 85mm f1.8, also my pictures with my 70-200 f2.8 VRII render far better than any other lens I've got. The quality of my images went up overnight and my technique didn't change one iota.

If I've been brainwashed then they've done a stellar job, not just on me but also on folk who have seen my images and haven't the foggiest which lenses I use.

If you're happy with what you've got then great, that's all that matters. But to say that everyone else is brainwashed because they prefer more expensive gear is nonsense IMO ;)
 
Last edited:
snerkler said:
No it doesn't, but you seem to write everything off other than the cheapest of gear saying it's all brain washing and advertising. I can see a big difference between the 50mm f1.8 and 85mm f1.8, also my pictures with my 70-200 f2.8 VRII render far better than any other lens I've got. The quality of my images went up overnight and my technique didn't change one iota.

If I've been brainwashed then they've done a stellar job, not just on me but also on folk who have seen my images and haven't the foggiest which lenses I use.

If you're happy with what you've got then great, that's all that matters. But to say that everyone else is brainwashed because they prefer more expensive gear is nonsense IMO ;)
Click to expand...
Some I said not everyone, many have expensive lenses because they need them and know why
 
Nikon 28-70mm - Market competition with other lenses with VR have forced Nikon's hand to update it's centerpeice of the trinity. The exisiting lens is seriously good, no doubt reports will exalt the new lens and propel its sharpness in it's favour but I wonder, in the real-world would most people be able to tell the difference.
 
Blank_Canvas said:
Nikon 28-70mm - Market competition with other lenses with VR have forced Nikon's hand to update it's centerpeice of the trinity. The exisiting lens is seriously good, no doubt reports will exalt the new lens and propel its sharpness in it's favour but I wonder, in the real-world would most people be able to tell the difference.
Click to expand...

There are a couple of minor short comings on the current 24-70 so there is a little room for noticeable improvement but as you indicate, it's what Nikon's accountants see that's going to be most important!
 
the 24-70 f2.8 VR is useful and I can imagine how I'm going to use it if I have one. Not end of the world if I still using my own 28-70 f2.8 or the 24-70 f2.8 non VR.

What interest me is the Nikon 200-500 f5.6 VR. If the price is correct, I'm definite wanted one if the auto focus is fairly fast and accurate.
 
boyfalldown said:
bwahahahahahaha. You're funny
Click to expand...
It doesn't make the tea but it takes good sharp pictures for £100 is that so funny?:-/
I doubt I'd see £1900 worth of difference in another lens
 
Last edited:
I think that you get what you pay for generally with lenses ....... it will always be a case of "diminishing" returns from a cost perspective and you cannot compare a 50mm prime with a 500mm prime .......... because of what they do

and the Leica 50mm f0.95 Noctilux is way way different to the 50mm f1.8 Nikon and to some worth 100 times the price
 
Last edited:
I suppose what something is worth depends on the individual, if it's your living then a lens is going to be worth more to than if it's a hobby, different needs for different folks
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top