Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 23

Thread: New 24-70mm f/2.8 DSLR Lens Announced

  1. #1

    Default New 24-70mm f/2.8 DSLR Lens Announced

    If this is as good as they claim I, for one, will be interested. You can't buy a 24-70mm f/2.8 in either Nikon or Canon brand that has image-stabilization...(they don't make one). How is it that a 3rd party manufacturer has beat the industry-leaders to the punch?

    http://www.dpreview.com/news/2012/02...70_2p8_divcusd

    Most third-party lenses I "take-a-pass" on, but every once in awhile they come out with a lens that is worth looking at. I'll be reading the reviews when this one finally becomes available...
    "I love my country...it's the government I'm scared of"

  2. #2
    Member EMoss#83's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    wasilla
    Posts
    511

    Default

    im saving my pennies for the nikon version, it's tried and true. i am also saving my other pennies to go nikon full frame, im thinking of the future and glass investments.
    "f/64 and be there"

  3. #3
    Member Floyd_Davidson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Barrow, Alaska
    Posts
    388

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marshall/Ak View Post
    If this is as good as they claim I, for one, will be interested. You can't buy a 24-70mm f/2.8 in either Nikon or Canon brand that has image-stabilization...(they don't make one). How is it that a 3rd party manufacturer has beat the industry-leaders to the punch?

    http://www.dpreview.com/news/2012/02...70_2p8_divcusd

    Most third-party lenses I "take-a-pass" on, but every once in awhile they come out with a lens that is worth looking at. I'll be reading the reviews when this one finally becomes available...
    Tamron has occasionally made some pretty good lenses, and this one might be worth looking at given it apparently is weather proofed to some extent and has rounded diaphragm blades.

    But image stabilization on a 24-70mm lens, and particularly if used on a full frame sensor, is purely a waste of money. It just does not provide sufficient effect at shorter focal lengths. That is why the Nikkor 24-70mm does not have it and the Nikkor 24-120mm does.

  4. #4
    Member Floyd_Davidson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Barrow, Alaska
    Posts
    388

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by EMoss#83 View Post
    im saving my pennies for the nikon version, it's tried and true. i am also saving my other pennies to go nikon full frame, im thinking of the future and glass investments.
    I looked back to find an image you've posted, and it was made with a Nikon D50... so you are looking at one really big jump! Are you thinking of going the whole route and acquiring a D800 or D4, or stepping back a notch and picking up a D3S, D3, or D700?

    Moving from a D50 to any Nikon FX body is going to be a real adventure! In addition to the DX to FX change, the little frills added with each new model have been just a great thing to work with.

  5. #5
    Member EMoss#83's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    wasilla
    Posts
    511

    Default

    Yep all my shots have been taken with an old D50 (2005- thats old in the digital world) or a cannon s95, some of the shots i have taken really show some noise even at iso 800 (with the D50), so i really want to upgrade- thought about the D7000 but i go back and forth between FX and DX, and i get thinking i am going to be doing this a long time so why not invest in the best glass and the larger sensor? my favorite kind of photography is landscapes and black and white medium format style, so isnt that what FX is best for? and I understand about the bulk and the question "how big do you plan on printing"? but the work i see with FX and fast lenses seem more brilliant, what are your thoughts?
    "f/64 and be there"

  6. #6
    Member Floyd_Davidson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Barrow, Alaska
    Posts
    388

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by EMoss#83 View Post
    Yep all my shots have been taken with an old D50 (2005- thats old in the digital world) or a cannon s95, some of the shots i have taken really show some noise even at iso 800 (with the D50), so i really want to upgrade- thought about the D7000 but i go back and forth between FX and DX, and i get thinking i am going to be doing this a long time so why not invest in the best glass and the larger sensor? my favorite kind of photography is landscapes and black and white medium format style, so isnt that what FX is best for? and I understand about the bulk and the question "how big do you plan on printing"? but the work i see with FX and fast lenses seem more brilliant, what are your thoughts?
    I very much agree with the sentiment that doing it for a long time is good reason to acquire the best tools. And then work photography for all the personal enjoyment value you can.

    The usual comment is that cameras last a few short years and lenses last for a lifetime, but the other side of the coin (and this is almost certainly a factor for you) is that a better camera improves images captured with every lens you own, while a new lens is just an improvement in one lens. No matter what your lens inventory, good bad or indifferent, going from a D50 to a more recent model will improve the results form ++all of your lenses.

    Moving from FX to DX is a little different, but if landscapes in the style of Medium Format are you favorite gig, any of the Nikon FX bodies will be a significant improvement, but from the least to the most: a D700, a D3, a D3S, a D4, and best of all a D800 . The huge resolution jump with the D800 gives it an advantage over the D4, though it is a small one given the other qualities of the D4. For other than landscapes or very large prints the D4 is generally a better choice.

