Which Nikon FX standard zoom lens?

juggler

juggler

Messages
4,925
Name
Simon
Edit My Images
No
..posting here rather than the equipment forum 'cos I mainly hang out here on TP and thought I might get more targeted advice..

I'm finally going to buy a real camera.. moving on from my Olympus OM-D E-M5 for reasons I've detailed elsewhere. I've pretty much settled on a Nikon D750 and I'm now trying to find my way through the maze of lens options. The Sony A7II is still just in the running 'cos I like the EVF and size but it has issues.

The Oly f2.8 12-40 is my workhorse, so that would suggest an equivalent aperture - from a Bokeh viewpoint - of f5.6 and zoom range of 24-80 on FF. When I want a shallower DoF I use primes but I'm thinking that the right standard zoom would replace most of my primes in the short term at least. I'm used to full-time in body stabilisation but I can't imagine it's really needed for portraiture, even natural light work.

There seems to be the following options.. feel free to add others
  • (the old) Nikon 24-85 f2.8-4.0
  • Nikon 24-85 f3.5-4.5
  • Nikon 24-70 f2.8
  • Tamron 24-70 f2.8
  • Tamron 28-75 f2.8
The Nikon f2.8 would seem to be the top choice but it's expensive and a heavy beast. What do folk here use?

Nice to haves:
  • Fast to focus
  • Focuses well in low light
  • Pleasing Bokeh
  • Image quality at least on a par with my Oly setup when printed at 3 feet across.
Ta!
 
There is also, the newly released Nikon 24-70 2.8 with vc. But this may not be of interest to you?

Really depends on your budget. Personally, I would be going with the Tamron 24-70 2.8, as it is an excellent lens but just make sure you get a good copy.
 
johnnypanic said:
There is also, the newly released Nikon 24-70 2.8 with vc. But this may not be of interest to you?

Really depends on your budget. Personally, I would be going with the Tamron 24-70 2.8, as it is an excellent lens but just make sure you get a good copy.
Click to expand...

I've just come across the older Nikon 28-70 f2.8, too.

I'll make the budget stretch for the right lens, but I'm reluctant to part with large amounts of cash which give little tangible benefit for the sort of stuff I shoot, i.e. indoor & outdoor fashiony portraiture or figure studio stuff. I don't think I need VC; I don't see it as particularly useful for these genres, and don't want to end up with something which leaves me regretting a purchase after a 4 hour studio shoot.
 
•
I only use Nikon single digits and mostly IF lenses. I can tell you that the
Nikon 24~70 ƒ2.8 is a great tool for any kind of shooting situations.
 
I have just purchased the new Nikkor 24-70 2.8 VR and can say it's an incredible bit of kit. I didn't own the previous version to give you an in depth comparison, but fancied the addition of VR and I'm very pleased with it so far. After a recent trip to London I can confirm it is certainly very fast to focus in low light.

I don't particularly shoot portraiture though so can't be of much help in those terms!
 
Kodiak Qc said:
•
I only use Nikon single digits and mostly IF lenses. I can tell you that the
Nikon 24~70 ƒ2.8 is a great tool for any kind of shooting situations.
Click to expand...

axnxdxy said:
I have just purchased the new Nikkor 24-70 2.8 VR and can say it's an incredible bit of kit. I didn't own the previous version to give you an in depth comparison, but fancied the addition of VR and I'm very pleased with it so far. After a recent trip to London I can confirm it is certainly very fast to focus in low light.

I don't particularly shoot portraiture though so can't be of much help in those terms!
Click to expand...

nus123 said:
The 24-70 f2.8 is by far the best lens to go for if you don't mind the budget or carrying it!
Click to expand...

I don't know whether I mind carrying it 'cos I haven't got one :)
What is it like to use on a lengthy shoot?
 
juggler said:
I don't know whether I mind carrying it 'cos I haven't got one :)
What is it like to use on a lengthy shoot?
Click to expand...

I've carried it around London for two days and was fine with it, but I guess that depends what you are happy holding! The new version is only slightly heavier than the non-VR, could be worth hiring one to test before committing to purchase.
 
juggler said:
don't want to end up with something which leaves me regretting a purchase after a 4 hour studio shoot.
Click to expand...
…won't happen with the Nikon 24~70 ƒ2.8
juggler said:
What is it like to use on a lengthy shoot?
Click to expand...
My paws are happy with the shape, and the weight is not a problem with a single digit.
 
