Nikon's new 24-70mm f/2.8 FX lens not a world shaker

On Thu, 14 Jan 2016 14:48:17 -0800 (PST), RichA
wrote:

http://www.dpreview.com/samples/7900...llery#comments

I'm not impressed, so far. Add to the less than stellar performance is
the size andweight of the damned thing. It's simply HUGE! Why? Why can
Tamron make a lens that might be a bit better that's smaller, lighter,
and cheaper?

On Sat, 16 Jan 2016 08:24:38 -0800 (PST), RichA
wrote:

On Friday, 15 January 2016 13:51:40 UTC-5, wrote:
On Thu, 14 Jan 2016 14:48:17 -0800 (PST), RichA
wrote:

http://www.dpreview.com/samples/7900...llery#comments

I'm not impressed, so far. Add to the less than stellar performance is
the size andweight of the damned thing. It's simply HUGE! Why? Why can
Tamron make a lens that might be a bit better that's smaller, lighter,
and cheaper?

Maybe Nikon believes people are more likely to pay $2000+ for a lens if it is larger and "looks" like it's worth it? Ever see people blanche at the price of small Leica lenses?

Leica lenses, with a few exceptions, aren't worth it. I hear lots of
gushing from the fanboys, but when the lenses are subjected to real
tests they don't justify their price. Not even close. User's claim
they can see a "leica look" but when asked to show a double-blind
example where they can pick out the Leica shot, they balk.

I'm a Nikon and Panny shooter, and own a single Nikon lens, the 70-200
f4. Their 24-70 offerings are good lenses, but too big, too heavy, too
expensive, and not sharp enough in the corners. I'm hoping that Nikon
will follow Canon's lead and produce a 24-70 f4 zoom. Something that
would be far more useful for me that the behemoth they recently
introduced.

In article , wrote:

RichA:
http://www.dpreview.com/samples/7900...mm-f2-8-ed-vr-
real-world-sample-gallery#comments

:
I'm not impressed, so far. Add to the less than stellar
performance is the size andweight of the damned thing. It's
simply HUGE! Why? Why can Tamron make a lens that might be a bit
better that's smaller, lighter, and cheaper?

RichA:
Maybe Nikon believes people are more likely to pay $2000+ for a
lens if it is larger and "looks" like it's worth it? Ever see
people blanche at the price of small Leica lenses?

Leica lenses, with a few exceptions, aren't worth it. I hear lots of
gushing from the fanboys, but when the lenses are subjected to real
tests they don't justify their price. Not even close. User's claim
they can see a "leica look" but when asked to show a double-blind
example where they can pick out the Leica shot, they balk.

I'm a Nikon and Panny shooter, and own a single Nikon lens, the
70-200 f4. Their 24-70 offerings are good lenses, but too big, too
heavy, too expensive, and not sharp enough in the corners. I'm
hoping that Nikon will follow Canon's lead and produce a 24-70 f4
zoom. Something that would be far more useful for me that the
behemoth they recently introduced.

You have the rather excellent 24-120mm f/4 VR which would suit your needs quite
fine. It's about the size of the 85/f1.4G and world's better than its
predecessor, the 24-120mm f/3.5-5.6 AF-S VR

--
Sandman