NikonAF-S FX NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8E ED Vibration Reduction Zoom Lens with Auto Focus for Nikon DSLR Cameras

I own both this one, the Tamron 24-70 VR, and the old Nikon 24-70mm NON-VR, and this is the best, but the Tamron is not too far behind. Physical handling wise, this feels better on the hand, because it is longer and slimmer than the Tamron and is so more balanced. Although both take 82mm filter, it seems for some reason the Nikon feel slimmer on the hand.Picture quality wise, I tried taking pictures with both my Tamron and this Nikon, and the difference was negligible. Of course my review is very non-scientific, but I do like the VR very much. I took a picture at 1/2 second of a piece of paper without VR, and of course, it was very blurry. I took the same picture with VR on, and it was almost perfectly readable. I took a second picture ,and it was 100% readable. Overall, the VR was very good! I would say at least 3-4 stops easily. Autofocusing is very fast......faster and more predicable than the Tamron.Overall, if you are on a budget, I would highly recommend the Tamron which also has VR and I have been using it for more than 1 year. The only problem with the Tamron is autofocus. It will focus perfectly 98% of the time, but you will miss a picture 2% of the time, whereas, with my nikon lens, autofocus is almost 100%. I am not a pro, so I don't mind the 1-2% miss rate.If you are looking to see whether you should upgrade if you have the non-VR Nikon lens, my opinion is a definite yes. Most people don't think VR will help, until they use it. Before, without my Tamron, I was very nervous using my nikon indoors without flash. There was always a chance of blur. With this new lens, I am very confident using it shutter at 1/30 or even 1/15. At speed under this, I am still able to get some very sharp images, but I would check and possibly take a second picture to be sure.In conclusion, VR is highly recommended. If you are on a budget, get the Tamron. If you are thinking whether you need to upgrade to VR, I highly recommend you do. This is a very nice, but expensive lens.

I am an amateur. I upgraded from the previous generation Nikon 24-70 2.8G ED lens. That was amazing glass. It's major downfall was the lack of Vibration Reduction. The professional reviews about this new lens with VR were mixed were mixed. Portrait photographers seemed to hate it. Others thought it was great. The lens test I read said it was slightly less crisp in the center than the previous generation, but more evenly crisp to the edges. I decided to try it with the Amazon return available.I've only shot with it three times, but it has been a combination of landscape, architecture, reflection, flowers, sunset and bright light, and two portraits on the fly. I've shot about 600 shots. This squirrel is a good example of the strengths of the lens. At 1/60 of a second @ 70 mm vibration would be a problem. This problem was magnified because I could get no closer than 10' and this is a 3/4 crop. The VR did its job. I expect to gain another 60-90 minutes of handheld of golden hour light if I shoot both sunrise and sunset. The bokeh in the background is symmetrical and of equal light across the frame.The landscape shot is handheld and sharp. The autofocus appears to work well and rapidly. I also works in what feels like slightly lower light. I am very happy with this lens.

Bought this for my daughter who is an amateur photographer and she loves it. Says it works great with her camera.

Some of the experts will tell you that buying a 24-70mm lens is a waste of money. The argument is that most photographers have (and need) 35mm, 50mm primes - and likely own a 14-24mm and 70-200m lenses. So by carrying these 4 lenses you have everything covered between 14 to 200mm - with high-quality primes at 35mm and 50mm. So what is the point to a 24-70mm lens?My answer?It just makes life easier.It is true that I own all of the 14-24mm, 70-200mm, and high-quality primes at 35mm and 50mm (that have f1.4 on both). However, 90% of my photos are taken at 35mm-70mm focal points... so by carrying this one lens I can easily meet most of my needs.Notes specific to the Nikon 24-70mm f2.8- My main prime lens in the focal range is the Zeiss Otus 55mm. Let's be clear this Nikon can not duplicate those results. However, the Nikon lens is not chopped liver and for many jobs, it is an acceptable trade-off. I can go from a 35mm lens to 50mm in 2 seconds instead of a minute or two.- The lens is reasonably sharp throughout the frame. The predecessor was known to be razor-sharp in the center but the edges were softer. This version seems not to be quite as sharp at the center, but with a very negligible fall off as you move out.- Color saturation is solid - photos really pop... although they do lack that 3D-like effect you can get with some of the high-end primes- The lens can maintain f2.8 across all of the focal lengths. So while it loses a couple of stops it is still pretty fast... especially at 24mm (where many lenses at f4.0)- The image stabilization is very solid... in fact; you gain back at least 1 stop... if not 2 by being able to use slower shutter speeds. It has the best in-lens stabilization that I have ever used.- Focus... occasionally I have issues with the lens-camera combo (I shot the D850) searching for focus.- Not small.... this thing will add some bulk to your set-up. It is not unwieldy, but you wouldn't want it to be any larger.Final verdict..... yes, for many pro's the Nikon 24-70 is a redundant lens, but the fact is... it just makes life easier. I know pro's have a hard time "settling" but the Nikon AF-S FX NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8E really doesn't force you to make many compromises... and honestly, when I am out of the studio, I try to carry as few lenses as possible. I find that I end up taking a vast majority of my photos with this lens... so who cares what the photo snobs have to say about it! :)