Currently I am waiting for Nikon to come out with a VR fast pro mid zoom to go with 16-35F4VR and 70-200F2.8VR2 to complete all VR system. I am using 24-70f.2.8 now Ian's the midrange zoom. Any idea of how long do I have to wait or jump for nonNikon lenses. Canon already is out with an IS mid zoom, why not Nikon?
In that zoom range, both Nikon and Canon have stabilized f/4 zooms (Nikon 24-120mm and Canon's 24-70 and 24-105), but neither offers a 24-70mm 2.8 with stabilization. Canon's 24-70mm 2.8 II is only a few months old, and they chose to forego stabilization. I don't know of anything on the horizon regarding a new lens and when I do, I can't say, but I wouldn't hold your breath. If you need one now, the Tamron seems to be a decent lens.
Yes, currently the Tamron is the only 24-70mm f/2.8 with VC/VR.
I wouldn't discount the AF-S VR 24-120mm f/4G Nikkor, though. If you're happy with the performance of your 16-35mm you may well find the 24-120mm perfectly satisfactory - unless a maximum aperture of f/2.8 is critical.
I own the Tamron 24-70/2.8 VC and highly recommend it. It competes very well with the Nikon 24-70 in terms of IQ/image quality, and is actually better on the wide end, wide open in my opinion. Wide open, the Nikon is a little better in the 50-70mm range.
when I say little better I am talking about extreme corner sharpness, both lenses are tack sharp in the center 2/3rds of the frame at 2.8.
The VC works great and buys you about 3 stops with stationary subjects in this zoom range. I can take sharp photos at 70mm at as little as 1/8 if I am mindful of technique.
It does have a tiny bit more distortion and vignetting than the Nikon 24-70, but is better than the 24-120 F/4 (which is not bad, I really like that lens as well), and Lightroom has a lens profile that automatically corrects both.
The Tamron is well built and weather sealed it should withstand quite a bit of punishment.
I do wish it had a 77mm filter instead of 82 and I although I like its smaller more compact size, a slightly deeper lens hood would provide a little more protection for me as I am not a protective filter person.
>What do you think is the best option for a DX shooter wanting >something faster than my current 16-85mm Nikkor? (sorry to >bend the thread discussion) > >Nikon has a patent approved for a Nikon 16-85 f4. Is that an >improvement over the current f3.6-5.6? Or should I bust my >piggy bank and buy the DX 17-55 f2.8? > >I'm in no hurry and happy with the 16-85. Also have the 12-24 >& 80-200 f2.8 AF ED.
Nothing beats the 17-55 2.8 for DX, it's actually selling relatively cheap nowadays (750-800) which is a great price for this gem. When I used DX it was my most used lens 90% of the time. I had the Tammy 17-50 prior to it and it was also excellent.
If you want to stay with DX, the 17-55/2.8 is a good choice. However, since you already have a 12-24 lens, you might want to combine it with a 24-70/2.8. This is the combination I used with my D200. The 24-70/2.8 is excellent with DX, you gain some reach, probably also IQ and you are ready to switch to FX should you so desire.
I like this thinking, unless you shoot a lot in that 16/17-35mm range. In that case the 17-55 would be my choice for a 2.8 lens. I ad one when I shot DX and it was a beast. I did wish it had VR at times though, but I seemed to make it work fine.
Doing the math and trying cover a certain range, as Tristan suggests, requires a lens change. However, when considered from the point of actual shooting, I want this 2.8 lens (even at the expense of losing VR) because I am in a room with people.
The 16 or 17mm wide end allows me to encompass a complete group. Extending out to 55mm gives me relative close up single shots. The extra 15mm with a 70mm, or even an extra 30mm with an 85 don't matter.
So, it isn't broad coverage as much as using one lens to get the POV needed in typical shooting situations. Now, if I were shooting weddings, that would be different and the 70mm or 85mm reach would be mandatory.
I've been shooting as part of my job description since 1966, but never touched a zoom lens until I retired and went digital. Coming from film, 16mm = 24mm. It matched the physical environment which I had to capture on film. And now, party scenes at home more or less replicate those circumstances. And having a zoom is heaven. No lens change required.
On a practical level, I think the 24-70 would overpower my relatively small D7000 body. And it comes at additional $500 cost over a 17-55. A 17-35 would also be $500 more. Though I intend to buy used, the cost would still be proportionally larger.
It sure would be nice to have a crystal ball to see what's up with the Nikon patent for a 16-85mm f4. What will the features be?
Thu 28-Mar-13 01:58 AM | edited Thu 28-Mar-13 01:59 AM by JPJ
If you want a preview of what it will look like you can look at the performance of the 24-120 f/4 on FX, I suspect it will have similar strengths and weaknesses and it covers the same FOV as 16-85 on DX (basically).
There were strong rumours that the 16-85 update was being released last year - of course that did not happen so....who knows when, if ever.
I still use 17-55f2.8 with D300 and D800 often. It is one of my favorite Nikon lens. It's build is solid and even without VR it performs well with very good contrast and color, and yes, sharpness. It balances so well the bodies. You may get an used one for $800 or less. It well worths it.
After reading this thread I went over to the local camera store and had a peek at the 17-55. Never saw one in person until then.
The salesperson mounted the lens on my body and I shot a few images inside. Then I replicated the same shots, only with my 16-85. At home, compared the images on my computer screen. The immediate and most outstanding difference was on the wide end. That extra 1mm on the 16-85 is noticeable. The long end difference of 30mm between the two seemed to matter less.
But my lasting impression is how large the 17-55 is. On a D7000 body it almost overpowers the camera. I was in a hurry and didn't spend time evaluating the advantage of f2.8, nor the loss of VR.