The squared off back section is for better controlling of stray light for increased contrast. I first noticed this in Nikon's ancient, expensive, and excellent 2X teleconverter TC-301, which had extensive stray light blocking technology design in both the deep protruding front element and the rectangular rear section.
+Jared Polin My guess on the boxed out rear element - remember the D750 flare thing? I reckon it reduces the chances of that. Well really it's the flare thing - it happens on other cameras too. The reason for the curved edge on the sides is the sides of the frame "change" when you zoom and less vignetting when wide. That's my guess.
If I was going to start doing video again, I would probably just get the Tamron 24-70mm. The Nikon might well be better but the price difference is exceptionally large.
1:58 it's 5 ounces heavier... the length with shade: 8.75" without shade: 7" old version length with shade: 8" without shade 6.25" I LOVE this lense... you're going to do great things with it Jared! Colors and focus.. super clean.
If it ain't broke.....don't fix it. I upgraded to the E FL on the 70-200 because it was MUCH better lens. I will NOT upgrade to the 24-70 . I need a new one, and I'll buy the old version.
+Eddie Alvarez Normally, "Junk Brands" companies like Tamron are short-term buys. When you buy a Nikon lens, you will be sure that the professional Nikon lens will serve you very well for at least 30 years. when I pay a lot of money for a 24-70mm lens, I expect it to last me for decades. Without forgetting that.....Nikon lenses are excellent as Zeiss lenses. Tamron builds VERY GOOD lenses, in fact, Tamron belongs to the group of SONY, but the price difference between Nikon and Tamron is very well JUSTIFIED. With Tamron you will do great photos, no doubt. But..."Junk Brands" are short-term buys. For this reason, the difference in price.
Its "Biff 1985 alt version" not "1986". One of the issues with the early test with the new 24-70VR is the close focus sharpness. Many preview reviews mention the close focus sharpness isn't as good as the prior 24-70. Maybe your test can confirm or debunk those prior reviews.
Any follow-up video with the actual performances of the new glass in comparison with the old one? If you do not do, people might think the new glass is worse than the old one, as rumoured. Please, do this effort - it is very interesting.
not too informative. I guess it's better to release any video than no video. That way you stay in the attention of your subscribers. I expected more. Oh well
@jaredpolin please make a snif and a complete review of the Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 16-80mm f/2.8-4E ED VR Lens using a DX camera like Nikon D7200, can you please?
Now tamron is even easier choice for most. For the price you can get 24-70 and 70-200. Will you see the difference in image quality? No unless you do side by side pixel by pixel.
+Crewchief 227 Also Jared I hope you're gonna do at least a 10 min video on the new one because this is probably the biggest decision proposal I have from Nikon.
Not just the White Dot, but if these are intended for the same camera bodies, why does the new have only 8 electronic contacts while the older has 10 contacts ?
Thanks for the smell test. I smelled one at Best Buy, but I could not smell the lens over the armpit odor coming from the other folks who just walked in out of 93 degree heat here in Nashua,NH. Seriously (?): now that its going on 10 months, Jared, have you had a chance to do sharpness comparisons between the old and new lens?
is it just me... or does the 24-70 hood look bigger than the hood for the 70-200 2.8...?? I feel like the 70-200 2.8 hood is kind of wimpy and looks too small
Nice, one day maybe. changing the subject, what do you think about the new Nikon D5 and the D400. think i am going to get the D400 over the D7200. what do you think. Thanks
+Sreeji Nair Very curious, you made an excellent intro video but no follow-up. Cameralabs did an excellent comparison video that will answer the question.
The VR is nice, it can make a big difference. I shoot canon, the 24-70 2.8 ii is extremely sharp but I still keep the 24-105 f/4 because of the IS. I may not need it most of the time but there could come a time when I do. The VR is needed as megapixels go up. At a pixel level, if you want everything sharp you start finding you need more shutter speed than you used to. I learned this shooting with 36 megapixels with the A7R for a year. Nikon has a 36 MP camera and Canon has a 50 MP camera so I suspect we will start seeing IS on about everything soon.
