Agree, this is a rental shot owner's review, not a real working professional photographer's review or he's jaded. I have the VR, I had three copies of the previous G lens and I absolutely love the VR! It's faster to focus by about 30-50% and that puts it about as fast as the 70-200mm FL or even my 400mm f2.8 VR...which is instant insane fast! Also Nikon made the build quality better, not worse, the previous version because it's all metal had an issue with it's zoom ring getting sticky or stuck from even slight bumps or dings from hanging off your shoulder. This happened to two of my copies of the G version as well as the G version having issues with the end of the lens barrel/filter thread would crack easily. So Nikon made the exterior barrel out of very high quality plastic that takes bumps and bruises better as well as extreme temperatures better and they also improved the weather sealing quite a lot. However the new VR version is mostly made of metal and still has a strong magnesium alloy body, so in my opinion it's not cheap feeling in the slightest and I prefer the newer build quality. I also noticed the VR is about 1/3 stop brighter than the G version, which is great but not a big deal. I do not miss the G version at all and I'm incredibly satisfied with the VR version in every way possible. Real world results are quite amazing and the color, contrast and sharpness is all incredibly good. There may have been some bad early copies or if you shoot test targets at close range you may not like the results, but for a real world working professional or advanced amateur you'll be blown away by the 24-70mm VR! It's the best 24-70mm I've ever used and I've even tried the Canon and the Sony, this lens beats them all, except the new Nikon "S" 24-70mm f2.8 which is better in IQ. If you have a DSLR however the 24-70 VR is by far the best regular zoom option available.
I have owned both of these lenses. I traded up to get the new version. I can tell you the new one is a far superior lens. Its sharper for sure. The VR adds the ability to hand hold in low light with great results. The old lens often had this double image ghost which would come and go so you never knew if you were going to get a good shot. The old lens also had bad curvature at 24 mm that is much reduced on the new version. Yes the new one is expensive. But it is a great lens.
Tom pitta I never had the previous one so with having the money to purchase my first professional zoom lens so do you think it's worth it over all .. I am not a beginner but I am need to upgrade for my first professional zoom lens
How's the durability? I'm worried about it being plastic compared to the previous version which I have. But I guess I'll never know unless I get a hold of it myself.
Yes, it worth it if you can afford it, a lot of improvements over the G version, but it's not compatible with my F6 because of the electronic aperture. I get great results on my D850, distortion seems to be lower at wide angle (compared to the G version).
The gigantic lens hood protects the scrunchy front element. You'd need a storage thingey to cope though. Slid out of the side of an well loaded car in its Lowepro Toploader bag. Grind grind. Still works.
I love how we really really complain about weight and then expect full metal construction and edge to edge sharpness. Also I'm not really sure metal is really that good for durability. You wouldn't transport your nice wine glasses in metal containers because you know the metal will transfer most of the energy to the glass...
How did you recommend grabbing the older version and in the same video you said you had to send every copy of the older version for zoom repair?????/??????
Hello Sir I'm little bit confused about VR/Not?? for my first 24-70mm. Now i'm using 50mm 1.4G with Nikon D600 & 24-85mm kit Mostly i worked for Product photography and sometimes landscapes as well. May I kindly ask your recommendation for first 24-70 2.8. Should I buy VR? thanks in advance. Asad
@@gustavomiguel3435 Absolutely! when i go traveling it stays on the Camera 80% of the time. I wasn't keen on the price but once you see the results all of a sudden the price doesn't matter. It does it all. It's actually very sharp at both the long and the short end too.
The title promises a sort of comparison of the "new" lens and the ""older"" Nikon 24-70mm F/2.8 lens. For instance an important question: Why should we spend more money for the new lens could have been discussed? Instead of that kind of information a lot of camera menu-settings are showed.
I had been wondering how E lenses would work with power aperture function and unlike my expectation this combination generates much more noise! Thank your demonstrating this. BTW, it attracted my attention that the aperture changed a lot quicker with the E lens compared to G lens, or was it only me? I had been longing for a VR version but this lens, with all these cons, is not suitable. Now I am hoping that Sigma would come up with a 24-70 2.8 OS Art lens in the near future!
great review, thank you I was about to buy this lens and get in bankruptcy because the price, well looks like I will get with Tamron instead...good review
Glad it was of use. Before you buy the Tamron perhaps consider the Sigam ART. We have been pretty impressed with it. Review Here.ruclips.net/video/uRSIYXZGGRU/видео.html
I’m surprised how decent the 24-85 g lens is. So much cheaper than this one yet almost impossible to tell the difference. Just use exp comp +3/4 stop and your set to go.
