Between Myth and Reality: Nikkor 24-120 vs Nikkor 28-300

[saildandy]

Hi All,

I'm a happy owner of a D750 (thanks to this forum's advice months ago) with a 50mm prime. I'd like to get an all-round zoom lens, mainly for my travels.

At the moment I'm torn between these two:

• AF-S NIKKOR 24-120MM F/4G ED VR (799£ on camerapricebuster, however Amazon has an offer at 742£ and I saw it last week at around 650£)
  
• AF-S NIKKOR 28-300MM F/3.5-5.6G ED VR (749£ on camerapricebuster)

I did my homework but a few things aren't clear to me:

• Does the 24-120 have VR or VR II? The lens name and Nikon's official site says VR but Amazon and a review by photographylife say VR II (Nikon Amazon photographylife). Other reviews also say VR II.
• Is the 24-120 sharper than the 28-300 or not? I have one review claiming sharper, and one claiming same sharpness (sharper not sharper)

What I find attractive in the 24-120mm:

• f4 across the zoom range
• Nano Crystal Coating
• For the moment I don't believe that I need to shoot at focal lengths longer than 120mm

What I find attractive in the 28-300mm:

• The 11x zoom for the same price seems more "bangs for the bucks"
• Larger focal range for almost the same size and weight

What do you guys think?

 

[sk66]

I have the 28-300 as a general purpose "do-it-all" lens, but it's not perfect by any means. In good light at f/8-11 it is more than acceptable. But within it's zoom range I think the 24-120 would be better.

Nikon only labels the lens as VRII if there was a previous version labeled VR. Since there was no 24-120 f/4 VR previously the lens has the basic VR label, even though the actual system is the second generation (VR II).

 

[snerkler]

If you don't need focal length past 120mm why not consider which lens fits your needs best rather than bang for buck? But if you are considering bang for buck then if the 28-300mm doesn't properly fit your needs then is it really good bang for buck for you?

A couple of other things to consider, the 24-120mm f4 currently has £85 cashback vs £45 for the 28-300mm which narrows the price difference. However, if you buy grey from somewhere like panamoz the 24-120mm f4 is nearly £200 cheaper than the 28-300mm (£550 vs £730), and a hell of a lot cheaper than UK after cashback.
http://panamoz.com/nikon-af-s-nikkor-24-120mm-f-4g-ed-vr-fx-zoom-lens.html
http://panamoz.com/nikon-af-s-nikkor-28-300mm-f3-5-5-6-g-ed-vr-fx-full-frame-lens.html

I bought my 24-120mm from Panamoz and am very happy with it. In terms of sharpness I can see no difference from my 24-70mm f2.8. It's my go to general purpose lens.

In terms of sharpness/IQ the reason that you see so much conflict is due to user 'error' and lens variation. There are certain places that you can look at lab tests, but again these aren't gospel.
https://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Comp...-3.5-5.6-ED-VR-on-Nikon-D750__321_975_323_975

If you believe tests like this then the 28-300mm is pretty bad wide open, especially at the wide end. Even stopped down to f5.6 it can't match the 24-120mm at f4, especially at the edges. However, do we know how accurate these are?
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/...meraComp=614&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=1

A couple of other things to consider, the 24-120mm is marginally lighter, but more importantly (imo) the 24mm at the wide end makes a huge difference over the 28mm, especially if you don't need the reach of the 28-300mm.

Here's a few general examples of what the 24-120mm f4 is capable of in the hands of a numpty like me.


DSC_6726 uncropped by TDG-77, on Flickr

DSC_4495 Crop by TDG-77, on Flickr

Ballerina 2 by TDG-77, on Flickr

DSC_2051 by TDG-77, on Flickr

DSC_0758 by TDG-77, on Flickr

DSC_1776 B&W crop by TDG-77, on Flickr

 

[twist]

DSC_2051 by TDG-77, on Flickr

 

[snerkler]

 

[Nawty]

I ended up deciding that the only way to tell if the compromises were acceptable was to buy a lens and try it, so I bought a 28-300VR and was ultimately very happy with it as a do it all lens on a D610. Yes, it has its issues such as distortion at the wide end and bad focus breathing at the long end but for me it was plenty sharp enough, even at 300mm.