+nagol5178 Nonono there's so little truth to that. Everything will still be sharp even if you're using a moderately-slow SS. If you're going to pixel-peep that bad (or be blowing it up to epic proportions), I'd be more worried about the grain and fringing than I would be about any blur. This is simply an over-blown idea. Unless you start shooting at 100+mp you have nothing to worry about. So please stop.
I started to write in the comment, "Except someone will comment back this, etc etc." They always do. Plenty of people have had to adjust, lot of 5DSR owners have a problem and you always see that comment you just left copied and pasted. We see it with our own eyes and you will say, "NOT TRUE." I had to double the rule of shutter speed to make sure it was in sharp focus at pixel level. Although most people just calculate it the way one would with a 1.6x. Everything is not sharp at the same shutter speeds. Unless you are easily over the shutter speed where it will matter. I don't know why people always make that comment denying reality, as if those of us who see it with our own eyes just made it up. We actually experienced it, it seems like other people just copy and paste that same response. So please stop.
nagol5178 I actually did say "over-blown", I never denied it didn't exist. Re-read my comment. If you're shooting at the slowest SS that just barely keeps your image sharp, then shoot the same image with 30 extra mps, you may run into some blurs. You're likely shooting well above that threshold in most cases, in which cases it doesn't matter. What I want to know, is if your FINAL image is posted at a size that the viewer can see the blur. I shoot with the D800 and never post full-size images. So on top of the "blur", I need to keep other things in mind like my ISO, focus, fringing, etc... in consideration. I can take the same image from either a 16mp or 36mp camera and both would be posted at the same size. It is you, who believe that because you may see some slight blur at more intensified zoom rates that you suddenly believe the whole world will see it too when they look at the image. If I was to blow up a 16mp and 36mp image (both taken at same settings) to 100, guess which one would be sharper... Right! The 36mp one since there's more detail! If you blew the 16mp photo to match the size of the 36mp photo, guess which photo would be sharper... Right again! The 36mp image! Because with the 16mp there's not enough pixels to properly show the details, so even if there were any "blur", the 36mp automatically wins. That's how it is.
eleventhphotograph So, you admit, what I said is correct, but since you claim that no one is really printing that big or posting anything that big then it doesn't really matter. It does to me. I have no idea when I'm gonna get the shot that I will print big. I have no idea when I will see something in the shot that I want to crop. What do you mean the 36 MP wins? When did I say I would want less megapixels? I usually go for all the megapixels I can get, if it's in the camera I want. But that was quite obvious when shooting with 36 megapixels. I like extremely sharp images, so I don't go into it thinking, "Well, I'll probably just post this online so no need to worry." When I zoom in on those eyes, I want it extremely sharp at 1:1. I don't know where this argument comes in, "The whole world won't see it! Only you will see it!" So, if I take a portrait of someone and decide, na I don't want that much I want to crop in the hair line and get more of a tight headshot, I won't see it? I will see it. I've done it. Which will appear sharper to me? The one that is sharp at 1:1. This is like saying, "You might as well recompose every image, even if you want it extremely sharp because I mean you can't really tell in a real world situation most of the time." That has nothing to do with it. Go look at the Canon forums, plenty of people are wanting that 24-70 2.8 with IS now like Nikon has. The reason? 5DSR. Most of us who like really sharp images, no matter the camera, want to stay at the lowest ISO possible. We are used to doing that, and we we move up to more megapixels, we notice at the same shutter speed we are used to, we don't get images as sharp. Practically everyone notices it, but then there are the people like you that just post that same response over and over. Every time a user notices it. So, I can focus and recompose or I can put the cross type on the eye.... No one can tell on Facebook or on my website. So I guess I should just shoot that way? NO. It's the same argument. I can't stand to get a shot that isn't sharp on a pixel level.
Sir, which one is recommended more suitable for D7100 ---, Nikon 24-70 2.8G AFS OR Nikon 24-70 2.8E VR ? will 24-70 2.8E VR cover more area while taking group photos & Landscapes?
People are serious about their craft, whether it's professional or hobbyist and you give us sniff and taste test? Come on man..have a little more respect for your viewers and admirers.
