Nikon 24-120mm f4

burleyviking

burleyviking

Messages
121
Name
lee
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi all.

I'm thinking of changing my Nikon 24-70mm f2.8 for the above,
would i be making a mistake, love the 24-70 but would really love that bit more reach i think,
i have a D800 and id say I'm just a general snapper, a few landscapes, family photos,
any thoughts on the 24-120 would be appreciated, i did also read on another thread whilst searching
that there is a Tamron 35-150mm f2.8, that sounds like it could also fit the bill.
thanks.

lee
 
I did exactly that, changed my 24-70 to a 24-120 and used it extensively as a walkabout lens with no regrets.
 
In terms of sharpness not a lot in it. The 24-70mm has nicer bokeh but for general shooting I found the 24-120mm a better option.
 
thanks chaps, i do like a nice bit of bokeh,but i guess thats the trade off for the extra range, and i have a 50mm f1.3 for when i need some serious bokeh,
i think the best option is to just buy one and then make my mind up rather that sellling my 24-70 first,

lee
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nod
This lens does seem popular on these boards and overall it’s difficult to beat as a ‘super’ zoom do it all type lens.

Such lenses do come with compromises though and I for one I never found it’s strong point past 70mm and actually resented having the weaker 70-120 section ‘tacked on’ and ended up replacing it with a 24-70 2.8!

Looks like you are going the other way though but don’t sell that 24-70 until you’ve had a good chance to test it and make sure your happy with it.
 
burleyviking said:
thanks chaps, i do like a nice bit of bokeh,but i guess thats the trade off for the extra range, and i have a 50mm f1.3 for when i need some serious bokeh,
i think the best option is to just buy one and then make my mind up rather that sellling my 24-70 first,

lee
Click to expand...


If you can afford to make the investment in the 24-120 without chopping the 24-70 in against it, I'd do just that. Keep an eye open for a decent 2nd hand example and see how you get on with it. Unless you NEED the extra stop that the 2.8 lens gives you, the extra versatility that the 50mm longer end allows is worth the marginal loss.
 
thanks chaps, yes i think it best keeping the 24-70 and buying the 24-120 to test before i make my mind up,
seen some on ebay described as excellent, selling for around £350, i might even buy the tamron 35-150 f2.8 too:)
thanks.


lee
 
burleyviking said:
thanks chaps, yes i think it best keeping the 24-70 and buying the 24-120 to test before i make my mind up,
seen some on ebay described as excellent, selling for around £350, i might even buy the tamron 35-150 f2.8 too:)
thanks.


lee
Click to expand...
I would be very interested in a direct comparison between the Tamron and Nikon zooms, from my research I’d like to think the Tamron is a clear step up from the Nikon but nothing like a direct comparison!
 
I have no experience with the 24-70, but I've used the 24-120mm f4 for a good few years now, and it's been excellent. I'm pretty fussy about IQ, but it's not let me down. I shoot a fair few gigs/events, and it's a fantastic lens for 90% of that kind of shooting. It's got VR as well, which is a boon for low light shooting. The best all-round lens I've ever owned. I can't wait for Nikon to make a Z version!
 
I use the 24-120 with my D810 and find it a brilliant lens for the price. I almost bought the 24-70 2.8 myself, but I'm really glad I got this one instead.

I would do as has been suggested and hang on to the 24-70 for a while if you can (just in case), but I'll be very surprised if you'll regret buying the 24-120.
 
Brazo said:
I would be very interested in a direct comparison between the Tamron and Nikon zooms, from my research I’d like to think the Tamron is a clear step up from the Nikon but nothing like a direct comparison!
Click to expand...
Interested to hear why you think the tamron would be a 'clear step up' from the Nikon lens. I'm not saying it's not; I have no experience of it. But in my experience of 3rd party lenses, Nikon are almost always superior in most respects. Optics, IQ, build quality, sealing etc. For me, the extra wide angle of the Nikon, easily trumps the little bit more reach of 150 v 120mm. Makes it far more versatile for me.
 
I used to have the 24-70 2.8 and it was great, but when it came to travel I ended up with the 24-120 and was really happy with it. It was sharp enough, better reach and meant I could carry just this lens and a prime or two. Much lighter and better and most of the time I’d be at f8/11 for landscape stuff while away so I generally never used to benefit from the 2.8 of the 24-70. Depends how you shoot I guess.
24-70 faster focusing and is obv a cracking lens but 24-120 is more than enough imo.
 
burleyviking said:
thanks chaps, yes i think it best keeping the 24-70 and buying the 24-120 to test before i make my mind up,
seen some on ebay described as excellent, selling for around £350, i might even buy the tamron 35-150 f2.8 too:)
thanks.


lee
Click to expand...