I purchased it and returned after shooting for a week. The focus was pretty poor. The image quality (when focused) and color rendition were phenomenal, but I couldn't get over the bad auto-focus. My 50mm 1.8G performed better, and that's pretty pathetic considering it's a $200 prime. Easy pass. I'm a big fan of the 14-24 and the 70-200 2.8s, but this one just SUCKS.
Kris Vladimirov Hi kris. Really surprised by your comments re poor focusing on the current 24-70 2.8VR. Which camera were you using? I'm looking to use on the new 850 having just purchased the current 70-200 2.8E. VRIII. Just really surprised you were disappointed with the new 24-70 but any feedback is greatly appreciated with the lens costing nearly 2k!
Thank you for a nice video with practical tips, this is a huge lens ... and here I have a practical question ... which one do I choose: a D750+AF-S 24-120 F4/VR or a D7500+18-140 VR or a D7200+18-140 VR or even a Canon EOS 80D+18-135 IS NANO USM?? I will be using this camera for work related events (fairs, events, shooting autoservicing machines, tools, people, ...) which will be happening indoors with week lighting as well as outdoors and must be good in all weather conditions. Primarily I focus on price-performance, all-round use and build quality and image quality. But I want to be "conservative", and rather buy a good body with "excellent" lenses than vice versa ... so how do I decide wich is good enough that it will not matter if I shoot with a better camera? Where is the line that says that is good enough for the job? So, to recapitulate, if I am not a pro and won't do majestic architecture and vehicle shoots or amazing art portrets of famous people, with medium frame or pro full frame cameras ... when can I say: "Ok, that is just right for me?" ... ... ... and I am an intermediate level user ... for now. Thanks for any advice or tips.
Hi. Thanks for the question. Its always a hard personal choice. All options have their advantages. Personally I prefer constant aperture lenses. So the 750 and 24-120 are a great combo. The 18-140 is a pretty good lens as well.
I got this lens for over a month now. I must say I am very disappointed with the copy I have. At 70mm f/2.8, the image quality SUCKS!!! As if the AF is not working at all. Did the lens AF calibration. Even tried manual focus. I can’t get a sharp image out of this lens. It needs to go back to Nikon. I got a lemon. For the price, you would expect a better QC from Nikon. I have worked the non VR version and the image quality on that one is amazing.
Hi Rettard ROSS. Sounds like you got bad batch one. With the older version we found that a number of units were soft out of the box, but we haven't had any in the newer ones. Only takes one sloppy courier to bump the elements. Hope that Nikon looks after you and you get your issue sorted.
I think you did not used the lens long Enough، You emphasized that it was made of plastic, heavy in weight, and very expensive. I suggest you see: Exploring NIKKOR Lenses: Australia - AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8E ED VR
Ich habe beide Versionen und beide machen an der D850, der D4 und der Z7II einen fantastischen Job!! Meine VR Version habe ich in neuwertigem Zustand für 1100,-€ erworben (1Jahr Garantie)… also eine absolute Top-Investition !!…..wer sich die VR Version für den genannten Neupreis erwirbt ist allerdings selbst schuld.
+beavertown2006 Hi we love the sigma Art series lenses. They are amazing value/quality. Sigma hasn't released a ART 24-70 yet but the 24-105F4 is good if your happy with F4
This is a pretty tendentious review. I would recommend the review by Nasim Mansurov on photography life if you’re looking for something more differentiated.
yeah the newer model has more distortion at 24 than the none vr model . but the vr is great for low light if you dont like pushing the iso , apart from the distortion its a great lens but there arent many 24s that dont distort in some way , i just cant justify myself buying it , as my own none vr version is my least used lens , simply because i use ultra wide or ultra telephoto , the plastic is really tough i know a friend dropped one a while back $#/£ i still cringe thinking about it , but it works fine , the plastic is high impact resins of sorts , and does a decent job , size and weight come with the territory of pro fx lenses so dont let a few oz put you off , the £10.000 180-400 f4 e is the same poly whatever plastic it is , and gets no complaints from the lucky buggers who own them ,
Your review is out of a really amateur perspective. you seem to have no clue about anything, the new lens have less distortion, more sharpness all over the frame, whereas the old lens was sucking in the corners. The lens construction is plastic o.k. but its a really robust industrial plastic which in contrast to metal does not bend or effect image quality, if the lens is dropped or crushed, metal is much more effected when the lens gets dropped. This is a lens constructed with professionals in mind and no full time professional uses cameras before 2007!!! This Lens added VR which is really contemporary so you can also film on a semi professional level.