Wish it was mentioned that the lens now comes in plastic as opposed to a metal body... this is one thing that has deterred me from the upgrade... VR is great and all, and the sharpness is slightly better, but i don't appreciate Nikon's price vs overall quality satisfaction to consumer. if you're paying a considerable amount of money for a lens, the quality should at its best. The other observation that i've noticed with Nikon lately is that they have now gone to China to produce stock as opposed to Japan. As a Nikon user/investor i really hope their quality is not taking the back seat...
I bought it and returned it within 2 weeks. I tried to give it a chance, but many of the images were soft and fuzzy. The color and contrast was phenomenal, but it would frequently miss the focusing mark on subjects. I don't have that problem with my cheap 35mm 1.8G and 50mm 1.8G. This is pretty sad when you consider this beast costs over $2000. I'll stick to the 14-24 f2.8 and the 70-200 f2.8 as my go to pro lenses.
Daniel Spaniel The Zeiss is using Zeiss glass elements, Zeiss calculations and Zeiss quality tests by a Zeiss-certified tester. Sony did the AF and does the assembly. So this is not a "badged up Sony", of course not. I doubt the Nikon stands a chance against a Zeiss.
So why do you explain that the Sony Zeiss 55 F1.8 FE for example is one of the sharpest lenses in DXOMark? ;) Please check how Zeiss lens design works, how Zeiss in general work. It's not about who assembles the parts, that can be done by anyone, its about the development and the choice of the materials itself. And I clearly don't understand why its so important to you, that you want to believe its only a name tag - your Nikon glass is good, so whats the problem with bashing the competition :).
all the "E" lenses (not G type & older E type lens) are the next generation of the Nikon. They are coming with electronic diaphragm just like Canon (which they did years ago) which is why you are having square type rear opening which is caused by the missing aperture lever which was uses in G-Type lenses for controlling the aperture through the camera.. Now every thing will be done electronically in E type lenses.
It wouldn't call the new one "huuuuuge", "much, much larger" or that there's a "major difference". It's only 16% longer and it has a 6% larger diameter. Anyway, I'll wait for some first (field) test results, and if positive it's going to be mine too ;-)
Jared, I'm in the process of moving from a 5D2 and 24-70 2.8 and 50 1.4 and I'm moving to a Nikon d750 with 50 1.4 and was wondering if you could just say if the vr is worth getting ? Is it sharper? I am mainly a photographer so it would be for just stills :) look forward to hearing back from you :)
Hi jared,,,i'm your youtube fan since 2012,,,i need a pro opinion for sth. i want to buy a nikon 24-70 2.8 vr but the dxomark site mentioned that this lens has tons of chromatic abberation,,in fact its the worst lens in dxomark chromatic abberation section. since you have this lens i wanted to ask your opinion about this,,,do you noticed more abberation in this lens?should i avoid this lens because of this issue? please help me out,,,,thanks for your awsome videos and guides
The white dot !!! OMG that is freakin gorgeous .... That is why I'm buying one tomorrow.
The squared off back section is for better controlling of stray light for increased contrast.
I first noticed this in Nikon's ancient, expensive, and excellent 2X teleconverter TC-301, which had extensive stray light blocking technology design in both the deep protruding front element and the rectangular rear section.
I rather see them making the new 24-70mm 2.0 instead adding a VR feature to the lens, but thats just me
Me too!
The lick-test was too much ... besides that, keep up the good work! Love RAWtalk!
+Jared Polin My guess on the boxed out rear element - remember the D750 flare thing?
I reckon it reduces the chances of that.
Well really it's the flare thing - it happens on other cameras too.
The reason for the curved edge on the sides is the sides of the frame "change" when you zoom and less vignetting when wide.
That's my guess.
I stopped watching when he tried to smell the lenses.
Yeah. Such a video would be cool for new Chupa Chups review in a primary school girl channel.
you did the right thing. after smell, he started to lick them both
@@hborhuuI got a good laugh after reading your remark. And then I watched the video. And I'll be. He actually did lick both lenses.
If I was going to start doing video again, I would probably just get the Tamron 24-70mm. The Nikon might well be better but the price difference is exceptionally large.
Fortunately, I avoid video like the plague now days, so I have no plans to get the lens but I have tried it a few times and was impressed generally.
1:58 it's 5 ounces heavier... the length with shade: 8.75" without shade: 7" old version length with shade: 8" without shade 6.25" I LOVE this lense... you're going to do great things with it Jared! Colors and focus.. super clean.