Make certain that the lens you bid on is the constant f/4 version - the older, variable aperture version was rather less good!
 
I had one for a few years and it never set my world on fire in terms of image quality but it was fine & very flexible. I took that, a D750 and a 50 1.8 to Venice and it lapped up everything I threw at it.
 
The 24-120 f/4 is my go-to lens and only comes off the D750 to fit the Sigma 150-600.

The IQ is excellent and the extra reach over the 24-70 (which I have also owned) is a real boon, as is the lighter weight if you're going to be carrying it all day.
 
I have both lenses, had the 24-70 for about 4 years, the 24-120 for maybe a couple. The 24-70 edges it for image quality if you’re a pixel peeper, but for all intents and purposes is the 24-120 is excellent. It is soft at the long end though, and suffers from distortion at the wide end, but it is very versatile and is probably my most used lens.
 
viewfromthenorth said:
... suffers from distortion at the wide end...
Click to expand...
Phew. This thread had almost convinced me to swap my 28-300 for the 24-120 but if it distorts there's no benefit.


I'm still interested in hearing about the Tamron 35-150 though... :D
 
Ed Sutton said:
Phew. This thread had almost convinced me to swap my 28-300 for the 24-120 but if it distorts there's no benefit.


I'm still interested in hearing about the Tamron 35-150 though... :D
Click to expand...
The 24-120 will have better IQ than the 28-300; just a lot less compromise going on. I can't say I've ever noticed any significant 'distortion', none that I'm not happy with, or that can't be corrected in post. Likewise, I've not found it to be 'soft' at the long end either, and I take more shots at the full extent than any of other focal length, with that lens. It compares well, with the 70-200mm f2.8 VR2, in that respect.
 
AZ6 said:
The 24-120 will have better IQ than the 28-300; just a lot less compromise going on. I can't say I've ever noticed any significant 'distortion', none that I'm not happy with, or that can't be corrected in post. Likewise, I've not found it to be 'soft' at the long end either, and I take more shots at the full extent than any of other focal length, with that lens. It compares well, with the 70-200mm f2.8 VR2, in that respect.
Click to expand...
I doubt it'll have significantly better IQ than the 28-300. My 24-70 certainly doesn't.

Of course what I deem acceptable IQ you might not. ;)
 
Ed Sutton said:
I doubt it'll have significantly better IQ than the 28-300. My 24-70 certainly doesn't.
Click to expand...
Well, praps you can't see the difference then. ;)

Ed Sutton said:
Of course what I deem acceptable IQ you might not
Click to expand...
I'm very fussy. The 24-120 serves as an excellent 'reportage' lens, for when I need to cover all bases, and don't have the time and luxury of being able to swap between various primes. For me, it's real strength is for gigs/events in small to medium sized venues, when space is limited but nothing is too far away. I've never used anything better, for that kind of job. The issue, for me, with the 'superzooms' such as the 28-300, 24-200 type things, is that they don't offer good enough IQ in general, just inferior, and they have that horrible variable aperture thing (I always shoot in Manual exposure). I absolutely hate that. I'd actually rather have a constant aperture f5.6 zoom; at least you'd know where you are with it.

What I'd really, really love, is a 120-300mm f4 type zoom, to compliment the 24-120. Seen the Sigma 120-300mm f2.8, but it's just too big, and, well, it's Sigma... I did try a Sigma 120-400mm f4-5.6, but it was dreadful. Truly dreadful. Upsetting, even.
 
AZ6 said:
What I'd really, really love, is a 120-300mm f4 type zoom, to compliment the 24-120. Seen the Sigma 120-300mm f2.8, but it's just too big, and, well, it's Sigma... I did try a Sigma 120-400mm f4-5.6, but it was dreadful. Truly dreadful. Upsetting, even.
Click to expand...

Maybe take a look at the Sigma 100-300mm f/4?

GC
 
AZ6 said:
I'd actually rather have a constant aperture f5.6 zoom; at least you'd know where you are with it.
Click to expand...

If you shoot manual set the aperture to f5.6 you fool. :D


The Nikon 28-300 could actually be better than you imagine it to be. But I'm not fussy and TBH I I've never used a lens which hasn't been acceptable for my purposes - even a couple which the internet says are pants. One produced a pic I posted on here someone thought I'd taken with the latest flavour of the month lens.

I actually find the output from the latests and greatest lenses on high resolution sensors can look too sharp.

Besides,if you show your pics small enough you don't even have to nail focus! ;)
 
AZ6 said:
The 24-120 will have better IQ than the 28-300; just a lot less compromise going on. I can't say I've ever noticed any significant 'distortion', none that I'm not happy with, or that can't be corrected in post. Likewise, I've not found it to be 'soft' at the long end either, and I take more shots at the full extent than any of other focal length, with that lens. It compares well, with the 70-200mm f2.8 VR2, in that respect.
Click to expand...

