The squared off back section is for better controlling of stray light for increased contrast. I first noticed this in Nikon's ancient, expensive, and excellent 2X teleconverter TC-301, which had extensive stray light blocking technology design in both the deep protruding front element and the rectangular rear section.
+Jared Polin My guess on the boxed out rear element - remember the D750 flare thing? I reckon it reduces the chances of that. Well really it's the flare thing - it happens on other cameras too. The reason for the curved edge on the sides is the sides of the frame "change" when you zoom and less vignetting when wide. That's my guess.
If I was going to start doing video again, I would probably just get the Tamron 24-70mm. The Nikon might well be better but the price difference is exceptionally large.
+Eddie Alvarez Normally, "Junk Brands" companies like Tamron are short-term buys. When you buy a Nikon lens, you will be sure that the professional Nikon lens will serve you very well for at least 30 years. when I pay a lot of money for a 24-70mm lens, I expect it to last me for decades. Without forgetting that.....Nikon lenses are excellent as Zeiss lenses. Tamron builds VERY GOOD lenses, in fact, Tamron belongs to the group of SONY, but the price difference between Nikon and Tamron is very well JUSTIFIED. With Tamron you will do great photos, no doubt. But..."Junk Brands" are short-term buys. For this reason, the difference in price.
1:58 it's 5 ounces heavier... the length with shade: 8.75" without shade: 7" old version length with shade: 8" without shade 6.25" I LOVE this lense... you're going to do great things with it Jared! Colors and focus.. super clean.
Its "Biff 1985 alt version" not "1986". One of the issues with the early test with the new 24-70VR is the close focus sharpness. Many preview reviews mention the close focus sharpness isn't as good as the prior 24-70. Maybe your test can confirm or debunk those prior reviews.
Any follow-up video with the actual performances of the new glass in comparison with the old one? If you do not do, people might think the new glass is worse than the old one, as rumoured. Please, do this effort - it is very interesting.
not too informative. I guess it's better to release any video than no video. That way you stay in the attention of your subscribers. I expected more. Oh well
If it ain't broke.....don't fix it. I upgraded to the E FL on the 70-200 because it was MUCH better lens. I will NOT upgrade to the 24-70 . I need a new one, and I'll buy the old version.
Thanks for the smell test. I smelled one at Best Buy, but I could not smell the lens over the armpit odor coming from the other folks who just walked in out of 93 degree heat here in Nashua,NH. Seriously (?): now that its going on 10 months, Jared, have you had a chance to do sharpness comparisons between the old and new lens?
@jaredpolin please make a snif and a complete review of the Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 16-80mm f/2.8-4E ED VR Lens using a DX camera like Nikon D7200, can you please?
Not just the White Dot, but if these are intended for the same camera bodies, why does the new have only 8 electronic contacts while the older has 10 contacts ?
Now tamron is even easier choice for most. For the price you can get 24-70 and 70-200. Will you see the difference in image quality? No unless you do side by side pixel by pixel.
is it just me... or does the 24-70 hood look bigger than the hood for the 70-200 2.8...?? I feel like the 70-200 2.8 hood is kind of wimpy and looks too small
+Crewchief 227 Also Jared I hope you're gonna do at least a 10 min video on the new one because this is probably the biggest decision proposal I have from Nikon.
Sir, which one is recommended more suitable for D7100 ---, Nikon 24-70 2.8G AFS OR Nikon 24-70 2.8E VR ? will 24-70 2.8E VR cover more area while taking group photos & Landscapes?
+Sreeji Nair Very curious, you made an excellent intro video but no follow-up. Cameralabs did an excellent comparison video that will answer the question.
Nice, one day maybe. changing the subject, what do you think about the new Nikon D5 and the D400. think i am going to get the D400 over the D7200. what do you think. Thanks
People are serious about their craft, whether it's professional or hobbyist and you give us sniff and taste test? Come on man..have a little more respect for your viewers and admirers.
