Is that the official judgment from your two monitors that cost more than everyone else's whole computer system?  I mean, I'm not just going to take your word for it if you're eyeballing that random bokeh blob on an iPad or something.I never said "everyone" but the point is that we're in a forum where it's easy enough to BACK UP WHAT YOU CLAIM. If you shot with both and CLAIM the Nikon has some magical advantages SHOW US. Don't tell us that we can't "see" those differences because you need a specially acquired set of visual skills to do so.That's about the most snobby and silly post EVER, which is why I was sure to mention my pricey monitors in the same tone.(That sound you hear, by the way, is the popcorn I'm crunching while I watch you dig a *gaping* credibility hole even deeper.  At the rate you're shoveling, not even a mountain of poorly lit, sallow-toned test shots of annoyed children and/or cats will be tall enough to help you see out.  Might want to pace yourself, chief.)miraBlah, blah, blah. Mira, you're defending a guy who claimed he shot with both and the Nikon had this and that. Why except it blindly rather than ask for proof? Aren't you at least curious to SEE what the differences are as he has defined them?I call BS if you can't back it up. When I had the audacity to compare my Tamron 70-300 VC to the 70-200 F4 and my VRII 2.8 I DID POST SAMPLES to support my point of view.If you can't do the same you have no credibility. You're just another Nikon lover who's upset that an aging product may have been eclipsed.Meanwhile...I love the folks who condemn websites when they they don't agree, but in another thread they'll use that same website to back up their little lens-love-affairs.I suggest you actually try shooting. You'll be happier!Robert

Mikhail Bogdanov wrote:Shotcents wrote:Not the greatest bokeh. The 24-70 2.8 was never wonderful in that respect. The whole point is to have a single zoom with near-prime quality and the 24-70 from Nikon or Tamron pull that off.But it's STILL a compromise and if you want ultimate sharpness and bokeh then you need those new G primes. There is no substitute for faster glass.No way would I rebuy the Nikon now.RobertWhere did I say anything about the greatest bokeh? Still, it's not too bad for a fast zoom lens. It was just a quick and dirty test to see that onion thing mentioned few times in the thread. Also I don't understand why you compare zoom lens with fast  primes (not necessarily G ones BTW).It's not very nice bokeh. Period. Some zooms make nice bokeh. The 24-70 is not one of them.Robert

Al Giordano wrote:Mark, I hadn't realized how innovative Nano coating was.  I do notice a very distinct differences in the lenses that I have used that have it.  Thanks for taking the time to explain.Hey, Al, no problem--glad you found that information useful.I agree withinasir1971, above, who suggested that it's probably anecdotal, at best, to attribute the look of the high-end Nikkors to Nano Crystal Coating, alone.  That's the danger of playing armchair lens engineer--only the guys who really design them know for sure.   But at the same time, all the Nikkor lenses wearing the gold "N" badge that I've used*do*seem to share a common aesthetic--that warm, extremely fine sharpness.  (I thinkanothermikedescribed it best in his post, above.)  So it's certainly inviting to speculate.All of the talk in this thread about whether certain visual qualities can be distinguished or not makes me think about my own discovery of the high-end Nikkor render style--also something that happened a little by chance.One of those rules that almost goes without saying: imitation of another photographer's style is an excellent way to build skill and one's own visual, creative vocabulary.   Trying to achieve someone else's results forces you to analyze their artistic aims and technique, and in doing so provokes your own observations and creative departures.   One of my favorite contemporary photographers is the southern California wedding shooter Jose Villa.  So I dutifully studied how he does what he does--how he works with people, his favored perspectives, light, metering technique, and equipment--which, in his case, is medium format print film (Fuji 400H) through a Contax 645 system.   I found a Contax, armed it up with its 80mm f/2 Zeiss "standard" lens, and went to work.  Used his metering technique, his light, took my negs to his favored photo lab for development and scan.   And voila!  Now, obviously, I'm no Jose Villa; but I did manage a satisfyingly "passing" imitation of his look.Once I had that down, my next goal was to find ways of inching toward the look with 35mm film, if possible, and with digital.  Because lovely as the Contax 645 system is, medium format just isn't as practical as 35mm or digital in so many situations.  Long-and-short: after winding a fridge full of 400H through my Nikon F100, I noticed that I got the look I wanted--a crispness and tone that inched toward that beautiful Contax 645-Zeiss "snap"--sometimes and sometimes not.  The common factor that produced it?  My two nano-coated lenses--the 70-200 VRII and the 60G macro.Now, I say this discovery is "by accident" because I'd shot these and a bunch of other non-Nano-Coated lenses on digital thousands of times.  Maybe 50,000 frames or more.  And, prior to this "ah-HA" moment (shooting them on the media least likely to show their real advantage, no less) if you'd have asked me to pick out the 60G frames from the 50mm f/1.8D frames, or to really describe the difference between them, I would've had a pretty hard time doing it.Now, I can pick the look out everywhere.  It's obvious.  It's obvious in my own frames; it's obvious in other people's frames.  When people talk about the "Zeiss look," I now totally get it.  My visual vocabulary is just more rich, now, than it used to be; I see and appreciate things I wouldn't have otherwise noticed.What I'm saying here is this: any artistic endeavor is always a journey.   Shakespeare didn't write "Hamlet" his first time out.  He wrote crap like "King John" or the "Richard" plays that, at best, offered only hints of how great he'd one day be.   As artists, we're all on a continuum, unfolding at our own pace and in our own directions.   We all have different visual vocabularies.   And while some shooters are more experienced and some are less, there's no shame in being at the start.   Not being able to see $hit from shinola today doesn't mean you won't see or appreciate a difference tomorrow.   (It's how I console myself after every shoot!)I sense these threads going awry when beginners mistakenly proclaim authority.  The folks who've been pursuing photography long enough to know there's always something they'll learn anew, tomorrow, don't run around crowing about "the best" of anything.   It's one of the reasons posts from members likeanothermikeare such a pleasure to read: they're nuanced.  They say, "Here's where I am right now, and from that vantage point what I see is this."Anyway, I'm glad for Nikon's accidental discovery and I'm equally glad I bumped into it one day, too!M.