Can’t recall what aperture I noticed the softness, it may well get better when stopped down but I have neither the time nor enthusiasm for testing that kind of thing. It was noticeable when viewed at 100% in post processing when I was selecting an area, but for the most part I don’t view my images at that magnification, so not really a big issue for me. However for some this kind of thing is a deal breaker, so it’s worth highlighting.
 
Ed Sutton said:
you fool
Click to expand...
Rude.

Tbh, f4 is the smallest aperture I can work easily with, for a lot of the stuff I shoot. I don't want to be fiddling about adjusting exposure when I need the largest aperture available. I just find variable aperture zooms that bit fiddlier to use, and distracting. Plus I don't need anything much over 120mm, most of the time. I have been shooting with my Z6 and 24-70, and the D600 with the 70-200, which is the classic combo, but my last gig, I shot with just the Z6 and 24-70, and the 50mm Z lens for the really, really dark stuff (was in a very dark tiny basement club). The 24-120, I've taken on holiday, just that and the D600. Perfect. That said, I did have a D3300 for a while, with a 16-85mm f3.5-5.6. That lens was ok, but again with the variable aperture, and not as nice to use as the 24-120, in spite of the much smaller size. Similar good range though, and not a bad lens at all.
 
Ed Sutton said:
I actually find the output from the latests and greatest lenses on high resolution sensors can look too sharp.
Click to expand...
Nothing can ever be too sharp.
 
gcgraphs said:
Maybe take a look at the Sigma 100-300mm f/4?

GC
Click to expand...
I did, but that's an older, mechanical drive AF lens, by the look of it. So would work fine on my D600, but no AF on the Z6, which is the dealbreaker.

TBh, and I haven't given it much thought, but my 70-200 with a 1.4 TC, could be a really good option. Cos that'd be a 98-280mm f4 equivalent. And given the IQ of that lens, I'd still be better off than with a 3rd party lens.

Why haven't I thought of this before?

No that's it! GcGraphs; you're a genius! :banana:
 
Last edited:
Ed Sutton said:
That's not even warming up to be rude.
Click to expand...
No seriously don't be rude. You don't get to call a stranger a fool or an idiot, face to face, so don't do it here. No need for it. Reported.
 
AZ6 said:
No seriously don't be rude. You don't get to call a stranger a fool or an idiot, face to face, so don't do it here. No need for it. Reported.
Click to expand...
I genuinely didn't consider it to be rude. Hence the smiley, But hey ho.
 
I've got a Sigma 24-105 F/4 Art lens on a D750. It does great pictures but is big and heavy. The reviews about the Cannon version suggest it should be a bit better than the Nikon 24-120 but it isn't something I want to carry about.
 
AZ6 said:
No seriously don't be rude. You don't get to call a stranger a fool or an idiot, face to face, so don't do it here. No need for it. Reported.
Click to expand...
bit harsh, although i dont think reporting him will get him 20 lashes, so not to worry:banana::banana:
 
so my new 24-120mm f4 came today, doesnt look much different to the 24-70 on the camera body, certainly feels lighter, not that weight has ever bothered me,
will do a few comparison shots tomorrow after work, decided on a flower in the garden with camera set on a tripod, going to do both lenses at 24mm 50mm and 70mm at f4, and then at f2.8 on the 24-70, and then 85mm 100mm and 120mm on the f4, im no expert but we will see how it goes,

lee
 
I understand Adam Gibbs uses the 24-120 and he's like, twice winner of international landscape photographer of the year. He admits it's not as sharp as some other lenses, but no-one looking at his images would complain about lack of sharpness! Personally I'd ignore the pixel peepers and go for it ;)
 
I own the 24-120 f4. I find it great as a zoom, and can't find a fault with it. And yes the Bokeh is not there, but I pair with an 85mm f1.8 when I want the bokeh.

I would recommend you go for it
 
f4 f4 70mm.JPG
so this was taken about 2 meters away, nikon d800 24-120 f4 at 70mm f4.

f2.8 f4 70mm.JPG

this is the 24-70 f2.8 at 70 mm f4


f2.8 f2.8 70mm.JPG
this is the 24-70 at 70mm f2.8.
 
Hard to tell the difference from such small images, but it looks OK to me.
FWIW I have the 24-120 and it sits on my D750 all the time, only comes off when I go shooting birds and then it is replaced with a 150-600 Siggy :)

Also the advantage of the 24-120 is that it has VR, unless you have the VR version of the 24-70 that is.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top