| Sign in: |
| Members log in here with your user name and password to access the your admin page and other special features. |
|
|
|
|
|| SportsShooter.com: Member Message Board
New Nikon glass
Lance King, Photographer
 |
Raleigh | NC | USA | Posted: 10:17 AM on 08.06.15 |
| ->> It's nice to see Nikon has added VR to the 24x70mm lens. I'll probably be trading my old one in very soon. |
|
Tim Cowie, Photographer, Photo Editor
 |
Davidson | NC | USA | Posted: 12:15 PM on 08.06.15 |
->> To me the VR or Canon IS options are the most overrated option a lens has and adds undo costs to the overall price. I realize that if you shoot a lot of still/nature type photos or a lot of stuff at sub 1/60 of second it can come in handy, but I would rather they not have it and charge us 15% less for a lens.
I am sure someone out there can say they have application for shooting their 400mm at 1/125 of second or slower while shooting a still object, but I'm guessing 90% of the market isn't doing that.
VR options generally just get taped over by gaffers tape! |
|
Doug Holleman, Photographer
|
Belton | TX | USA | Posted: 1:39 PM on 08.06.15 |
| ->> Man, I really wish they had introduced an affordable 200-500mm f5.6 back when most of my games were outdoors in daylight. Not sure I could get much use out of it for sports, now, but still tempting. |
|
Mark Perlstein, Photographer, Photo Editor
 |
Plano | TX | USA | Posted: 4:37 PM on 08.06.15 |
| ->> I think Nikon has added more than just VR to the 24-70mm zoom, and I will likely buy one a few months after they release it. |
|
Matthew Hinton, Photographer
 |
New Orleans | LA | USA | Posted: 5:03 PM on 08.06.15 |
->> VR is great for-hand holding video and for that it does a decent job. But for hand holding video you don't often use f2.8 because the depth of field is so shallow and you're likely to lose focus if you or the subject move a few inches. The 24-120mm f4 VR would be better option for video or one of the bigger zooms like the 28-300mm VR.
For still photos I've rarely found a reason to use VR except in panning situations with intentional blur, and a 24-70mm is not a lens I would tend to do still pans with.
VR seems to waste battery life and slows downing focusing speed.
Adding VR adds weight and increases the size. A 24-70mm is meant to be a more intimate lens where you get to close to the subject. Adding more weight and bulk just puts more space between you and the subject and reduces intimacy.
It almost seems like DSLR camera manufacturers are making lenses bigger and bigger to differentiate the DSLR from mirrorless and even smartphone cameras and to justify a bigger price tag. But professional lenses and DSLRs are getting too damn heavy to carry and operate, which kind defeats the point of using VR for hand-held video if your hands and arms get tired from holding the heavy weight during a long protest speech or press conference. |
|
Stanley Leary, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Roswell | GA | | Posted: 5:44 PM on 08.06.15 |
| ->> Those with NPS can order these lenses early. They sent email out the the members telling them how to do so. |
|
Mark Perlstein, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Plano | TX | USA | Posted: 7:08 PM on 08.06.15 |
| ->> I am often shooting low shutter speeds and have been hoping for this lens. I shoot with my 70-200 with the VR on all the time, and I have never noticed a battery drain because of it. For my work, this will be a very, very welcome lens. I bet it will be a very popular lens. |
|
Nic Coury, Photographer
|
Monterey | CA | | Posted: 9:14 PM on 08.06.15 |
->> Looks like you're better off almost going with the 200-500 over that newer 80-400.
That 24 looks nice, adding to a well-rounded f/1.8-series, but I'd rather go with the 20mm for $50 more. Nice to have options though.
Hopefully 24-70 prices will drip a bit used now. |
|
Chuck Steenburgh, Photographer
|
Lexington | VA | USA | Posted: 9:44 AM on 08.08.15 |
| ->> Long Nikon glass for under $2000...who'd a thunk it. I'll be interested in seeing how this performs. Clearly they're feeling the heat from Tamron and Sigma. |
|
Debra L Rothenberg, Photographer
|
New York | NY | USA | Posted: 11:02 AM on 08.08.15 |
->> I agree with Tim. Personally, I have never seen any difference with the VR on. Waste of money. I will keep my old 24-70!
I think the new 200-500 will have a factor in reducing the price of the new 80-400. |
|
Robert Hanashiro, Photographer
 |
Los Angeles | CA | | Posted: 11:08 AM on 08.08.15 |
->> If the new Nikkor 200-500 is like the (newer version) 70-400mm it will be a pretty nice addition to the arsenal.
I've used the 70-400 at horse racing and found it sharp with very good AF tracking performance.
It'll be interesting to see. |
|
Mark Perlstein, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Plano | TX | USA | Posted: 12:50 PM on 08.22.15 |
| ->> Shot this morning with my old 24-70 at 1/30 sec and sure would have liked to have VR. |
|
Return to --> Message Board Main Index
|