MiraShootsNikon wrote:MarkJH wrote:So now we're here: "It's the BEST, except that it has these flaws that, actually, are YOUR flaws because you noticed them!   And, probably, you didn't even notice them--I pointed them out!  Which makes YOU a brand snob or something!"Sweet jesus, it's the best forum snark I've ever seen.  Oh, snap!Thank you, thank you.  I'll be here all week, folks.  If you would, don't forget the tip jar on your way out

I suggest you actually try shooting. You'll be happier!Excellent point! And I would suggest some reading.

Mikhail Bogdanov wrote:I suggest you actually try shooting. You'll be happier!Excellent point! And I would suggest some reading.LOL...I own the 1st edition!Robert

Nah, time to exit this thread.Anyway, the reality is, sorry to say, that neither the Nikon nor the Tamron are the king - Canon's new 24-70 L-II is one impressive piece of glass. Not a "blow away" superior lens, but a touch better than either the Nikon or Tamron. So it might be the better honorary king of 24-70's at this point.-m

anotherMike wrote:Nah, time to exit this thread.Anyway, the reality is, sorry to say, that neither the Nikon nor the Tamron are the king -Canon's new 24-70 L-II is one impressive piece of glass. Not a "blow away" superior lens, but a touch better than either the Nikon or Tamron. So it might be the better honorary king of 24-70's at this point.-mHI Mike!You always have  good advice (ref, line 1).And theCanon, in addition to possibly being the "King" mid-range zoom optically, also is purported to  bebetter sealed and constructed than its predecessor; no defective Nikon helicoids causing the zoom ring to freeze up, and no Nikon "impact damage" excuses that some Nikon 24-70 users had to endure!!"The mechanical structure of the lens (Canon 24-70) has been improved to offer enhanced zoom durability and greater shake and shock resistance within the lens barrel".:Mechanical Structure of Canon24-70 f/2.8 USM L II- ImprovedRegarding the Canon vs "King" Tamron, I guess everyone has an opinion. From the above Photozone reference:The question of the day is, of course, whether this is "enough" compared to the impressive Tamron AF SP 24-70mm f/2.8 Di USD VC ? Well, we have some doubts here. We'd say that among the primary criteria the Canon lens has an edge in terms of contrast (at max. aperture), build quality and it has a slightly better bokeh. However, the Tamron lens is as sharp in the lower zoom range and provides a much better border quality at 70mm. Additionally it has a unique selling point - an image stabilizer. Sounless you're heading into a war zone or are into tough press business (thus requiring max. equipment quality) a premium of one grand (EUR) over the Tamron lens seems a little excessive.Like you, I'm outta here!RB

