Telephoto Zoom options - Nikon 24-120, 28-300 or 24-70?

DavidUK

DavidUK

Messages
472
Edit My Images
No
Good afternoon everyone,

I've been pondering a new lens for a while now and thought I'd ask for the opinions of the forum to help me choose.

A short while ago I upgraded to a D810 with a Nikon 16-35mm f/4 for wide angle as well as a Nikon 50mm f/1.4 for more general purpose shots. I'm interested in an 'all rounder' or general purpose lens for landscapes, portraits, walk-around etc to complement the 50mm and beyond and have narrowed it down to three choices.

Nikon 24-120 f/4
Nikon 28-300 f/3.5 - 5.6
Nikon 24-70 f/2.8

Ideally I'd like the 24-70 but it's certainly at the costlier end of the three - from what I've read I'm leaning towards the 24-120 as I don't think it will be too much of a compromise at my current skill level...but if you look at sites such as Ken Rockwell he seems to advocate the 28-300.

Any thoughts?

EDIT: Type-o in the Subject... not strictly telephoto zooms more normal zooms!
 
Last edited:
24-120 is a cracking lens
 
Mark twiglet said:
24-120 is a cracking lens
Click to expand...

Thanks Mark - I must admit I'm leaning towards this over the 28-300 - the constant aperture and nano crystal coating push it ahead of the 28-300 for me but it's good to get feedback from others.
 
DavidUK said:
Any thoughts?
Click to expand...

Ken's a bit special.

Oh sorry you meant with the lenses... the 24-70mm doesn't really belong with those other two as it's a big heavy expensive beast which should outclass all those other lenses but if that's not the ultimate concern (and I assume it's not as you're asking for a walk around lens) you can look towards the 24-85mm, 24-120mm and 28-300mm but don't expect the same kind of performance, accept you're sacrificing some quality and you shouldn't be disappointed.

If you want the 24-70mm but can't justify the price consider the Tamron 24-70mm, it's like 90% of the performance at half the price with VR thrown in.
 
The 3 lenses listed are all slightly different animals in several ways. The 24-70 is a full pro-spec lens with a wide aperture and price tag to match; the 24-120 is a bit slower (1 stop) a little more versatile in terms of focal length and a fair bit cheaper and the 28-300 is a one lens to cover most situations option for those who don't want to swap lenses. TBH, unless you want/need the extra light gathering or the shallower DoF that the 24-70 will give you, I would (and did) go for the slightly cheaper 24-120. The 28-300 will probably disappoint on the D810.
 
DavidUK said:
I'm interested in an 'all rounder' or general purpose lens for landscapes, portraits, walk-around etc to complement the 50mm and beyond and have narrowed it down to three choices.

Nikon 24-120 f/4
Nikon 28-300 f/3.5 - 5.6
Nikon 24-70 f/2.8
Click to expand...

Definitely the 24-120 f4, it covers all of your quoted needs :)
 
At one point I was contemplating the choice between the 24-120 and 28-300 for use as an all in one travel lens and I went with the 28-300 as the extra length meant I would only need to carry a fast prime and that would be it.

I have to say, I was super-surprised by the image quality on my D610, I really wasn't expecting it to be as good as it was. Distortion is a little heavy but easily corrected.

All that said, if I had your lenses (which I do) I would probably go for the 70-200 f/4 and it would be on my camera 95% of the time. I would be buying this very lens if I wasn't switching to M4/3 for my travel kit.
 
I have the 24-70 (Nikon) but it's my least used lens. I found it too cumbersome as a walkabout with that ridiculous sized hood and hefty weight. Image wise it's ok, but I wasn't impressed with the CA, barrel distortion and off centre sharpness (even when stepped down). It's bigger brother the 70-200mm VR II is in a different league optically and produces much nicer IQ.

I can't comment on the performance of the 24-120mm (as never used it), but it's lighter, cheaper and has a longer focal range still with a constant aperture.

If I were in your shoes I'd be getting the 24-120mm.
 
Think I will indeed go for the 24-120mm - for all your comments and opinions, very much appreciated. :)
 
Had the 24-120 and now own the 24-70. The 24-120 was awesome but the 24-70 seems to just edge it and just feels that bit more special in use.
 
Speedy136 said:
Had the 24-120 and now own the 24-70. The 24-120 was awesome but the 24-70 seems to just edge it and just feels that bit more special in use.
Click to expand...

...saw an e-mail come in from Grays of Westminster this morning with details of a new Nikon Spring promotion - the 24-70 is on the list with £175 off. I've always been a little unsure of these promotions though as they appear to give it back on a pre-paid Visa.
 
The card is a bit of a pain as you can't withdraw cash off, but you can use it on Paypal to buy things or in any normal shop that takes Visa so it's easy enough to get rid of it.
 
stumeech said:
The card is a bit of a pain as you can't withdraw cash off, but you can use it on Paypal to buy things or in any normal shop that takes Visa so it's easy enough to get rid of it.
Click to expand...

Annoyingly the 24-120 isn't in the lineup! I recall a cashback offer some years ago when I got my first DSLR the D70 - can't remember how it was paid but certain it wasn't a Visa card - but as you say doesn't sound too painful.
 
Nikon used to send their cashbacks as cheques but now seem to do the prepaid visa card option. Fuji now do a bank transfer for their promotions.
 
I use the 28-300 as a general purpose walk around... not much any more because I use a Nikon1 kit instead for that most of the time.
When I was deciding if I would keep the lens after upgrading to a D800 I did a few tests. Basically, depending on the need the results *can be* as good as another more expensive lens. But it is definitely a compromise lens.
My personal opinion is that maximum IQ doesn't really matter all that much for many/most images.


Lens test w/ D800 by skersting66, on Flickr

Full size on flick'r
 
Last edited:
I have both the 24-120 f4 and the 24-70 f2.8.

The 24-120 is my go-to general walk around lens, whilst I use the 24-70 f2.8 for more critical work. Fair bit of distortion at the wide end of the 24-120, more so than the 24-70 - all correctable. The VR is a bonus as well. I've heard rumours (just that - rumours!) of an updated 24-70 appearing soon, perhaps with VR.
 
I am in the same boat

I've always had fast lens. But the VR on the 24-120 making me want it. And the price too. But the build quality not as good?

Also the 24-70 produce sharper images

Grr hate deciding
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top