The Tamron is a great lens, from our rental stock we have however noticed they can require more maintenance and have a higher "soft lens " rate than we would expect. If you get a good one its really good but might need to return a few to find that one.
my bro have you compered the Tamron vs the nikon vr in sharpness ? and i have seen in Dxomark the tamoron is sharper ,specially on D750 (i owen D750 ) do you recommend the Tamron for me instead of the Nikkor vr ?
The title of this video should be "Only the negatives of the 24-70 vr "
Agree, this is a rental shot owner's review, not a real working professional photographer's review or he's jaded. I have the VR, I had three copies of the previous G lens and I absolutely love the VR! It's faster to focus by about 30-50% and that puts it about as fast as the 70-200mm FL or even my 400mm f2.8 VR...which is instant insane fast! Also Nikon made the build quality better, not worse, the previous version because it's all metal had an issue with it's zoom ring getting sticky or stuck from even slight bumps or dings from hanging off your shoulder. This happened to two of my copies of the G version as well as the G version having issues with the end of the lens barrel/filter thread would crack easily. So Nikon made the exterior barrel out of very high quality plastic that takes bumps and bruises better as well as extreme temperatures better and they also improved the weather sealing quite a lot. However the new VR version is mostly made of metal and still has a strong magnesium alloy body, so in my opinion it's not cheap feeling in the slightest and I prefer the newer build quality. I also noticed the VR is about 1/3 stop brighter than the G version, which is great but not a big deal. I do not miss the G version at all and I'm incredibly satisfied with the VR version in every way possible. Real world results are quite amazing and the color, contrast and sharpness is all incredibly good. There may have been some bad early copies or if you shoot test targets at close range you may not like the results, but for a real world working professional or advanced amateur you'll be blown away by the 24-70mm VR! It's the best 24-70mm I've ever used and I've even tried the Canon and the Sony, this lens beats them all, except the new Nikon "S" 24-70mm f2.8 which is better in IQ. If you have a DSLR however the 24-70 VR is by far the best regular zoom option available.
I have owned both of these lenses. I traded up to get the new version. I can tell you the new one is a far superior lens. Its sharper for sure. The VR adds the ability to hand hold in low light with great results. The old lens often had this double image ghost which would come and go so you never knew if you were going to get a good shot. The old lens also had bad curvature at 24 mm that is much reduced on the new version. Yes the new one is expensive. But it is a great lens.
Tom pitta I never had the previous one so with having the money to purchase my first professional zoom lens so do you think it's worth it over all .. I am not a beginner but I am need to upgrade for my first professional zoom lens
How's the durability? I'm worried about it being plastic compared to the previous version which I have. But I guess I'll never know unless I get a hold of it myself.
I don't see any significant improvement of distortion at 24mm.
Yes, it worth it if you can afford it, a lot of improvements over the G version, but it's not compatible with my F6 because of the electronic aperture.
I get great results on my D850, distortion seems to be lower at wide angle (compared to the G version).
The gigantic lens hood protects the scrunchy front element. You'd need a storage thingey to cope though. Slid out of the side of an well loaded car in its Lowepro Toploader bag. Grind grind. Still works.
Thank you very much. You've helped much. But just how much is cheap for old G? I've got offer of 700, tomorrow. Is that good?
I love how we really really complain about weight and then expect full metal construction and edge to edge sharpness. Also I'm not really sure metal is really that good for durability. You wouldn't transport your nice wine glasses in metal containers because you know the metal will transfer most of the energy to the glass...
Agreed over time the plastic lenses have proved themselves. Old and heavy metal lenses are now just a relic of the past
If you have a D850, yes, it's very well worth the price tag. The older 24-70 doesn't take advantage of the 45mp sensor.
is it worth if you have a D750?
@@mpsachdev if you shoot video, the VR option is so much better.
I have a Nikon D850 and am getting fabulous results with this lens.
That lens is a beauty.
How did you recommend grabbing the older version and in the same video you said you had to send every copy of the older version for zoom repair?????/??????