Shotcents wrote:Mikhail Bogdanov wrote:Where did I say anything about the greatest bokeh? Still, it's not too bad for a fast zoom lens. It was just a quick and dirty test to see that onion thing mentioned few times in the thread. Also I don't understand why you compare zoom lens with fast  primes (not necessarily G ones BTW).It's not very nice bokeh. Period. Some zooms make nice bokeh. The 24-70 is not one of them.RobertAs a struggling, know-nothing, cub photographer looking for insight, you know who I listen to about what's "the best" or who I believe when they slam discussions shut with "period"?People who produce stuff like this:http://1x.comBut what about the auteur behind these "audacious" samples:http://www.dpreview.com/members/1331513267/galleriesIf the person who shot these told you what "the best" photographic gear was, "period," or started talking like someone who can opine meaningfully on "bokeh" or the distinct flavorings of zooms vs. primes without any self consciousness, would you really put much stock in it?  Really?Could just be my lack of experience, but I'm having such a hard time finding the authority of the voice in the quality of the product.mira(Ironically, the togs who get work accepted on 1x never really crow about "the best" as if they might authoritatively determine it.  They tend to talk in a smaller (more humble?) scope that recognizes the limits of what they know and do--usually, they focus on what can work for the given goals and circumstances of the shots presented.)

MiraShootsNikon wrote:Shotcents wrote:Mikhail Bogdanov wrote:Where did I say anything about the greatest bokeh? Still, it's not too bad for a fast zoom lens. It was just a quick and dirty test to see that onion thing mentioned few times in the thread. Also I don't understand why you compare zoom lens with fast  primes (not necessarily G ones BTW).It's not very nice bokeh. Period. Some zooms make nice bokeh. The 24-70 is not one of them.RobertAs a struggling, know-nothing, cub photographer looking for insight, you know who I listen to about what's "the best" or who I believe when they slam discussions shut with "period"?People who produce stuff like this:http://1x.comBut what about the auteur behind these "audacious" samples:http://www.dpreview.com/members/1331513267/galleriesIf the person who shot these told you what "the best" photographic gear was, "period," or started talking like someone who can opine meaningfully on "bokeh" or the distinct flavorings of zooms vs. primes without any self consciousness, would you really put much stock in it?  Really?Could just be my lack of experience, but I'm having such a hard time finding the authority of the voice in the quality of the product.mira(Ironically, the togs who get work accepted on 1x never really crow about "the best" as if they might authoritatively determine it.  They tend to talk in a smaller (more humble?) scope that recognizes the limits of what they know and do--usually, they focus on what can work for the given goals and circumstances of the shots presented.)Hi Mira!The 1x.com site is awesome.Worth a visit for those not familiar with it.RBhttp://www.dpreview.com/members/2305099006/challenges http://www.pbase.com/rbfresno/profile

As a struggling, know-nothing, cub photographer looking for insight, you know who I listen to about what's "the best" or who I believe when they slam discussions shut with "period"?People who produce stuff like this:http://1x.comBut what about the auteur behind these "audacious" samples:http://www.dpreview.com/members/1331513267/galleriesMira, it takes a certain type of person to attack sample photos posted here. I'm NOT that kind of person. Sorry you find those snaps audacious. I'm no longer a studio photographer. I'm mainly interested in candids, working photos and such, some of which I am paid for. Stuff like this:If you think this is a bad photo I don't care since I was paid by a happy client. That is the true measure and the only one I care about.As I said, I grab candids as a hobby.Maybe you find these audacious. Who knows? But I don't offer critical comments about someone's work unless asked. It's just low-rent to do so.Whatever you think of my opinions or how I voice them, you should carefully consider that this is a forum of adults, all of whom might learn something if they show some respect all around.Could just be my lack of experience, but I'm having such a hard time finding the authority of the voice in the quality of the product.The quality of the product? Good lord. I post little sold work here because of armchair shooters who have little idea when it comes to the incredibly diverse aesthetics of photography.Please take some photos. Post them. ASK for feedback. Ignore those who offer it unsolicited, blowhards who rarely know a thing.Enjoy the weekend.Robert

And come to think of it...I thought Mira was using audacious in a sarcastic manner. Then it occured to me she might not know what the word means.Hmmmm.Robert

I just want to throw props out there for the "awful song from Karate Kid" reference...

