Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
User review of new Nikon 24-70 f2.8VR
Quote:And the new one gets the first delays. I wonder if Nikon underestimated the demand or did manage to make another design flaw?

Bojan, did you also take a closer look at the VR? On the new 300/4 PF E it turned out to be a big flaw and still is. Some exposure times will cause motion blur. I still want to compare that lens and the Sigma Sports in terms of VR. Although Sigma has to pay a penalty for copying the Nikon VR it appears theirs is doing the better job.

So maybe the same could be with Tamron's and Nikon's versions of 24-70? I don't want to blame Nikon but at this price it has to be the best and for what I see, I don't find any good reason to pay three times what I paid for the 24-105/4 which is superb in terms of VR.
I have to re-examine the test photos for VR but as I remember VR Work ok. to 1/10s on 70mm, a longer time than this were more questionable. I did not have time to test VR in detail, most of the time I shoot without VR, this segment It should be tested carefully.


Yes it is little unusual that Nikon delays shipment of this lens... I hope that they didnt notice potencial problems with lens after they read the review. It would be very strange... and lens is huge... bigest ever in this range for FX cameras...

Quote:So the new one vignettes a crazy amount more, and that is (partly?) due to back element mechanical vignetting, causing the swirly bokeh.  It is much bigger, and heavier. It is about as sharp as the old lens, so not that different from the Tamron 24-70mm f2.8 USD VC. The old one has blue/yellow LoCA (at least at tested focal length), where the new one has the usual green/magenta LoCA.


That is what I get, from your comparisons and earlier samples. 
Yes the old one is optically great lens Smile I think that swirly bokeh is partly produced by havy vignetting.

Bojan has an update on Nikon Rumors but I am wondering if his sample is not quite perfect given the delay on new deliveries.
Thought that, too. Of course I'm not sure, but having had the VR problem with 300/4 PF and after that the lens was delayed for quite some weeks, leaves me thinking:
  • How reliable is the testing department at Nikon?
  • Do they only test prototypes, bring them to the factory in China and then have fun with it? (Yes, the expensive 300 mm is made in China)
  • How long do they want to punish people for buying / ordering on announcement day?
To be fair, I don't read about calamities with the latest 500 / 600 / 800 mm lenses. Yet. But anyway, stuff like that should not happen at the prices they are asking for.

Nikon has some of the better testing in the industry, actually.  Or at least they did a few years ago, but I doubt that has changed. 


"failure" type problems require more prolonged testing, but that is not the kind of thing done before a lens goes out the door (it would dirty it too much).

Quote:Nikon has some of the better testing in the industry, actually.  Or at least they did a few years ago, but I doubt that has changed. 


"failure" type problems require more prolonged testing, but that is not the kind of thing done before a lens goes out the door (it would dirty it too much).
The 300 f4 VR PF does not have a failure problem, but rather a VR design issue. The D600 got specks/spots right away too. The D800's left AF issue was not the failure type, nor was the D750's mirror box flare issue of that kind. I think that is what JoJu is referring to, and wondering why the new 24-70mm VR is postponed.
I understand designers want to keep their coast clear by not making design flaws, but it's difficult not to see some of the recent "issues" as design flaws.


A VR should be tested intensively before claiming "it's good for up to 4 stops longer shutter speeds".

Oil leaking shutters could also be discovered in advance - except the serial version is a different manufactured version than the prototypes were.

Left AF issue in D800 isn't a design flaw per se - that's the problem of bringing it in a high precision assembly line. But then, maybe the assembling of the AF module is too complicated to be reliable? maybe the whole mirror - AF- module - shutter complex is more fragile than it's designers imagined?

D800/E and the massive shutter/mirror impact causing motion blurr - nobody saw that in the prototype version? Why do they even care to test then?


Last not least we users blowing up each thing we don't understand nor don't care to read the manual to become an "issue" and expecting alltime super miraculous hightech for close to no money and if somebodyask for a 4-digit price tag, it has to be bloody perfect. But early adopters had a hard time with Nikon during the last 3 years.

A 4-digit price tag isn't very high.  Recently the lab I work in paid $50,000 for a small 1000x1000px monochrome sensor assembly.  Ultimately every camera and lens from Canon, Nikon, etc, is a consumer product and is viewed by "the industry" as a low precision, low cost, highly compromising product.

Yawn. A 5 digit price tag isn't very high compared to the costs of deep space exploration. Yes, we got it you're working in a lab, Airy-discus. Don't need to tell every time lab stories. However we don't get it that you're getting there a five digit salary per month  ^_^ because then I could understand your diminishing attitude. Can I also apply of such a 5 digit job at Lensrental's? Just kidding.


For less than 6 digits I don't get up in the morning.  Tongue


Most people think more than twice before they exchange a lens for a 4 digit bill. Which means something between 1.000 and 9.999 € / $ / £ Quite a mouthful to swallow. And it might be easier to use % and not care about the number of coins. Nikon is heaving the price around 44% more for a lens which is - at least to me - not promising to be so much better than the old one. Plus this unclear VR situation - the 300/4 PF is not the only VR Nikon I have a hard time to consider it as good as the competition.


And because comparing is fun and I earn 6 digits a month (or a day? lost count  :blink: ) I just tried to find out why Nikon was so keen to penalize Sigma for stealing their VR (they kept silent about Sigma's improvements, probably?), here we go:


[Image: i-3pzBwwh-L.jpg]

Sigma 24-105 vs Micro Nikkor 105/2.8 @ 1/10



[Image: i-W2h3JsB-L.jpg]

Nikkor 300/4 PF E VR (left) vs Sigma 150-600 Sports (right) @ 1/160


More of those comparisons to be found here


I must say, I was not that convinced of the outcome when I started my little test. I'm surprised Nikon's 300/4 although weighing only 25% of the Sigma didn't at least equal it. There's a little uncertainty in the "test" - I did only one shot for each setting and although I did AFMa, a little bit off the optimum is possible. Funny though the Sigmas don't suffer so much of that uncertainty...

Interesting discussion about the VR of long teles, especially considering the "surprise" of the recent 200-500 f/5.6... I see that the first samples are being delivered, so we'll hopefully see some test soon.


Sony a6300, Sony a6000, Sony NEX-6, Sony E 10-18mm F4 OSS, Sony Zeiss Vario-Tessar T* E 16-70mm F4 ZA OSS, Sony FE 70-200mm F4 G OSS, Sigma 150-600mm Æ’/5-6.3 DG OS HSM Contemporary, Samyang 12mm Æ’/2, Sigma 30mm F2.8 DN | A, Meyer Gorlitz Trioplan 100mm Æ’/2.8, Samyang 8mm Æ’/3.5 fish-eye II | Zenit Helios 44-2 58mm Æ’/2 
Plus some legacy Nikkor lenses.

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread:
1 Guest(s)