Both versions have been pretty unreliable. The old version is $1000 less ( No VR)
Hello Sir
I'm little bit confused about VR/Not?? for my first 24-70mm. Now i'm using 50mm 1.4G with Nikon D600 & 24-85mm kit
Mostly i worked for Product photography and sometimes landscapes as well.
May I kindly ask your recommendation for first 24-70 2.8. Should I buy VR?
thanks in advance.
Asad
If you shoot video it will be useful. Its a bit price jump for the VR though
I just picked this up yesterday can't wait to try it out.
Do you think it's a sharp lens?
@@gustavomiguel3435 Absolutely! when i go traveling it stays on the Camera 80% of the time. I wasn't keen on the price but once you see the results all of a sudden the price doesn't matter. It does it all. It's actually very sharp at both the long and the short end too.
The title promises a sort of comparison of the "new" lens and the ""older"" Nikon 24-70mm F/2.8 lens. For instance an important question: Why should we spend more money for the new lens could have been discussed? Instead of that kind of information a lot of camera menu-settings are showed.
I had been wondering how E lenses would work with power aperture function and unlike my expectation this combination generates much more noise! Thank your demonstrating this.
BTW, it attracted my attention that the aperture changed a lot quicker with the E lens compared to G lens, or was it only me?
I had been longing for a VR version but this lens, with all these cons, is not suitable. Now I am hoping that Sigma would come up with a 24-70 2.8 OS Art lens in the near future!
He was changing it with the rear dial on the D750 when testing the older lens and with the assigned Fn button on the newer - so not really comparable.
great review, thank you I was about to buy this lens and get in bankruptcy because the price, well looks like I will get with Tamron instead...good review
Glad it was of use. Before you buy the Tamron perhaps consider the Sigam ART. We have been pretty impressed with it. Review Here.ruclips.net/video/uRSIYXZGGRU/видео.html
Great video review...Your issues with this new lens are seriously funny 😆.Cheers!
Oh yeah? I will keep my current 24-70 attached to my D750
I’m surprised how decent the 24-85 g lens is. So much cheaper than this one yet almost impossible to tell the difference. Just use exp comp +3/4 stop and your set to go.
The 24-85 is nonsense in wide angle focal lengths. The old 28-85 AFD is much better, with better definition even at open aperture.
Great review, thank you!
I purchased it and returned after shooting for a week. The focus was pretty poor. The image quality (when focused) and color rendition were phenomenal, but I couldn't get over the bad auto-focus. My 50mm 1.8G performed better, and that's pretty pathetic considering it's a $200 prime. Easy pass. I'm a big fan of the 14-24 and the 70-200 2.8s, but this one just SUCKS.
Kris Vladimirov
Hi kris. Really surprised by your comments re poor focusing on the current 24-70 2.8VR. Which camera were you using? I'm looking to use on the new 850 having just purchased the current 70-200 2.8E. VRIII. Just really surprised you were disappointed with the new 24-70 but any feedback is greatly appreciated with the lens costing nearly 2k!
Thank you for a nice video with practical tips, this is a huge lens ... and here I have a practical question ... which one do I choose: a D750+AF-S 24-120 F4/VR or a D7500+18-140 VR or a D7200+18-140 VR or even a Canon EOS 80D+18-135 IS NANO USM?? I will be using this camera for work related events (fairs, events, shooting autoservicing machines, tools, people, ...) which will be happening indoors with week lighting as well as outdoors and must be good in all weather conditions. Primarily I focus on price-performance, all-round use and build quality and image quality. But I want to be "conservative", and rather buy a good body with "excellent" lenses than vice versa ... so how do I decide wich is good enough that it will not matter if I shoot with a better camera? Where is the line that says that is good enough for the job? So, to recapitulate, if I am not a pro and won't do majestic architecture and vehicle shoots or amazing art portrets of famous people, with medium frame or pro full frame cameras ... when can I say: "Ok, that is just right for me?" ... ... ... and I am an intermediate level user ... for now. Thanks for any advice or tips.
Hi. Thanks for the question. Its always a hard personal choice. All options have their advantages. Personally I prefer constant aperture lenses. So the 750 and 24-120 are a great combo. The 18-140 is a pretty good lens as well.
I think this guy was having a bad day when he was recording this...
He is like that all the time.
