Should I buy now? Please HELP!

chaosrealm93 · Jun 16, 2011

as some of you might know, adencamera is having a fathers day sale. im considering the 24-70 and 70-200 as they have lowered the price quite substantially for a short period of time. my dilemma is i find the 24-70 more useful in terms of focal length, size and weight compared to the 70-200. however the 70-200 DOES have VR. im currently using the D90 (cropped sensor), is VR a necessity for low light shots? Should i buy now or wait.. In hopes of a VR version coming out??

*sorry for the bad grammar. please do not correct, i know.

jaomul · Jun 16, 2011

The only thing is you have the 24-70 already covered with your kit lens(but maybe not quite to the quality of the 24-70), so you might find the 70-200 more useful. Not sure if your kit lens has vr, if it does try out shots in low light with and without the vr on and notice vr definetely helps in low light. An example that you probably heard before is that the focal length relates to shake and a rule of thumb is that if you shoot at 200mm you should shoot faster that 1/200. You would find that doesnt give much in low light, so if you had 4 stops vr built in your lens you may get a shot at approx 1/15 sec, giving you a better chance. Hope this is of some small help

subscuck · Jun 16, 2011

As long as you don't expect VR to stop subject motion.

chaosrealm93 · Jun 16, 2011

My kit lens does have VR, forgot i mention in my signature. Thx for the feedback so far. I do not expect the VR TO "stop" motion, but i tend to like doing low light phography, so i as wondering if the VR would be a big help

subscuck · Jun 16, 2011

It certainly can be a benefit in low light, but as with everything else, it has to be used within it's limits. I'm not familiar with Nikon glass, but if those are constant 2.8 zooms, a little juicing of your ISO in most circumstances will make VR unnecessary anyway. Just my preference, but I'd probably go with the 24-70 first, unless you have need for the extra reach.

chaosrealm93 · Jun 16, 2011

Im biased towards the 24-70 too, because i find myself being close rather than far to the subject most of the time. I guess its a matter of time 'till i have to get the 70-200. But i doubt they will have the same awesome price they do now..

subscuck · Jun 16, 2011

When you're spoiled for choice, decisions are tough.

chaosrealm93 · Jun 16, 2011

=[ yes they are

The_Traveler · Jun 16, 2011

I shot mostly street stuff and use the 24-70 95% of the time.
70-200 is a great lens but a big honker and I use that length perhaps 3% currently and generally don't even carry it.

chaosrealm93 · Jun 16, 2011

+1 for 24-70

Texas Parrothead · Jun 16, 2011

Are the prices at Adencamera US dollars or Canadian? If they are US then some of their items are priced very well and some seem on the high side. The two lenses you are interested in are good prices.

gsgary · Jun 16, 2011

You don't need VR on a 24-70, havn't Nikon only just brought out this lens ?

Derrel · Jun 16, 2011

Nobody expects a 24-70 Nikkor with VR. It's not needed with that focal length range, in that type of "professional" lens. If it were a slow, consumer lens, like an 18-105mm f/4.5~5.6 or whatever, yeah, VR would be needed to overcome the slow maximum aperture without a tripod handy, but 'serious' shooters who want the 24-70 f/2.8 understand how to get around the need for VR with flash, camera support, and best practices. VR also adds complexity, and in a strictly mechanical sense, lowers ultimate LONG-term reliability of the lens. The 24-70 is **the** lens for many photojournalists and wedding shooters...Nikon aims its pro gear at professionals and "serious" users...if the VR system crapped out on assignment, the assignment could be in jeopardy. Many 24-70's get banged around pretty badly. VR is just a thing that could go wrong.