    I'm not sure how prices are going to fall out after a few months when the blush is gone, but of course right now you can't actually walk in and buy either the D4 or the D800 as they are backlogged for at least a month or two. Right now eBay is listing D700 bodies at half the price of a D800, D3 bodies a few hundred less than a D800, D3S bodies at about the same, and of course the D4 is twice the price of a D800.

    If you shoot sports and/or any kind of indoor events where speed of operation is important, the D3S and D4 are worth every penny.

    Lenses are indeed a longer term investment, and it takes very careful consideration in selection, and that is exaggerated a bit more when using something with the resolution of the D800. I'm not big on wide angle lenses, nor on landscape photography, so I can't really provide any valid perspective from experience. As far as I know the 14-24mm, 24-70mm, and 70-200mm zooms are the typical recommendation. I personally use a 24-120mm f/4 VR as a walk around lens because of the wider zoom range, and don't own or need either the first two on that list.

    Obviously in the end budget is a very significant limitation. When I first moved to a DSLR, with a Nikon D1, I picked up an 80-200mm f/2.8D because that was the best available for what I wanted to do. From that I immediately branched out to an inexpensive variety to at least allow some flexibility if not the highest quality (20mm f/2.8D, 50mm f/1.8D, 85mm f/1.8D and manual focus 400mm and 800mm f/5.6 lenses). Then one at a time I replaced those with high quality lenses over a few years.

  7. #7

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by EMoss#83 View Post
    im saving my pennies for the nikon version, it's tried and true. i am also saving my other pennies to go nikon full frame, im thinking of the future and glass investments.
    That Nikon 24-70 is undeniably good, but you're going to have to save up an awful LOT of pennies...it's priced at $1889.95!!! I'm retired living on a small pension...I'm afraid, for that reason, much of Nikon glass is just simply not on the radar. While we do not know, at this time, how much the Tamron version will sell for, it it goes for under $1000 it would be within reach...
    "I love my country...it's the government I'm scared of"

  8. #8

    Default

    Hey Floyd: do you think Nikon is going to come out with a replacement for the D7000 anytime soon? Just wondering...
    "I love my country...it's the government I'm scared of"

  9. #9

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Floyd_Davidson View Post
    But image stabilization on a 24-70mm lens, and particularly if used on a full frame sensor, is purely a waste of money. It just does not provide sufficient effect at shorter focal lengths. That is why the Nikkor 24-70mm does not have it and the Nikkor 24-120mm does.
    Uh...erhmm....yes...but....what if the lens that HAS image stabilization costs LESS than the one that doesn't and costs more? Then there was no money spent on extra "frills", right?
    "I love my country...it's the government I'm scared of"

  10. #10
    Member EMoss#83's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    wasilla
    Posts
    511

    Default

    thanx floyd,my lens setup would be the 24-70f/2.8, 50f/1.8G, 85f/1.8G, 105f/2.5 (i already have the 50 and 105, i love the prime lenses, all nikon) and maybe look at a D700
    "f/64 and be there"

  11. #11
    Member Floyd_Davidson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Barrow, Alaska
    Posts
    388

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marshall/Ak View Post
    Hey Floyd: do you think Nikon is going to come out with a replacement for the D7000 anytime soon? Just wondering...
    I don''t really follow what Nikon does with anything but their flagship models , so I can only guess at the time table for the D7000. But given that the D800 sensor appears to be basically the same technology used for the D7000 it is very unlikely that Nikon will replace the D7000 any time soon. Might be at least year and could be two. I'm sure they'll want to ride the D800 marketing wave for all it's worth.

    Quote Originally Posted by Marshall/Ak View Post
    Uh...erhmm....yes...but....what if the lens that HAS image stabilization costs LESS than the one that doesn't and costs more? Then there was no money spent on extra "frills", right?[
    For any given amount of money, if some of it goes to image stabilization that percentage does not go to other features. With a focal length of less that 70mm the other features are significantly more useful. Given that Canon's 24-70mm cost $2300 and Nikon's is $1890, compared to the nearest current competitor from Tamron at $500 for their 28-75mm f/2.8, it is very doubtful that Tamron is going to compete on quality.

    But if the new Tamron is just barely acceptable, and costs only $1200, they can market the image stabilization feature and make a profit on it. Professionals that need high quality lenses won't be the target.

