New Nikon 24-70 2.8 VR vs. older Nikon 24-70 (no VR)

[Chopster01]

If I am committed to Nikon lenses, which of these should I purchase?
The new 24-70 2.8 with VR, electronic shutter, a bit heavier, large, plastic components, expensive
or
the older 24-70 2.8, no VR, manual shutter, slightly lighter and smaller, metal, a bit less expensive?
I thought I'd see something about this on the forum, but couldn't find anything.
I often shoot in lower/difficult light situations.

 

[jaomul]

I thought you'd bought but if you have not yet seriously look at the tamron 24-70 G2, supposed to be as good as the Nikon canon versions

 

[Chopster01]

I thought you'd bought but if you have not yet seriously look at the tamron 24-70 G2, supposed to be as good as the Nikon canon versions

Actually, I did. Guess I am trying to ward off sticker shock. Will look at the Tamron and maybe I'll have to suffer some remorse. But I'd love a discussion about those two Nikon lenses. So much I don't understand.

 

[tirediron]

The electronic diaphragm is a nice feature, but that (IMO) is a pretty poor reason to spend that much money on a lens. There's no good reason to have VR in a lens as short as 70mm. If you're going to buy a Nikon 24-70, but the previous version. Save your $$.

 

[benhasajeep]

Performance wise they are very similar in quality output. I had a 28-70 AF-s. Still have my 35-70 f/2.8d. And when the 24-70 came out I didn't upgrade. After the 24-70 VR came out my 28-70 started to make noise and I sold it. So, I did finally buy the 24-70 VR. I read tons of reviews, watched youtube videos, etc. And pretty much your paying extra for VR. Other than that, it's basically the same output. I kept my 35-70 f/2.8d because it doesn't have a motor and should be useable for a long time.

 

[Braineack]

There's no good reason to have VR in a lens as short as 70mm.

have you seen me shoot?

 

[shadowlands]

I own the non-VR and it's awesome. I'm not planning on upgrading. I've never needed VR at that zoom range.