+Frederick Dunn I hope so!!!
If it ain't broke.....don't fix it. I upgraded to the E FL on the 70-200 because it was MUCH better lens. I will NOT upgrade to the 24-70 . I need a new one, and I'll buy the old version.
The size and weight is a killer. I barely use my 24-70 as it is because of how big and heavy it is.
The new version is so big it looks like a 70-200 2.8. It needs a removable tripod collar.
Wait for the nex one.Its gonna be even bigger.
Oh Man! Mine arrived today... can't believe you beat me to getting this! LOVE this lens.... I pre-ordered back in March... Thanks for sharing Jared!
The new 24-70 is obviously trying to compensate.....
+Boxhawk lol , and thats why i love my 70-300 so much!
+shannon writer is it good for video? vignetting is kinda bugging me...
Please test it against Tamron SP 24-70mm f/2.8 DI VC USD I'd like to know the price difference is justified between the two.
+Eddie Alvarez
Normally, "Junk Brands" companies like Tamron are short-term buys. When you buy a Nikon lens, you will be sure that the professional Nikon lens will serve you very well for at least 30 years. when I pay a lot of money for a 24-70mm lens, I expect it to last me for decades. Without forgetting that.....Nikon lenses are excellent as Zeiss lenses. Tamron builds VERY GOOD lenses, in fact, Tamron belongs to the group of SONY, but the price difference between Nikon and Tamron is very well JUSTIFIED. With Tamron you will do great photos, no doubt. But..."Junk Brands" are short-term buys. For this reason, the difference in price.
+berto1999 Idiot
Christopher O'Grady
You ara a stupid TROLL.
Actually i bought the Tamron 24-70 VC brand new for 615 pounds and i earn almost for times more working with that...
I love mine, I've been using it all weekend. stellar lens.
Its "Biff 1985 alt version" not "1986". One of the issues with the early test with the new 24-70VR is the close focus sharpness. Many preview reviews mention the close focus sharpness isn't as good as the prior 24-70. Maybe your test can confirm or debunk those prior reviews.
The new one is less sharp
What is wrong with you people, it's called a sense of humour. He's serious about the product when it matters -- lighten up!!
Nice lens; I am now expecting to see a Canon 24-70 2.8 with IS announced very soon (in the spirit of competition). Bring back Fro Vader!!
Any follow-up video with the actual performances of the new glass in comparison with the old one? If you do not do, people might think the new glass is worse than the old one, as rumoured. Please, do this effort - it is very interesting.
not too informative. I guess it's better to release any video than no video. That way you stay in the attention of your subscribers. I expected more. Oh well
Sadly, the lens has no sharpness
Fro, do you suppose the boxed-in rear element could be Nikon trying to prevent flare issues that started with the D750 and D7100?
Both versions are brilliant lenses
@jaredpolin please make a snif and a complete review of the Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 16-80mm f/2.8-4E ED VR Lens using a DX camera like Nikon D7200, can you please?
Hey Jared, any idea when we will get a real word comparison between them?
when he's not promoting himself....
The older one is better. You’re welcome
Now tamron is even easier choice for most. For the price you can get 24-70 and 70-200. Will you see the difference in image quality? No unless you do side by side pixel by pixel.
Holy Crap that is way bigger then I was expecting. I think I just may keep my original 24-70.
+Crewchief 227 Also Jared I hope you're gonna do at least a 10 min video on the new one because this is probably the biggest decision proposal I have from Nikon.
Not just the White Dot, but if these are intended for the same camera bodies, why does the new have only 8 electronic contacts while the older has 10 contacts ?
THANK YOU
Which is the best lens Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8 G vr1, 2, 3 or the new E VR?
After all this?? I didn’t understand what was the difference other than the price
Thanks for the smell test. I smelled one at Best Buy, but I could not smell the lens over the armpit odor coming from the other folks who just walked in out of 93 degree heat here in Nashua,NH.
Seriously (?): now that its going on 10 months, Jared, have you had a chance to do sharpness comparisons between the old and new lens?
Mmm good point -- VR makes a significant diff in video
i work in a camera shop and someone came in pretty much as soon as it was in
Would love to see a review of this on VS Tokina AT-X 24-70mm F2.8 PRO FX lens
You sure the "boxed out" thing isn't just a backside filter holder?
Fail of the year.
I've been hearing the new VR lens is not better than the old one, just more expensive.
that's right, only VR
Also, just noticed that the older 2.8 has 10 electrical contact points, and the newer 2.8 only has 8. Hmm, doing more (VR) with less.
This review was a waste of time.
totally true, not waisting my time with dude ever again
All of his reviews are.. no testing on camera. No real pictures..
00:46 what does it smell like this time?
03:58 Now - this is getting out of hand..
He always such a tool. Thank god he has fucked off to Sony
Did they finaly change the grease on the barrel inside?
Wonder why Canon's version is a short lens and this has the kind of telephoto size...I like Nikon more but come on
is it just me... or does the 24-70 hood look bigger than the hood for the 70-200 2.8...?? I feel like the 70-200 2.8 hood is kind of wimpy and looks too small
Nice, one day maybe. changing the subject, what do you think about the new Nikon D5 and the D400. think i am going to get the D400 over the D7200. what do you think. Thanks
+colt kwilkerson If it ever comes out the D400. I have the D7200 its a superb camera.
good in low light you think ? looking to pair with my D750
+colt kwilkerson would be a perfect combo. low light performance is excellent and there is not a lot of grain even at high Iso
thanks
Such a great lens
What's the body made of? I know the Canon 24-70mm 2.8L mkII is more plastic vs the mk1
Would love to see a "real world" review of this new piece of glass
Almost a month gone by and still no answer on the Nikon 200-500 vs Sigma 150-600 sports.... You guys must be too busy :)
Yeah I want to see this too
+Sreeji Nair Very curious, you made an excellent intro video but no follow-up. Cameralabs did an excellent comparison video that will answer the question.
any link?
+Sreeji Nair www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Nikon_Nikkor_AF-S_200-500mm_f5-6E_ED_VR/
+Chrismzeller thanks man
Thanks for making this video.
I don't see a focal length scale on the new one... Is it somewhere else?
The VR is nice, it can make a big difference. I shoot canon, the 24-70 2.8 ii is extremely sharp but I still keep the 24-105 f/4 because of the IS. I may not need it most of the time but there could come a time when I do. The VR is needed as megapixels go up. At a pixel level, if you want everything sharp you start finding you need more shutter speed than you used to. I learned this shooting with 36 megapixels with the A7R for a year. Nikon has a 36 MP camera and Canon has a 50 MP camera so I suspect we will start seeing IS on about everything soon.
+nagol5178 Nonono there's so little truth to that. Everything will still be sharp even if you're using a moderately-slow SS. If you're going to pixel-peep that bad (or be blowing it up to epic proportions), I'd be more worried about the grain and fringing than I would be about any blur. This is simply an over-blown idea. Unless you start shooting at 100+mp you have nothing to worry about. So please stop.
I started to write in the comment, "Except someone will comment back this, etc etc." They always do. Plenty of people have had to adjust, lot of 5DSR owners have a problem and you always see that comment you just left copied and pasted. We see it with our own eyes and you will say, "NOT TRUE." I had to double the rule of shutter speed to make sure it was in sharp focus at pixel level. Although most people just calculate it the way one would with a 1.6x. Everything is not sharp at the same shutter speeds. Unless you are easily over the shutter speed where it will matter. I don't know why people always make that comment denying reality, as if those of us who see it with our own eyes just made it up. We actually experienced it, it seems like other people just copy and paste that same response. So please stop.
nagol5178 I actually did say "over-blown", I never denied it didn't exist. Re-read my comment.
If you're shooting at the slowest SS that just barely keeps your image sharp, then shoot the same image with 30 extra mps, you may run into some blurs. You're likely shooting well above that threshold in most cases, in which cases it doesn't matter.
What I want to know, is if your FINAL image is posted at a size that the viewer can see the blur. I shoot with the D800 and never post full-size images. So on top of the "blur", I need to keep other things in mind like my ISO, focus, fringing, etc... in consideration.
I can take the same image from either a 16mp or 36mp camera and both would be posted at the same size.