  12. #12
    Member Floyd_Davidson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Barrow, Alaska
    Posts
    388

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by EMoss#83 View Post
    thanx floyd,my lens setup would be the 24-70f/2.8, 50f/1.8G, 85f/1.8G, 105f/2.5 (i already have the 50 and 105, i love the prime lenses, all nikon) and maybe look at a D700
    That looks to be a very good approach! One really top notch lens, and three others that serve a distinct purpose but are notched back far enough to fit the budget.

    I agree with the choice of a D700 too. Certainly the D800 would be better, but at a significantly higher cost. The D3 has no advantage for you over a D700, and in fact the advantages of a D3S or even a D4 are minimal for your uses and don't even come close be justifying the cost.

    That's assuming you are thinking of a used D700 though. At even $1000 less than a D800 for a new one, I'd go with the D800 instead. It's when you can save a few hundred more that the D700 is just too enticing.

    Might note too that the new G versions of the f/1.8 prime lenses are a signficant jump over the older f/1.8 D versions. The difference between the f/1.4 and f/1.8 with the AF-D lenses is much greater. You might never decide it's worth the difference in price to get an 85mm f/1.4G, for example. (Heh, I've always figured everyone should get a 50mm f1.8D just because it is so inexpensive. But I never use it, and have no need for an even more expensive 50mm no matter how good it is!)

  13. #13
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    1,449

    Default

    I often hear this but I don't understand the thought that stabilization is unneeded in the normal lens lengths, especially with a full frame camera. I know that stabilization is even more useful in long lenses, but that does not completely negate its usefulness in a normal lens.

    I have Canon's 17-55 f/2.8 IS and also their little plastic 18-55 f/4-5.6, also IS, and find the stabilization such a great and useful feature in this lens length. This is with small format DSLRs, of course, but those lenses compare to the 24-70mm length with full frame. The larger sensor camera does have superior high ISO performance, but so much the better in really dim light. So why would I not find stabilization just as useful in a full frame camera with a normal zoom lens?

  14. #14
    Member Floyd_Davidson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Barrow, Alaska
    Posts
    388

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jim Strutz View Post
    I often hear this but I don't understand the thought that stabilization is unneeded in the normal lens lengths, especially with a full frame camera. I know that stabilization is even more useful in long lenses, but that does not completely negate its usefulness in a normal lens.

    I have Canon's 17-55 f/2.8 IS and also their little plastic 18-55 f/4-5.6, also IS, and find the stabilization such a great and useful feature in this lens length. This is with small format DSLRs, of course, but those lenses compare to the 24-70mm length with full frame. The larger sensor camera does have superior high ISO performance, but so much the better in really dim light. So why would I not find stabilization just as useful in a full frame camera with a normal zoom lens?
    Consider the rule of thumb formula for shutter speed, where 1/focal_length is a good starting point for most people. To hand hold a 300mm lens requires about a 1/300 shutter speed. And at 1/30 we can expect a significant amount of motion blur when hand holding a camera. Hence image stabilization is very useful in that range of shutter speeds. With a faster shutter speed there is no benefit to image stabilization because the fast shutter speed freezes camera motion and at slower than 1/30 there isn't as much value because almost any motion in the scene itself will show up.

    Now consider a 20mm lens. Any shutter speed higher than 1/20 is probably enough to freeze camera motion! Shutter speeds that low don't freeze much subject motion though. There just isn't much need for image stabilization because the shutter speeds likely to be used are all fast enough to have more than enough effect.

    Pretty much it is considered that 70mm is about the "breaking point". It probably is useful at that focal length. At 50mm it probably is not. Hence on cropped cameras a 55mm lens (with an effective focal length of 80-90mm) is just long enough to perhaps get some benefit. With full frame there is at least one 85mm macro lens with image stabilization.

    But both Nikon and Canon 28-70mm lenses are very much targeted as high end quality lenses for professionals. Image stabilization at that focal length is more marketing than anything else, and won't help sell $2000 lenses, particularly if it makes them cost $500 more.

  15. #15
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    1,449

    Default

    I do see your point, Floyd, and partially agree. But I still find the equivalent of 28mm at 1/10 second useful in situations with little to no subject movement. I mostly shoot weddings and events with people standing about, often very still, so these situations are important to me. Of course if they move all bets are off but that's when a little flash use with shutter dragging is more useful. When I shoot outdoors it's more common for me to bring a tripod and then IS only gets in the way.

  16. #16
    Member Floyd_Davidson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Barrow, Alaska
    Posts
    388

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jim Strutz View Post
    I do see your point, Floyd, and partially agree. But I still find the equivalent of 28mm at 1/10 second useful in situations with little to no subject movement. I mostly shoot weddings and events with people standing about, often very still, so these situations are important to me. Of course if they move all bets are off but that's when a little flash use with shutter dragging is more useful. When I shoot outdoors it's more common for me to bring a tripod and then IS only gets in the way.
    That's pretty much the thing! There will be random shots where image stabilization does do something. But for reliable results use of flash, higher shutter speeds, or a tripod would be necessary.

