time for an upgrade 24-120 f4 nikon?

evilonion

evilonion

Messages
802
Name
Dave Peacock
Edit My Images
Yes
Has anyone had much use with this lens?
I currently have a sigma 2.8 18-50 which i use all the time.
Id like a little bit more range for when im at events but im also looking for a general upgrade in lens.

I cant afford more than one decent lens at the moment so budget is sub 1k which rules out the 24-70 (plus id like more range)

Would the 24-120 be a good choice?
I can sell my currently lens for about £200 and with some photography work ive done recently i can go to around £800 ish give or take...

or... is there a better lens for the money? would a cheaper lens be just as good for me?
 
I've been thinking about one of these too...they seem to get good reviews but then for a relatively new lens there are a dew around second hand ?

I think I am going to hire one for a weekend from somewhere that'll offset the hire cost against purchase price.
 
Is there any other lens that fits this range as well?
I like the fast focus of my sigma 2.8 but it misses some of the time. Been told the nikon is fast focus as well...
 
I have this lens and I think it is fantastic. It focuses fast and also works very well in low light. I got mine new for £779 and its was a great buy that I'm really happy with.
 
Personally I didn't get on with it - maybe it's that I have got used to my 24 - 70. But it felt a litttle cheap and sluggish. Also I realised that I don't really need the 70 -120 part - thats what I have a 70-200 for !
However as a one size fits all carry round lens I am sure it has it's merits - It's just that they don't really interest me. Thik i'd rather carry round a DX body with a 18 - 200 (or something similar - which could boh be purchased for the price of that lems!!)
 
I have had this lens on my mind as well. I know there are a lot of folks switching from the 24-70 to this lens due to the weight/bulk and range. I think the problem for me is I may have a problem looking at pictures with a 24-120 after having looked at the results of my 24-70. It's a tough thing to swallow when the IQ isn't quite as good. The question for me is, how much better is the 24-70 than the 24-120 in the IQ department.
 
I was also thinking my other option could be to keep the sigma 18-50 2.8 and buy the sigma 70-200 2.8 ?

I know image quality of all lenses won't be as good as the nikon versions. However I don't think it's something I will notice too much.

As long as the lenses are good when stopped down? I know the 18-50 gets a bit soft anywhere under about f4
 
texfoto said:
I have had this lens on my mind as well. I know there are a lot of folks switching from the 24-70 to this lens due to the weight/bulk and range. I think the problem for me is I may have a problem looking at pictures with a 24-120 after having looked at the results of my 24-70. It's a tough thing to swallow when the IQ isn't quite as good. The question for me is, how much better is the 24-70 than the 24-120 in the IQ department.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure how to measure it - but the images just didn't look 'right'
It may even be physcosomatic, but they dodn't appear to have the same depth
anf life to them........................
I also, wight ignored, love how the 24-70 feels and operates. The 24 - 120 isn't the same. It handles more like an enhanced 18 - 200 or 16 - 85 and not like the 24 - 70 or 70 - 200 that I enjoy using. In fact i have based my next lens choice on the same criteria. I was all set to buy the 16 - 35, until I tried it and it's huge but feels a little light and flimsy. So instead i'm going for th Tokina 16 - 28 which feels lie a battleship and that makes me happy :)
As for carrying it around day to day - forget it, that's why I have a D7000 and an 18-70 :thumbs:
 
Syd said:
As for carrying it around day to day - forget it, that's why I have a D7000 and an 18-70 :thumbs:
Click to expand...

That is my problem. I'm full frame only at the moment so I'm stuck. :p:D

I know what you mean about the way the pictures look. The 24-70's color rendition and look are really nice and remind me of the 17-55 which was noticeably better looking to me than the 16-85. Picky, picky we are about these lenses!!!!
 
Last edited:
Oh and all the photos from Tongham were taken with the 24-120 too if you want to see it working in a different environment
 
texfoto said:
That is my problem. I'm full frame only at the moment so I'm stuck. :p:D

I know what you mean about the way the pictures look. The 24-70's color rendition and look are really nice and remind me of the 17-55 which was noticeably better looking to me than the 16-85. Picky, picky we are about these lenses!!!!
Click to expand...

lol - i returned a 16 -85 for the same reason - i just don't seem to get on with nikons 'high end' consumer lenses, In Fact I preferred the results I was gettting from a tammy 28-75, a real corker of a lens.
 
For a general purpose walkabout lens, 24mm is a bit too long on a crop format camera like the D300. 24-120 is intended mainly for full frame. Nikon makes a DX 17-55 2.8 for croppers.

Check that you won't miss that end of things..
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top