It is you, who believe that because you may see some slight blur at more intensified zoom rates that you suddenly believe the whole world will see it too when they look at the image.
If I was to blow up a 16mp and 36mp image (both taken at same settings) to 100, guess which one would be sharper... Right! The 36mp one since there's more detail! If you blew the 16mp photo to match the size of the 36mp photo, guess which photo would be sharper... Right again! The 36mp image! Because with the 16mp there's not enough pixels to properly show the details, so even if there were any "blur", the 36mp automatically wins. That's how it is.
+nagol5178 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
eleventhphotograph So, you admit, what I said is correct, but since you claim that no one is really printing that big or posting anything that big then it doesn't really matter. It does to me. I have no idea when I'm gonna get the shot that I will print big. I have no idea when I will see something in the shot that I want to crop. What do you mean the 36 MP wins? When did I say I would want less megapixels? I usually go for all the megapixels I can get, if it's in the camera I want. But that was quite obvious when shooting with 36 megapixels. I like extremely sharp images, so I don't go into it thinking, "Well, I'll probably just post this online so no need to worry." When I zoom in on those eyes, I want it extremely sharp at 1:1. I don't know where this argument comes in, "The whole world won't see it! Only you will see it!" So, if I take a portrait of someone and decide, na I don't want that much I want to crop in the hair line and get more of a tight headshot, I won't see it? I will see it. I've done it. Which will appear sharper to me? The one that is sharp at 1:1. This is like saying, "You might as well recompose every image, even if you want it extremely sharp because I mean you can't really tell in a real world situation most of the time." That has nothing to do with it. Go look at the Canon forums, plenty of people are wanting that 24-70 2.8 with IS now like Nikon has. The reason? 5DSR. Most of us who like really sharp images, no matter the camera, want to stay at the lowest ISO possible. We are used to doing that, and we we move up to more megapixels, we notice at the same shutter speed we are used to, we don't get images as sharp. Practically everyone notices it, but then there are the people like you that just post that same response over and over. Every time a user notices it. So, I can focus and recompose or I can put the cross type on the eye.... No one can tell on Facebook or on my website. So I guess I should just shoot that way? NO. It's the same argument. I can't stand to get a shot that isn't sharp on a pixel level.
After seeing you sniff and taste you lenses, I can't help but wonder if, when you have a coffee, do you snack on a filter instead of a biscuit? Lol.
So i should get VR lens if i want better low light ?
Sir, which one is recommended more suitable for D7100 ---, Nikon 24-70 2.8G AFS OR Nikon 24-70 2.8E VR ? will 24-70 2.8E VR cover more area while taking group photos & Landscapes?
I love my Nikon 24-70 2.8G. But! why Nikon is adding more size and weight? Why not adding the VR in a same size/wight or less...
I'm pretty sure they would've done that If it was possible.
I haven't used my 24-70 in so long I forgot it doesn't have any IS.
RAW files from new Nikon 24-70 2.8e VR lens look just bad, no sharpness!
is the 24-70 without the vr a good lens?
People are serious about their craft, whether it's professional or hobbyist and you give us sniff and taste test? Come on man..have a little more respect for your viewers and admirers.
Too serious apparently
lol that circle on the right is very annoying
Move and rotate it to give Jared a halo.
the rear baffle is said to cut stray light
Well, that was very… not useful at all?
the older G lens has 10 cpu contacts, the newer E lens has only 8. interesting.
Can I use any of them on a D5600? I guess it is not going to work... But thanks for answering!
Pretty sure the 24-70 will work fine, but it might be a weird focal range for the smaller sensor in the D5600
Wish it was mentioned that the lens now comes in plastic as opposed to a metal body... this is one thing that has deterred me from the upgrade... VR is great and all, and the sharpness is slightly better, but i don't appreciate Nikon's price vs overall quality satisfaction to consumer. if you're paying a considerable amount of money for a lens, the quality should at its best. The other observation that i've noticed with Nikon lately is that they have now gone to China to produce stock as opposed to Japan. As a Nikon user/investor i really hope their quality is not taking the back seat...
does it have the electronic aperture switching like the 300mm f4 or the older mechanical switch
which is better ? new version or old version?