  17. #17

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Floyd_Davidson View Post

    But both Nikon and Canon 28-70mm lenses are very much targeted as high end quality lenses for professionals. Image stabilization at that focal length is more marketing than anything else, and won't help sell $2000 lenses, particularly if it makes them cost $500 more.
    That's exactly right: they have targeted the professional user. The problem is they've left the average non-professional without a consumer-grade lesser cost lens to choose from. (in the 24-70) It's "cough up the $2000 and quit whining, or go without".

    I can just imagine the thought process of the big whigs at Tamron: "what can we offer the consumer that Canon and Nikon don't?" "IMAGE STABILIATION!". It doesn't matter if IS is not needed on a 24-70, the average consumer doesn't know that and will see the IS feature as an another reason to buy the Tamron instead of taking out a 2nd mortgage on a Canon or Nikon. But you are right: I have a little 35mm prime f/1.8 lens without VR, and haven't noticed any reason to look for one with the added stabilization...it works great without VR...either hand-held or tripod. Love that little $200 lens...
    "I love my country...it's the government I'm scared of"

  18. #18
    Member Floyd_Davidson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Barrow, Alaska
    Posts
    388

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marshall/Ak View Post
    The problem is they've left the average non-professional without a consumer-grade lesser cost lens to choose from. (in the 24-70) It's "cough up the $2000 and quit whining, or go without".

    I'm sure that Canon has similar offerings to Nikon's, and Nikon has quite an array of consumer grade lenses at lower costs. These include DX and FX, with and without VR.

    * 16-85mm f/3.5-5.6 DX AFS VR $700
    * 18-105mm f/3.5-5.6 DX AFS VR $400
    * 18-70mm f/3.5-4.0 DX AFS $460
    * 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 DX AFS VR $850
    * 24-120mm f/4 AFS VR $1300
    * 24-85mm f/2.8 AFS $750

    They all cover the 24-70mm range, and the fact than none of them is exactly 24-70mm is meaningless. Note that for DX the prices range from $460 to $850 (all are less than half the price of the 24-70mm). The two FX offerings range from less than half the price of the 24-70mm for the 24-85mm f/2.8 up to the 24-120mm f/4 (both of which are constant aperture and very high quality lenses commensurate with the price tag).

    They have the field pretty well covered. (And as noted, I'm sure Canon does too.)
    I can just imagine the thought process of the big whigs at Tamron: "what can we offer the consumer that Canon and Nikon don't?" "IMAGE STABILIATION!". It doesn't matter if IS is not needed on a 24-70, the average consumer doesn't know that and will see the IS feature as an another reason to buy the Tamron instead of taking out a 2nd mortgage on a Canon or Nikon.
    That is all very true! But also note that the Tamron's rumored price tag is $1300, and even if that drops quickly to only $1000 it is high enough to get most people to study very carefully what their money is buying. If it's a lens with $500 invested in VR and lacks anything close to the optical quality of the Nikon/Canon lenses it just isn't going to sell all that well. (And if it does, it will be very popular!)

    But you are right: I have a little 35mm prime f/1.8 lens without VR, and haven't noticed any reason to look for one with the added stabilization...it works great without VR...either hand-held or tripod. Love that little $200 lens...
    Yup, there are lots of pretty good wide angle primes that are really good bargains!

  19. #19
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Alaska
    Posts
    2,083

    Default

    In my view Tamron would never make such a lens unless there is a market for it. But while Canon's 24-70 does not have IS, some of its very short focus lenses such as one of 24mm do have IS:
    http://www.bobatkins.com/photography...n_24-70vc.html

  20. #20
    Member Floyd_Davidson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Barrow, Alaska
    Posts
    388

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RayfromAK View Post
    In my view Tamron would never make such a lens unless there is a market for it. But while Canon's 24-70 does not have IS, some of its very short focus lenses such as one of 24mm do have IS:
    http://www.bobatkins.com/photography...n_24-70vc.html
    And incidentally, Nikon in the past month has filed patents on a 16-85mm f/4 DX lens with VR, plus a 24-70mm f/3.5-4.5 FX lens with no VR. (They also have a number of other wide angle lenses with VR that don't cover the entire 24-70mm range that was being discussed.)

    But overall it is pretty obvious that Tamron, Canon and Nikon see VR for wide angle lenses as a consumer only marketing feature. Professionals willing to pay $2000 and up for a lens aren't interesting in $500 features that don't impact the images they sell.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •