File :-(, x, )
VR needed for a 24 to 70 range zoom ? Anonymous
I was thinking of selling my D200 & D300 and upgrading to a D700.
Like many people I am stuck on what lens to get. I have read that the kit
lens is not so hot so I was looking at other choices.

I was looking at the Nikon AF-S 24-70mm f/2.8 G ED, but when I went to some local stores to see one, I was getting different answers, especially on the need for VR. I would hate to spring for this lens and see Nikon release one next year with VR, assuming its a benifit.

Is VR a help in the range ? I assume the wider the FOV the less important, that the longer the zoom the more important for hand held use of course. Where is

the break point ? Do I wait for a VR lens in this range of this quality ?
I did want a lens with the faster autofocus motor.
>> Anonymous
Nikon will not release a VR version, the 24-70 is barely a year old as it is. Canon's midrange doesn't have IS either. The 24-70 is an excellent lens, just go for it.
>> Jeremo !iKGMr61IHM
Seriously, unless you've got parkinsons or like to breakdance whilst you photograph the VR is completely unnecessary.

Just get used to proper shooting technique, besides, with the D700's High ISO capabilities, it's not like you'd need to shoot at slow shutter speeds.
>> Jeremo !iKGMr61IHM
>>275796
exactly what he said,

also adding VR do a lens like that would just add further cost to an already pricey lens.
>> Anonymous
I have a 24-120mm equivalent lens with IS and it's useful even on the wide end - you can shoot at night and keep ISO lower than 1600. Of course, doesn't help with moving objects.

(inb4 "D700 can shoot at ISO 3200 without noise")
>> Anonymous
Are you fucking stupid?

You have a d200 and a d300 and you're going to throw two perfectly good cameras out the window at around half what you paid for them for ONE camera that you heard was better?

Sure the 24-70 2.8 is one of the best lenses Nikon has ever made but I don't think you see the merit of what you already have, or the negligible difference you will see in buying the D700.
>> Anonymous
Compared to the d300, the d700 has two major advantages: It's less noisy at high ISO, and it's full-frame. How valuable this is to you is up to you to decide. I've tried a d700 and I didn't see it necessary to upgrade from my d300. I do lust for it, but it's not worth the price tag for me, at least not yet. The next upgrade for me will be a full-frame camera though, so I'm not going to buy any DX lenses in the future if I can avoid it. If money was no object, I'd go for the d3 instead.

I won't stop you from trading up to a d700, but do take the time to reconsider if the money you are about to plunk down could be spent on something other instead, like off-camera lighting, a 5-in-1 reflector, a kick-ass tripod, decent glass...
As for the VR advantage: Without VR, you should be able to hand-hold more than 50% of shots at 70mm, 1/60 shutter speed. VR should get you up to 1/15 or so.

It depends a bit on the kind of photography you do, really. Do you shoot people or action? VR won't help at all in freezing motion.

I've tried the 24-70mm, and it's an excellent piece of kit. You will be very happy with it. In fact, it's wort buying even if you don't upgrade.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>275820an already pricey lens.

did someone say pricey lens?
>> Anonymous
[meme revival] Michael J Fox needs VR in bright daylight.
Because of Parkinson's[/meme revival]
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>275846Sure the 24-70 2.8 is one of the best lenses Nikon has ever made

Ahem, the 24-70 has horrible field curvature that Nikon evangelist either ignore or say is par for the course. It's good but won't be remembered as a "classic" by anyone.

The 14-24 however _is_ one of the best zooms Nikon has ever made, soon to be legendary. Ironically mounted on a Canon in pic.
>> Anonymous
>>275819VR is completely unnecessary

Stabilization isn't the be all, end all. But it's pretty damn awesome and a very useful feature.

I think most people who go around saying stabilization is useless have never usd it extensively for a long period of time.

It's like having a monopod with you everywhere you go. It gets you a lot more shots than "proper shooting technique" ever could. Hell, use your "proper shooting technique" couple it with stabilization and get even more possible shots.
>> Project !dashI8UpO.
>most people who go around saying stabilization is useless can't afford it

Yep.
>> Anonymous
The 24-70mm does indeed distort at 24mm. It doesn't distort from what I could tell at above 30. Moreover, the barrel distortion is easily fixable.