Last edited:
I've been using A nikon AFS VR 24-120mm the 3.6-5.6 for a number of years now and have no complaints what so ever I've used on both DX and FX bodies and still do for studio and portrait work.
The Nikon AFS 24-70mm f2.8 is a stunning lens I sold mine to a friend along with the rest of the Holy trinity.
Have I missed them ? Not really the only one I really missed was the AFS-VR 70-200mm 2.8 which I got another used copy.
I'm not looking to replace my standard zoom if I was and money no object then I would go Nikon AFS-VR-24-70mm f2.8 Tamron AF-VC 24-70mm f2.8 or a Nikon AFS 24-70mm f2.8
Btw there is also a new Nikon AFS-VR 24-120mm f4.0
I suggest you try a few out and see what suits your needs ? :) :nikon:
 
The current f/4 version of the 24-120 is significantly better optically than the older variable aperture version. (I've had both so speak from personal experience rather than having read a few reviews.) Also used to have (a good copy of) the Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 and found even that to be excessively heavy as a walkabout lens. Might be possible to hire a couple of the options from a retailer who MIGHT refund the rental against a purchase. Worth asking you local tame shop!
 
Nod said:
The current f/4 version of the 24-120 is significantly better optically than the older variable aperture version. (I've had both so speak from personal experience rather than having read a few reviews.) Also used to have (a good copy of) the Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 and found even that to be excessively heavy as a walkabout lens. Might be possible to hire a couple of the options from a retailer who MIGHT refund the rental against a purchase. Worth asking you local tame shop!
Click to expand...

I have a couple of friends who use the 24-120mm f4 and it's highly praised by them.
I have two of the older version 3.5/5.6 both very early copies that were made in Japan.
But if you go reading reviews K.R. Recons it's one of Nikons top 10 worse lenses ! LMFAO :p:banana:
 
I'm guessing it's the 24-85mm 3.5/4.5 VR your looking at ?
I would be very surprised if your not pleased with it my mate uses his on his D800 for weddings and studio work with some stunning results :)
 
I'm really happy with my Nikon 35-70 F2.8 lens.

I've not found many situations where I wish I had more on the wide end.

If I do I swap to my Cosina 19-35mm f3.5 - f4.5 which, used correctly, is a damn sharp lens.
 
GreenNinja67 said:
I'm really happy with my Nikon 35-70 F2.8 lens.

I've not found many situations where I wish I had more on the wide end.

If I do I swap to my Cosina 19-35mm f3.5 - f4.5 which, used correctly, is a damn sharp lens.
Click to expand...

+1 on the 35-70 f2.8
It is the only zoom lens I kept when I switched to primes.
It weighs a lot less than the 24-70.
It's very sharp, even wide open, less distortion than most mid range zooms, and best of all, they can be picked up for peanuts.
 
I find it ok.

It's an older lens so not up to AFS standards but it's not let me down.

It came in 2 varieties, the f2.8 and the f2.8D.

The only difference is the D has something in it to ensure TTL flash exposures are correct.

I've got the other version and have always found my flash exposures to be perfect so maybe flannel to try and sell it? Who knows.

I had it up for sale on here a few months ago but it didn't sell and I'm glad actually.

I really would miss it if it had sold.
 
I can vouch for the Nikkor 24-70 f2.8 (older version). Image quality, color rendition, fast focus build quality are top notch!
 
GreenNinja67 said:
I find it ok.

It's an older lens so not up to AFS standards but it's not let me down.

It came in 2 varieties, the f2.8 and the f2.8D.

The only difference is the D has something in it to ensure TTL flash exposures are correct.

I've got the other version and have always found my flash exposures to be perfect so maybe flannel to try and sell it? Who knows.

I had it up for sale on here a few months ago but it didn't sell and I'm glad actually.

I really would miss it if it had sold.
Click to expand...

Thanks for that. Having had a quick scout around some reviews it looks as though the only downside is how prone it is to flare. That may be an issue in a studio but then that's always the case.
 
I agree with Terry above.
Mine is the "D" version, which has more to do with distances being sent to the camera to aid with matrix metering.
Here's the Nikon explanation :

"D: Distance D-type AF-Nikkor lenses relay subject-to-camera distance information to Nikon SLR cameras that feature 3D Color Matrix Metering,
3D Matrix Metering, and 3D Multi-Sensor Balanced Fill-Flash."

Forgot to mention that it has a macro setting too, which doesn't autofocus in macro mode, but handy for some maybe.
As for low light focussing, I've never had a problem with it. I think that is more to do with the camera body than the lens. As you are talking about the D750, you won't have a problem I shouldn't think.
They often sell on the bay for less than £200.
 
The tamron vc is supposed to be rather good, have you considered the 24-120 f4? i've got a 24-70 i never use as its either the 24-120 for ease of use or the primes for quality, the 24-70 sits in a reasonably naff middle position for me :)
 
For the price on the classifieds they're insane, get a good copy and they're very sharp :)
 
I have a Tamron 28-75 f2.8 you can have a loan of if you want to give it a go?.
I have the Tamron 28-75 f2.8, the Tamron 24-70 f2.8 VC, and the Nikon 24-120 f4.
They all have their uses... the 28-75 is much smaller and lighter, but I'm not as keen as the way the colours render sometimes, but it is a good lens, I do like the 24-70 f2.8, but it is big and heavy. I like the focal length of the 24-120, but.... I like shooting shallow depth of field a lot...
 
i use 24-120mm as my every day lens on my D750 and its amazing lens i have no issues, its reasonably light and great to have a bit of extend reach especially if your travelling light say with 1 body & 1 lens.
however i am craving the F2,8 so going to buy one next week, will still keep the 24-120mm
 
Did you make a decision, Simon? I've owned the 35-70, 28-70 and 24-70. The older 35-70 is a decent lens, but the old coatings make more PP necessary, and it's not very flare resistant. The 28 and 24 are very close, but lots of old 28-70s are ex wedding togs cameras with dodgy motors. Mine gave up the ghost quickly. I liked my 24-70, but it couldn't match any prime I have ever owned.
 
juggler said:
..posting here rather than the equipment forum 'cos I mainly hang out here on TP and thought I might get more targeted advice..

I'm finally going to buy a real camera.. moving on from my Olympus OM-D E-M5 for reasons I've detailed elsewhere. I've pretty much settled on a Nikon D750 and I'm now trying to find my way through the maze of lens options. The Sony A7II is still just in the running 'cos I like the EVF and size but it has issues.

The Oly f2.8 12-40 is my workhorse, so that would suggest an equivalent aperture - from a Bokeh viewpoint - of f5.6 and zoom range of 24-80 on FF. When I want a shallower DoF I use primes but I'm thinking that the right standard zoom would replace most of my primes in the short term at least. I'm used to full-time in body stabilisation but I can't imagine it's really needed for portraiture, even natural light work.

There seems to be the following options.. feel free to add others
  • (the old) Nikon 24-85 f2.8-4.0
  • Nikon 24-85 f3.5-4.5
  • Nikon 24-70 f2.8
  • Tamron 24-70 f2.8
  • Tamron 28-75 f2.8
The Nikon f2.8 would seem to be the top choice but it's expensive and a heavy beast. What do folk here use?

Nice to haves:
  • Fast to focus
  • Focuses well in low light
  • Pleasing Bokeh
  • Image quality at least on a par with my Oly setup when printed at 3 feet across.
Ta!
Click to expand...


There seems to be the following options.. feel free to add others
  • (the old) Nikon 24-85 f2.8-4.0
  • Nikon 24-85 f3.5-4.5
  • Nikon 24-70 f2.8
  • Tamron 24-70 f2.8
  • Tamron 28-75 f2.8
The Nikon f2.8 would seem to be the top choice but it's expensive and a heavy beast. What do folk here use?

Plenty of choice for sure !
Like others have said I can only go by what I have owned or used.
Tokina ATX 28-70mm 2.8 was my first fast purchase in the early 90s it,s still in use today !
Sigma 28-70mm f2.8 same era but not as good as the Tokina IMHO and others.
Nikon AFS 28-70mm 2.8 (The Beast) razor sharp but heavy and once again not a big difference to org Tokina "Today this Beast is showing its age and as two friends recently found out is getting difficult to get spare parts for service it has a tendency to lock up the AF"
Tokina ATX 28-80mm f2.8 again a lovely well built piece of glassware not up to the early version until stopped down I like the clutch system on it to switch between manual and AF.
My final was the now Legendary Nikon AFS-VR 24-70mm f2.8 another heavy but stunning lens image quality on my D3 and D700 was outstanding but alas I ended up selling it with the rest of my Holy Trinity and one of my D3 bodies.
I have used the Tamron 24-70mm VC and its extremely impressive so my choice would be either the NikonAFS-VR 24-70mm f2.8 or the Tamron VC 24-70mm f 2.8

Today i use the original Nikon AFS-VR 24mm-120mm 3.5-5.6 which I have two very early versions of that were made in Japan not sure if QC was any better there before moving production to another country but I am more than pleased with them both.
I also have Nikon AFS-VR 28-300mm lens which has now become my general go to everyday lens.
Oh nearly forgot the Nikon AFS 24-85mm 3.5/4.5 VR is also a stunning piece of glass for the price
 
Last edited:
The23rdman said:
Did you make a decision, Simon? I've owned the 35-70, 28-70 and 24-70. The older 35-70 is a decent lens, but the old coatings make more PP necessary, and it's not very flare resistant. The 28 and 24 are very close, but lots of old 28-70s are ex wedding togs cameras with dodgy motors. Mine gave up the ghost quickly. I liked my 24-70, but it couldn't match any prime I have ever owned.
Click to expand...

Not yet.. that's an interesting comment about flare - which can be a real issue in a studio - and primes. I do like primes but if I go with the D750 then I'll get the 24-120, I think.

(An aside, more fully documented elsewhere.. I haven't bought anything yet because I want to give the Sony A7II another go. I was really expecting it to be a no-brainer when I compared the A7II to the D750 - in favour of the Sony - but that wasn't the case. If the D750 had an EVF I'd be straight in there, but it hasn't).
 
Last edited:
If I was a studio only photographer I'd look at the Sony too.
 
juggler said:
Staged location stuff, too.. but I really want to do more street photography and the Sony is a nice size for that, even if the AF tracking isn't a patch on the Nikon.
Click to expand...
That's why I've bought a D750.
 
juggler said:
Not yet.. that's an interesting comment about flare - which can be a real issue in a studio - and primes. I do like primes but if I go with the D750 then I'll get the 24-120, I think.

A good choice IMO if you go for Nikon it would be my choice of body and lens :)
Click to expand...
 
Whilst the Sony bodies are small the decent lenses are more slr sized makes it a bit of a frankenstein imho, d750 or a fuji/oly mirrorless would be my choices :)
 
In my Canon days I had several of both the 24-70 and 24-105's as both had strengths - 24-70 was F2.8, the 24-1045 F4 but more reach. I ended up with the 24-105. I then went to Olympus, loved the 12-40 and 40-150. Now have a Nikon D750 with the 24-120 F4 which is a perfect walkabout length for me. I also have a Sigma 35mm F1.4 which I am going to sell as it just doesn't get used, and a Nikon 85 F1.8, which is possibly the only prime I have ever got much use from.
My vote is for the 24-120 and there are a couple in the classifieds, so you could try one and sell it on if it didn't work for you, at little if any cost....
 
I had the Nikon 24-70 f/2.8 but sold it and replaced it with a Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 VC. The vibration control is pretty handy when you have as shaky hands as I have (need to cut down the coffee) and it's a bit shorter too. The only downside if you use filters is that it's an 82mm thread rather than a 77mm like the Nikon but even Nikon's new 24-70 VR lens is an 82mm thread.

There's obviously a big cost difference between the two. I bought the Tamron after being impressed with their 70-200 f/2.8 and don't regret it at all. Some people have had good copies, but I micro-adjusted mine with FoCal software and it's spot on now.
 
I absolutely love the Nikon 24-70. it may be a bit more expensive but it just does everything well. I'm so glad I bought , it's not often off the camera. If you buy a compromise it might be another gadget left on a shelf gathering dust. Whatever happens with my lens, it's definitely been a great investment
It's a bit heavy and expensive but worth it for me
 
I went the other way, from Nikon to MFT. I made all the mistakes trying to find 'cheap' alternatives for the top lenses; like I had the Sigma 70-200f2.8, a Tamron 70-200f2.8 until I had enough and just got the Nikon 70-200VR f2.8. And yet still I made the same mistake, got the Tamron 28-75f2.8, but then quickly moved on to the Nikon 24-70f2.8. Yes they are a little heavier, but totally reliable, point click and bang perfect focus, and perfect rendition to the sooc Nikon look I like. Very natural. I used mine basically just on the street, one in the bag and the other on the camera. With a nice strap I was able to walk around hours on end....

When I moved to MFT I skipped all this nonsense of trying to save money, yet costing more in time and money of exchanging and swapping out, and I went straight for the Panasonic 12-35 and 35-100 f2.8 equivalents. I finally learned my lesson.

PS. I still have the Nikon 'street sweeper' 24-120, but the first ever first that I use with my film cameras. I do love that focal length for street, the original rightfully so gained its nickname.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top