Nikon FF + lenses.....

specialman

specialman

Messages
8,193
Name
Pat MacInnes
Edit My Images
Yes
So I'm having my annual "I want a D3" mood swing but just looking at lens line-ups that would work when i do manage to get round to finding a D3 for he right money...

The 70-200mm VR1 is staying put, as is the 60mm macro, the 50mm and the Sigma 14mm. That just means the 17-55 and 10.5mm will have to be moved out to allow full usage across both FF and DX (I aim to keep one of my D2x bodies for spare and for use with long lenses).

In terms of a direct replacement for the 17-55, the 24-70mm is the one most people go for but the 24-120mm f/4 looks a good option, especially when the D3 can go up to high ISOs to cope with the slower maximum aperture on that lens.

I know there are 3rd-party options - Sigma 24-70mm, Tamron 28-75 - for reasonable money but the compromise is obviously overall build and weather-proofing, something Im keen to maximise, seeing as i work outdoors in all weathers. The old 28-70mm f/2.8 is an option, but it leaves me with a big (important) gap between it and the 14mm....

How does the 24-120 stack up against the 24/28-70 as a rugged piece of kit? I don't molly-coddle my gear - it's equipment that is there to do a job - so I don't want to be investing in gear that is inferior to what i have already and TBH, will ruin the point of moving over to FF....

What do you guys think?.....
 
I'd wait a few weeks to see what the Nikon announcement at the end of August really is - but a new FF (or two) camera would likely have a major effect on 2nd-hand prices and avaliablity of D3/D700/D3s.

Personally I'd consider suggest also looking at the 16-35 instead, as then with your 50 and 70-200 you have everything covered. Going up to 35mm gives surprisingly useful coverage - its far far more flexibile than the much-hyped and expensive 14-24. The 24-120 (and 28-300) exist for people who are prepared to compromise and don't want to change lenses, its horses for courses really...
 
I've just done this with a D700 and have gone cheap on the lenses with an 18-35, 50 1.4D and 70-300VR.

The image quality of all the lenses far exceeded my expectations (especially the 70-300) and I don't feel like I've got any gaps that I need to cover and find myself agreeing with uncle Ken (:gag:) that mid range zooms aren't really necessary unless you shoot weddings.

That said I have just picked up a 28-105 which is a cracking lens, more than sharp enough with little distortion and 1:2 macro function all for £100!

If I had the money I think the only things I'd change would be to get the 16-35 and the AF-S version of the 50mm.
 
straycat said:
i went for a 20mm and 24mm prime for FF :)
Click to expand...

Would love to have a range of primes but my aching back (and bank account) wouldn't permit. Although that wickedly narrow DoF you get from fast primes is nice, I think I'd miss the versatility of a zoom for working on-the-fly. :)
 
I don't have first hand experience of the Nikon 24-120 4, but from what I've heard it's disappointing - falls some way short of Canon's excellent 24-105L 4.

There are a few reviews about, including TheDigitalPicture and PhotoZone.
 
i tried a 24-120mm and imho i found it ok, but not wowing me, the tamron 28-75mm produces nicer pics, but the nikon has better af, in the end i went for a 2nd hand 28-70mm f2.8 afs nikon(aka the beast) and the image quality is awsome and everybit as good as the 24-70mm imo, and you can get them at a decent price.
 
Last edited:
specialman said:
How does the 24-120 stack up against the 24/28-70 as a rugged piece of kit?
Click to expand...

Doesn't the 24-120 have more plastic in its construction? This might be worth a read.

To me the 24-70 doesn't feel quite as robust as the 17-55 - it's only marginal and still a solid feeling lens. The lens hood is definitely tougher! Same great results, and useful on a crop body IMO.
 
24-70 every time imho. High ISO doesn't compensate for DoF, as you know. That said, if DoF isn't your game, and you'd prefer the extra 50mm the 24-120 provides (which is already covered from your 70-200) and a lens that doesn't quite have the same build, get the 24-120.

Personally however, I got the 24-70 and absolutely love it. I didn't even consider looking at the 24-120 when it came out. It's a stunning lens.
 
24mm f2.8 are about £250 s/h and not heavy

i prefer it to the 24mm g i had

combine it with any of the nikon 85mm lens,most people use one extreme or the other anyway :love:
 
I've got The Beast. Built like a tank. Super sharp, fast AF and I find it plenty W I D E enough on FF. Great value (if you can find one)
 
Can't go wrong with the 24-70, never leaves my D700. I'm hearing so many good things about the sigma 85 1.4 too, I just need a way to squirrel £700 past the Mrs now!!!!
 
specialman said:
Would love to have a range of primes but my aching back (and bank account) wouldn't permit. Although that wickedly narrow DoF you get from fast primes is nice, I think I'd miss the versatility of a zoom for working on-the-fly. :)
Click to expand...

I am selling a 24mm 1.8 prime attm.
Its a great place to start (selling because I got a 20mm).
Being primes they are not as expensive as you think
 
i
trevorbray said:
I've got The Beast. Built like a tank. Super sharp, fast AF and I find it plenty W I D E enough on FF. Great value (if you can find one)
Click to expand...

:eek: Did someone mention "the beast" Trev :lol:

I liked the "beast" looked like a lens compared to the Nikon 24-70 I own now which in comparison looks a wee bit plasticky - just my view...

The "Beast" is almost getting rarer than rocking horse poo :naughty: Still a cracking lens thou & one to have :thumbs:
 
mountainpenguin said:
I am selling a 24mm 1.8 prime attm.
Its a great place to start (selling because I got a 20mm).
Being primes they are not as expensive as you think
Click to expand...

I like primes also, but I just can't warrant carrying a full selection of them when zooms will do the same job.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top