I got this lens for over a month now. I must say I am very disappointed with the copy I have. At 70mm f/2.8, the image quality SUCKS!!! As if the AF is not working at all. Did the lens AF calibration. Even tried manual focus. I can’t get a sharp image out of this lens. It needs to go back to Nikon. I got a lemon. For the price, you would expect a better QC from Nikon. I have worked the non VR version and the image quality on that one is amazing.
Hi Rettard ROSS. Sounds like you got bad batch one. With the older version we found that a number of units were soft out of the box, but we haven't had any in the newer ones. Only takes one sloppy courier to bump the elements. Hope that Nikon looks after you and you get your issue sorted.
I think you did not used the lens long Enough، You emphasized that it was made of plastic, heavy in weight, and very expensive.
I suggest you see:
Exploring NIKKOR Lenses: Australia - AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8E ED VR
Why would you say the vr on the 2.8e is new, when you can get the 2.8g lens with vr?
The tamron 24-70 f/2.8 g2 is far better overall
il plod on with my g model , i dont have the NEED for a newer model 😁 .
No way Jose!
Ich habe beide Versionen und beide machen an der D850, der D4 und der Z7II einen fantastischen Job!! Meine VR Version habe ich in neuwertigem Zustand für 1100,-€ erworben (1Jahr Garantie)… also eine absolute Top-Investition !!…..wer sich die VR Version für den genannten Neupreis erwirbt ist allerdings selbst schuld.
thanks for the great video. It saves me at least 5000RMB
Hi Xiaochuan Chen. The new sigma 24-70 might be worth considering as a option. We have reviewed this as well ruclips.net/video/uRSIYXZGGRU/видео.html
Why not getting the Sigma Art?
+beavertown2006 Hi we love the sigma Art series lenses. They are amazing value/quality. Sigma hasn't released a ART 24-70 yet but the 24-105F4 is good if your happy with F4
This is a pretty tendentious review. I would recommend the review by Nasim Mansurov on photography life if you’re looking for something more differentiated.
I hate plastic barrel...I perfer the G version.
Hi Darren. The Plastic lenses certainly feel cheaper, Surprisingly we have found they seem to last quite well
The dumbest review of this marvelous lens I've ever seen.
yeah the newer model has more distortion at 24 than the none vr model . but the vr is great for low light if you dont like pushing the iso , apart from the distortion its a great lens but there arent many 24s that dont distort in some way , i just cant justify myself buying it , as my own none vr version is my least used lens , simply because i use ultra wide or ultra telephoto , the plastic is really tough i know a friend dropped one a while back $#/£ i still cringe thinking about it , but it works fine , the plastic is high impact resins of sorts , and does a decent job , size and weight come with the territory of pro fx lenses so dont let a few oz put you off , the £10.000 180-400 f4 e is the same poly whatever plastic it is , and gets no complaints from the lucky buggers who own them ,
The non vr is superior
Tamron 24-70 2.8 VC all the way
? do you think the tamron is better in sharpness than the nikkor 24 - 70mm vr
Not in the corners but in some center areas at different focal lenght tamron is sharper.
To get the Tokina at-x 24-70mm pro ！it is better then nikkor 24-70/ f2.8g .
Great LENS , Crappy video and Presenter...👎
Too big too heavy ..
Great video, crap lens! I'll stick with my original 24-70, thanks very much!
"Great video, crap lens", so.. if the new 24-70 is crap, that means your old version is as well?
Your review is out of a really amateur perspective. you seem to have no clue about anything, the new lens have less distortion, more sharpness all over the frame, whereas the old lens was sucking in the corners. The lens construction is plastic o.k. but its a really robust industrial plastic which in contrast to metal does not bend or effect image quality, if the lens is dropped or crushed, metal is much more effected when the lens gets dropped. This is a lens constructed with professionals in mind and no full time professional uses cameras before 2007!!! This Lens added VR which is really contemporary so you can also film on a semi professional level.
it's a joke ...
Pathetic review.. waste of time
I have the Tamron 24-70mm on my d750. Just as good and weighs less and costs WAY less. Nikon lenses are rip offs.
The Tamron is a great lens, from our rental stock we have however noticed they can require more maintenance and have a higher "soft lens " rate than we would expect. If you get a good one its really good but might need to return a few to find that one.
my bro have you compered the Tamron vs the nikon vr in sharpness ?
and i have seen in Dxomark the tamoron is sharper ,specially on D750 (i owen D750 )
do you recommend the Tamron for me instead of the Nikkor vr ?
@@mohad_yj Yes