Jared, I'm in the process of moving from a 5D2 and 24-70 2.8 and 50 1.4 and I'm moving to a Nikon d750 with 50 1.4 and was wondering if you could just say if the vr is worth getting ? Is it sharper? I am mainly a photographer so it would be for just stills :) look forward to hearing back from you :)
Daniel Spaniel The Zeiss is using Zeiss glass elements, Zeiss calculations and Zeiss quality tests by a Zeiss-certified tester. Sony did the AF and does the assembly. So this is not a "badged up Sony", of course not. I doubt the Nikon stands a chance against a Zeiss.
So why do you explain that the Sony Zeiss 55 F1.8 FE for example is one of the sharpest lenses in DXOMark? ;) Please check how Zeiss lens design works, how Zeiss in general work. It's not about who assembles the parts, that can be done by anyone, its about the development and the choice of the materials itself. And I clearly don't understand why its so important to you, that you want to believe its only a name tag - your Nikon glass is good, so whats the problem with bashing the competition :).
The VR is nice, it can make a big difference. I shoot canon, the 24-70 2.8 ii is extremely sharp but I still keep the 24-105 f/4 because of the IS. I may not need it most of the time but there could come a time when I do. The VR is needed as megapixels go up. At a pixel level, if you want everything sharp you start finding you need more shutter speed than you used to. I learned this shooting with 36 megapixels with the A7R for a year. Nikon has a 36 MP camera and Canon has a 50 MP camera so I suspect we will start seeing IS on about everything soon.
+nagol5178 Nonono there's so little truth to that. Everything will still be sharp even if you're using a moderately-slow SS. If you're going to pixel-peep that bad (or be blowing it up to epic proportions), I'd be more worried about the grain and fringing than I would be about any blur. This is simply an over-blown idea. Unless you start shooting at 100+mp you have nothing to worry about. So please stop.
I started to write in the comment, "Except someone will comment back this, etc etc." They always do. Plenty of people have had to adjust, lot of 5DSR owners have a problem and you always see that comment you just left copied and pasted. We see it with our own eyes and you will say, "NOT TRUE." I had to double the rule of shutter speed to make sure it was in sharp focus at pixel level. Although most people just calculate it the way one would with a 1.6x. Everything is not sharp at the same shutter speeds. Unless you are easily over the shutter speed where it will matter. I don't know why people always make that comment denying reality, as if those of us who see it with our own eyes just made it up. We actually experienced it, it seems like other people just copy and paste that same response. So please stop.
nagol5178 I actually did say "over-blown", I never denied it didn't exist. Re-read my comment. If you're shooting at the slowest SS that just barely keeps your image sharp, then shoot the same image with 30 extra mps, you may run into some blurs. You're likely shooting well above that threshold in most cases, in which cases it doesn't matter. What I want to know, is if your FINAL image is posted at a size that the viewer can see the blur. I shoot with the D800 and never post full-size images. So on top of the "blur", I need to keep other things in mind like my ISO, focus, fringing, etc... in consideration. I can take the same image from either a 16mp or 36mp camera and both would be posted at the same size. It is you, who believe that because you may see some slight blur at more intensified zoom rates that you suddenly believe the whole world will see it too when they look at the image. If I was to blow up a 16mp and 36mp image (both taken at same settings) to 100, guess which one would be sharper... Right! The 36mp one since there's more detail! If you blew the 16mp photo to match the size of the 36mp photo, guess which photo would be sharper... Right again! The 36mp image! Because with the 16mp there's not enough pixels to properly show the details, so even if there were any "blur", the 36mp automatically wins. That's how it is.