I bought it and returned it within 2 weeks. I tried to give it a chance, but many of the images were soft and fuzzy. The color and contrast was phenomenal, but it would frequently miss the focusing mark on subjects. I don't have that problem with my cheap 35mm 1.8G and 50mm 1.8G. This is pretty sad when you consider this beast costs over $2000. I'll stick to the 14-24 f2.8 and the 70-200 f2.8 as my go to pro lenses.
Same problem here.
The new 24-70 wouldn't work on the F100 and F5, right?
+Mix why wouldn't it work on the F5? it should work fine
+Lance Hudson The way the new lens changes aperture makes it incompatible with the older tech. It's not mechanical anymore.
Pffffff we don’t need to know how they smell like, take pics and show us the result instead.
excellent video friend, greetings from Mexico
do you have a review on the 14-24mm because I can't find it.
No need for a review - the 14-24 is spectacular.
Thanks!!!
how would you compare the image quality with the nikon1.8g prime lens ?
when canon will do that~?
Thanx so much for the vdo JP. looking forward to a full work up of the lens.
older one is sharper
are you ok?
question is how does it compare against the 24-70 2.8 by Zeiss, does it stand a chance?
Daniel Spaniel The Zeiss is using Zeiss glass elements, Zeiss calculations and Zeiss quality tests by a Zeiss-certified tester.
Sony did the AF and does the assembly.
So this is not a "badged up Sony", of course not.
I doubt the Nikon stands a chance against a Zeiss.
Daniel Spaniel No need to believe, it's knowing ;)...
So why do you explain that the Sony Zeiss 55 F1.8 FE for example is one of the sharpest lenses in DXOMark? ;)
Please check how Zeiss lens design works, how Zeiss in general work. It's not about who assembles the parts, that can be done by anyone, its about the development and the choice of the materials itself.
And I clearly don't understand why its so important to you, that you want to believe its only a name tag - your Nikon glass is good, so whats the problem with bashing the competition :).
CA is so easily corrected in post, that its not an important characteristic anymore ;).
Son sellados contra agua y polvo?
all the "E" lenses (not G type & older E type lens) are the next generation of the Nikon. They are coming with electronic diaphragm just like Canon (which they did years ago) which is why you are having square type rear opening which is caused by the missing aperture lever which was uses in G-Type lenses for controlling the aperture through the camera..
Now every thing will be done electronically in E type lenses.
It wouldn't call the new one "huuuuuge", "much, much larger" or that there's a "major difference". It's only 16% longer and it has a 6% larger diameter. Anyway, I'll wait for some first (field) test results, and if positive it's going to be mine too ;-)
You are legend
Waste of my time!
hahah, thumbs up for that Trump "HUGE" LOL
Definitely holds up in 2021. For sure.
Is there any way I can contact you to ask you a question? Like through email?? Thanks
are you working as pet food testing ?
Which lens will you use for your videos?
I should buy it because of 3 flying disks and it's smell.
3 Flying Disks HAHAHAHAAHA !
the OLDER non VR 24-70mm f2.8 lens is much better.......
What about 24-70 D lens?
You talked too fast here Jared hehe 😉
How much more do 82 mm filters cost?
#3 negative number of glass elements
is it a wideangle?
That depends on your definition of wide... Everything under 35mm is technically "wide angle" and above 50mm is telephoto...
Jared, I'm in the process of moving from a 5D2 and 24-70 2.8 and 50 1.4 and I'm moving to a Nikon d750 with 50 1.4 and was wondering if you could just say if the vr is worth getting ? Is it sharper? I am mainly a photographer so it would be for just stills :) look forward to hearing back from you :)
Stow the negativity people, seriously...
wow, I keep waiting for the right info until like.....oh that's it? LOL
Hi jared,,,i'm your youtube fan since 2012,,,i need a pro opinion for sth.
i want to buy a nikon 24-70 2.8 vr but the dxomark site mentioned that this lens has tons of chromatic abberation,,in fact its the worst lens in dxomark chromatic abberation section. since you have this lens i wanted to ask your opinion about this,,,do you noticed more abberation in this lens?should i avoid this lens because of this issue? please help me out,,,,thanks for your awsome videos and guides