paulski66 wrote:I just want to throw props out there for the "awful song from Karate Kid" reference...I try to keep my snark rich and crispy.And Shortcents: there is nothing--I repeat, nothing--bold or daring about your photography.  Which is why I put "audacious" in the fun quotation marks.  I was having fun with your own self-congratulation, here:http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/51357545You want to be careful with so much self-congratulation: you might go blind, and then where would your shooting be?mira

Mira, are you familiar with a (the?) concept of mercy? Would be happy to invite you for a cup of coffee when you're in Boston ))

Mikhail Bogdanov wrote:Mira, are you familiar with a (the?) concept of mercy? Would be happy to invite you for a cup of coffee when you're in Boston ))Ok, Ok.  You're right.  It's better angels-of-the-nature time.  (But I am "a certain type of person," which, when Mr. Shotcents called me that, I couldn't help but think of Liam Neeson in the "Taken" movies, describing his "certain set of skills . . . .")I'm in New Haven and get up to Boston all the time.  Will take you up on itmira

MiraShootsNikon wrote:paulski66 wrote:I just want to throw props out there for the "awful song from Karate Kid" reference...I try to keep my snark rich and crispy.And Shortcents: there is nothing--I repeat, nothing--bold or daring about your photography.  Which is why I put "audacious" in the fun quotation marks.  I was having fun with your own self-congratulation, here:http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/51357545You want to be careful with so much self-congratulation: you might go blind, and then where would your shooting be?miraWhere are your pics, Mira?Oh, and the post you referenced merely points out that I do in fact back up what I say. You don't. Most people here don't.Sorry if this bothers you, but you've failed to make a single valid point, let alone back one up. And low rent behavior is exactly what you've shown with zero ability to support your own POV (what ever that might be).If you can't back it up don't post it. Now there's a concept that would thin out this forum FAST.Cheers...and happy shooting, though who knows if you even own a camera!Robert

MiraShootsNikon wrote:Mikhail Bogdanov wrote:Mira, are you familiar with a (the?) concept of mercy? Would be happy to invite you for a cup of coffee when you're in Boston ))Ok, Ok.  You're right.  It's better angels-of-the-nature time.  (But I am "a certain type of person," which, when Mr. Shotcents called me that, I couldn't help but think of Liam Neeson in the "Taken" movies, describing his "certain set of skills . . . .")I'm in New Haven and get up to Boston all the time.  Will take you up on itmiraWow. Liam Neeson's character had a talent, skills and they were on display.Can we see any of yours?FYI: Mira will not be taking you up on it. She's not even "Mira". It took a less than 5 minutes to find out that Mira aint no lady, if you take my meaning.Robert

You want to be careful with so much self-congratulation: you might go blind, and then where would your shooting be?It would be imaginary...like yours!R.

Shotcents wrote:MiraShootsNikon wrote:paulski66 wrote:I just want to throw props out there for the "awful song from Karate Kid" reference...I try to keep my snark rich and crispy.And Shortcents: there is nothing--I repeat, nothing--bold or daring about your photography.  Which is why I put "audacious" in the fun quotation marks.  I was having fun with your own self-congratulation, here:http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/51357545You want to be careful with so much self-congratulation: you might go blind, and then where would your shooting be?miraOh, snap.(Hands the snark crown back to the queen.)  Your majesty.  Well . . . . it was nice to wear it for a day.But I don't think I'mevergoing to top that.  I don't know ifanyoneis ever going to top that.Where are your pics, Mira?Oh, and the post you referenced merely points out that I do in fact back up what I say. You don't. Most people here don't.Sorry if this bothers you, but you've failed to make a single valid point, let alone back one up. And low rent behavior is exactly what you've shown with zero ability to support your own POV (what ever that might be).If you can't back it up don't post it. Now there's a concept that would thin out this forum FAST.Cheers...and happy shooting, though who knows if you even own a camera!RobertYeah, about that.  Mira shoots a 5D3, an F6, a Mamiya RZ.   And for the past month she's had my Contax 645 in her hot little hands.  She was being a little facetious by calling herself "inexperienced."   Do a search, her pictures are all over the place here--she's posted many, mostly in the service of studying specific techniques, etc.(Hint: nothing personal, Robert--you're on the journey like the rest of us--but what you find will not favor your presentation, at least not this thread's.  But hey, we all keep shooting, right?  Tomorrow or the day after or whenever, you might land the shot of the career!   When you do, I'll be excited to see it and hope you post it!)M.