eleventhphotograph So, you admit, what I said is correct, but since you claim that no one is really printing that big or posting anything that big then it doesn't really matter. It does to me. I have no idea when I'm gonna get the shot that I will print big. I have no idea when I will see something in the shot that I want to crop. What do you mean the 36 MP wins? When did I say I would want less megapixels? I usually go for all the megapixels I can get, if it's in the camera I want. But that was quite obvious when shooting with 36 megapixels. I like extremely sharp images, so I don't go into it thinking, "Well, I'll probably just post this online so no need to worry." When I zoom in on those eyes, I want it extremely sharp at 1:1. I don't know where this argument comes in, "The whole world won't see it! Only you will see it!" So, if I take a portrait of someone and decide, na I don't want that much I want to crop in the hair line and get more of a tight headshot, I won't see it? I will see it. I've done it. Which will appear sharper to me? The one that is sharp at 1:1. This is like saying, "You might as well recompose every image, even if you want it extremely sharp because I mean you can't really tell in a real world situation most of the time." That has nothing to do with it. Go look at the Canon forums, plenty of people are wanting that 24-70 2.8 with IS now like Nikon has. The reason? 5DSR. Most of us who like really sharp images, no matter the camera, want to stay at the lowest ISO possible. We are used to doing that, and we we move up to more megapixels, we notice at the same shutter speed we are used to, we don't get images as sharp. Practically everyone notices it, but then there are the people like you that just post that same response over and over. Every time a user notices it. So, I can focus and recompose or I can put the cross type on the eye.... No one can tell on Facebook or on my website. So I guess I should just shoot that way? NO. It's the same argument. I can't stand to get a shot that isn't sharp on a pixel level.
It wouldn't call the new one "huuuuuge", "much, much larger" or that there's a "major difference". It's only 16% longer and it has a 6% larger diameter. Anyway, I'll wait for some first (field) test results, and if positive it's going to be mine too ;-)
Is this worth it to buy VR or go for non VR? What is your opinion. I need all around lens. Landscape to portrait. Hope someone can give me their own opinion. Thanks
Jared, I've sold my 24-120 F4 VR to get a faster 24-70 2.8 but I'm facing a situation that I don't know what to choose and would like your opinion. Would you buy a Nikon AF-S Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8G ED from hong kong with on-site 1 year warranty or would you choose the Tamron 24-70 2.8 VC G2 for about the same price but bought in europe with 5 years offcial warranty. I think I can skip the VR/VC because i mainly shoot events/people and for that i have to use high speeds... So basically for the same price, would you go for the nikon or the tamron with VC and extended 5 year warranty? I also think that if I have any problem with the nikon out of warranty, I can have it serviced because a lot of technicians know this lens, while the Tamron doesn't even have repair service in my country (Portugal) Keep up with the awesome videos and thank you!
Although the 24-70 is my multipurpose lens. So I do journalism as a staff photographer for the paper. If I am just walking around at say a street fair. I will have the 24-70 on my D810 because it is the most useful universal length
+Vlog Watcher That makes an excellent landscape lens, either wide angle (I'm assuming a DX camera) or telephoto. Fore Wide angle shots try to place something interesting in the foreground and focus on it. Use a small aperture and go out at sunrise/sunset. If you do all that your photos will be awesome.
Also shooting anything above 50mm on a crop sensor or 70mm on a full frame camera without a tripod is next to impossible... I recommend NOT getting a 200mm lens its fucking useless above 50mm unless you're some wild life photog. The other problem with those lpng lenses is the aperture sucks ass on them, and the shutter has less elements so the image quality is shitty as fuck... A 24-70mm lens is a professional grade lens. A 18mm-200mm is garbage. Its like going to a race with a F1 car vs a Honda civic...
I bought it and returned it within 2 weeks. I tried to give it a chance, but many of the images were soft and fuzzy. The color and contrast was phenomenal, but it would frequently miss the focusing mark on subjects. I don't have that problem with my cheap 35mm 1.8G and 50mm 1.8G. This is pretty sad when you consider this beast costs over $2000. I'll stick to the 14-24 f2.8 and the 70-200 f2.8 as my go to pro lenses.
