Upgrade to 24-70 or 24-120?

evilonion

evilonion

Messages
802
Name
Dave Peacock
Edit My Images
Yes
Looking for a bit of upgrade advice and after scrolling through quite a few pages from this section i couldnt find what i was looking for.

I got caught up recently in the upgrade bug and was convinced i needed to switch to canon.
I currently have a d300, sigma 18-50 2.8, nikon 80-200 2.8, 50mm 1.8 and raynox 250.
I have taken pictures as a 2nd at quite a few weddings, corporate events, parties and so on in the past year and i would like to start getting more from my pictures.

Im looking for better image quality, and tried my mates 24-702.8 and was blown away with how quickly it focused and how sharp the images came out. Its blisteringly quick.

As always though, money always comes into it. Is the 24-70 that much better than the 24-120? I know one is f4 and the other f2.8 but with regards to actual image quality and speed of focusing is there much difference?

Another option is to go with the 24mm prime which according to reviews is as good optically as the 24-70 ?

Even though im on a crop i very rarely use 18mm, im normally between 24-35mm
 
I've had the 24-120 and it is a great little walk-about lens with surprisingly good image quality but it doesn't touch the 24-70. As you know, there is a substantial price difference ... is 'better' worth the extra to you with your budget? :shrug:
 
On a cropper I'd advise going with the 24-70, the range is good (36-105 equivalent) and the extra stop would be very welcome. The 24-120 f4 really comes into its own on FX where the extra reach to portrait-range is massively useful and the stop-defecit next to the 24-70 doesn't matter so much given the high ISO capability.
 
Thanks for the fast replies.
Im looking to go full frame in the future, as the d300 i have ages (i take a lot of pictures) i will replace it with a d700 or later a d800.
The extra stop doesnt concern me too much as you say high iso of these cameras is fantastic.

What interests me the most is image quality. I feel my pictures are now being held back by the glass im using, just as they did when i started with a kit lens before the sigma.
Now i know everyone raves about the 24-70 but is this becuase its a very expensive sought after lens or is it really that much better than the 24-120?

If im going to pay out a large chunk of money i would like the next lens to be the best one... or at least the most value for money.

I guess what im trying to ask is would i notice the difference between the 24-120 and the 24-70? is the difference between the two so different that a hobbyist/part time paid photographer would be able to see the difference clearly?
If it is that good and would be better for me at weddings and parties etc then i will go with the 24-70, but the price difference between that and the 24-120 is huge.
 
IMO if you are doing paid work it is less of a conundrum the 24-70 is simply better in build and image quality, also for weddings and parties surely the 2.8 is going to give you more scope than an f4.
 
I guess what im trying to ask is would i notice the difference between the 24-120 and the 24-70? is the difference between the two so different that a hobbyist/part time paid photographer would be able to see the difference clearly?
Click to expand...

Clearly? No. At pixel level, probably, on some images. It is absolutely not a night and day difference though. Have a look through the link Gareth posted, the 24-120 IQ is excellent, no doubt about that. If you want wider apertures than f4 then of course the 24-70 will do that where the 24-120 can't, but then again the 24-70 isn't much cop at 85mm, 105mm etc either.

Just don't expect the pictures from the 24-70 to be 50% better than the 24-120, because they won't be. It's a lot more money, but the law of diminishing returns needs to be considered when spending your dosh. I'm a lot happier with a versatile, excellent IQ zoom with VR than a limited range 2.8 no-VR zoom. Add a couple of fast primes (2.8 isn't that fast really) and you're set.
 
thats something i was looking at... the saving from the 24-`120 could go towards a decent prime like the 35mm

Ive been used to shooting with the sigma which is soft below f6.8 so ive always shot at f8 and then used flash at parties and events... having sharp images at f4 would be a godsend.
I wouldnt want to buy the 24-120 though and then regret it wishing i had the 24-70 with more 'pop' from the images or faster low light focusing.
 
Could always rent one and see how you get on with it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top