 

[Peter123]

I think 24-120 would be the better choice.
Currently £479 (new) at Hdew.
I bought mine from them and I'm happy with it.

 

[Nawty]

Unless you need 120+mm...

Swings and roundabouts, the 24-120 is definitely better optically but if you need longer than 120mm (which people often want as a travel lens) then it won't do the job.

My view is that, for travel, a 28-300 + 50mm prime is pretty much the ultimate travel kit but like I said above, it depends on what your own needs are.

edit: the 28-300 allows you to capture a wide range of subjects without having to change lenses, travel photography is about catching the moment, not optical perfection.

Vietnam-3505 by Ned Awty, on Flickr

Phu Quoc Sunset by Ned Awty, on Flickr

Vietnam-4297 by Ned Awty, on Flickr

Vietnam-4476 by Ned Awty, on Flickr

 

[snerkler]

Unless you need 120+mm...

Swings and roundabouts, the 24-120 is definitely better optically but if you need longer than 120mm (which people often want as a travel lens) then it won't do the job.

My view is that, for travel, a 28-300 + 50mm prime is pretty much the ultimate travel kit but like I said above, it depends on what your own needs are.

edit: the 28-300 allows you to capture a wide range of subjects without having to change lenses, travel photography is about catching the moment, not optical perfection.

Vietnam-3505 by Ned Awty, on Flickr

Phu Quoc Sunset by Ned Awty, on Flickr

Vietnam-4297 by Ned Awty, on Flickr

Vietnam-4476 by Ned Awty, on Flickr

I like the last pic

I have the m4/3 for travel so the 24-120mm is better suited for my general needs, but as you rightly say it's all what's right for the individual. The OP did say they don't need over 120mm though which makes the 24-120mm a no brainer for me.

 

[Nawty]

I like the last pic

I have the m4/3 for travel so the 24-120mm is better suited for my general needs, but as you rightly say it's all what's right for the individual. The OP did say they don't need over 120mm though which makes the 24-120mm a no brainer for me.

Yeah, this was the last trip I used my Nikon kit for, I then bought an Oly EM10 as a travel camera and never picked up the Nikon again...

 

[saildandy]

Thanks a lot for the feedback everybody, it was very useful.

I will go for a 24-120. Also, I will look into that cashback you guys mentioned... did I leave some money on the table when I bought my D3300 kit, 35mm DX, D750 and 50mm FX? :banghead:

 

[snerkler]

Thanks a lot for the feedback everybody, it was very useful.

I will go for a 24-120. Also, I will look into that cashback you guys mentioned... did I leave some money on the table when I bought my D3300 kit, 33mm DX, D750 and 50mm FX? :banghead:

Depends when you bought them, cashback's not been running that long I don't think.

 

[saildandy]

Gotcha. I don't remember it on the Nikon site back then so probably didn't miss anything.

I ordered the lens from Hdew @ 479

 

[snerkler]

Gotcha. I don't remember it on the Nikon site back then so probably didn't miss anything.

I ordered the lens from Hdew @ 479

Cracking price that. The lens is most certainly not worth the UK asking price, but it's most definitely worth £479 and then some imo.

 

[Lemaildetom]

Cracking price that. The lens is most certainly not worth the UK asking price, but it's most definitely worth £479 and then some imo.

Agree with that. I got mine from here second hand, it was like new and boxed for 400. They usually go for 400 or a bit more on this forum. I like it but I wouldn't pay 700£ for it!

A quick remark both the 24-120 and the 28-300 are fairly big lens, keep that in mind. Lot's of people say the 25-85 is good too and much smaller.

 

[a1ex2001]

I'd take the 24-120mm every day as a general purpose lens I'd find the extra 4mm at the side end more appealing than the extra at the other!