The 14-24mm is awesome. So is the price. It is an excellent wide zoom. Hardly relevant in a discussion about a midrange zoom.
>> Anonymous
>>275993

Well yeah. I guess that's another reason. Or it's just not available, see 24-70 f/2.8.
>> Anonymous
>>275996The 24-70mm does indeed distort at 24mm. It doesn't distort from what I could tell at above 30. Moreover, the barrel distortion is easily fixable.

Field curvature is not barrel distortion.
>> Anonymous
do a barrel roll
>> Anonymous
Very well. I did not notice any serious issues during the week I had the lens. I defer to your superior knowledge then.

I still think it's an excellent midrange-zoom to have.
>> Anonymous
>>275990

The usefulness of VR is dictated by the focal lenghts and subject matter you usually shoot.

One common misconception people seem to have is that VR somehow is equivalent to faster glass. It isn't.
>> Anonymous
I kinda wish there was a full-frame equivalent for the 18-200mm DX VR lens. It's not spectacular in it's performance, but it is the one lens that spends most of the time in front of my camera rather than in the bag. An excellent lens for photowalking.
>> Anonymous
No, of course it doesn't help you freeze motion or affects depth of field.

But it's called "image stabilization" it's not called EXTREM FAST SHUTTER SPEED or f/.95.

It's sole purpose is to help you gain a few stops of light by stabilizing the optics. And it works wonders doing so.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>276022I kinda wish there was a full-frame equivalent for the 18-200mm DX VR lens.

Anon, EF 28-300 f/3.5-5.6 L IS USM.

EF 28-300 f/3.5-5.6 L IS USM, anon.
>> i - !EoFJjFcCco
>>276027

push/pull zoom, kinda hit & miss if you ask me.
>> Anonymous
>>276027

Oh, nice. A shame I don't own any canon gear.
>> Anonymous
>>276032

What does that mean? Have you ever used it?
>> Anonymous
>>276035Oh, nice. A shame I don't own any canon gear.

Not everyone is perfect.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>275827
>>275792
Fuck your VR.

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeNIKON CORPORATIONCamera ModelNIKON D700Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS3 WindowsPhotographerNicolas Fernandez AguadeMaximum Lens Aperturef/3.4Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color AreaColor Filter Array Pattern786Focal Length (35mm Equiv)28 mmImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2008:10:15 23:05:43Exposure Time1/40 secF-Numberf/3.3Exposure ProgramManualISO Speed Rating6400Lens Aperturef/3.3Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternLight SourceUnknownFlashNo FlashFocal Length28.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width1000Image Height665RenderingNormalExposure ModeManualWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandardGain ControlHigh Gain UpContrastNormalSaturationNormalSharpnessNormalSubject Distance RangeUnknown
>> Anonymous
VR should be designed into pretty much every lens and every body made today, it's useful, but it's by no means essential. If you're not doing it wrong and you're not looking for concrete-bolted-tripod-mounted-camera-with-mirror-lockup-and-remote-release-and-a-sharp-macro-fifty-
with-a-leaf-shutter-at-its-sharpest-aperture sharpness, you can handhold far, far below the 1/focal length rule.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>276189VR should be designed into pretty much every lens and every body made today

oh hai

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakePhase OneCamera ModelH 25Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS2 WindowsEquipment MakePhase OneCamera ModelH 25Image-Specific Properties:Image Width440Image Height317Number of Bits Per Component8, 8, 8Compression SchemeUnknownPixel CompositionRGBImage OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution300 dpiVertical Resolution300 dpiImage Data ArrangementChunky FormatImage Created2007:10:18 19:03:14ISO Speed Rating50Color Space InformationUncalibratedImage Width440Image Height317Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution300 dpiVertical Resolution300 dpi
>> Anonymous
>>276202
Sony and Pentax have sensor stabilization alone, which is great for lens designs that don't include optical stabilization. Unfortunately, it's inferior to optical stabilization.

Nikon, Canon, and Panasonic have optical stabilization, but not on every lens. Most notably, there's a lack of primes.

Olympus has both, but in a limited set of models and their lens line-up is limited period.

Everyone (lol pipe dream, I know) should have all their bodies with stabilized sensors and all the new lenses stabilized, where other design considerations (lens look, size, weight) permit.
>> ­
>>275819
Truth

The benefit of VR is really only for specific instances for me. Ramp the ISO or use a flash. I don't take pictures of things that stay still so I have to keep a fast shutter speed to get sharp images.
>> Anonymous
good job quoting yourself jeremo
>> ­
i am offended