Which Nikon lens?

EJB

Messages
109
Name
Ted
Edit My Images
Yes
To partner a 70mm - 300mm on a Nikon d3500.

1. Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-140mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR Lens.

2. Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-120mm f/4G ED VR .

The first is half the price of the second.
I am a fairly casual user mainly travels and local town events but need to replace my 18mm - 55mm kit lens.
Use the free Capture One Express.

Pondered a long time and read many reviews but just can't decide.
 
Messages
2,695
Name
Gil
Edit My Images
Yes
Personally I’d go for the one with the constant f/4 as you’ll get more separation of your subject to the background at the long end. It will also perform better inside and darker situations
 
Messages
240
Name
Steve France
Edit My Images
Yes
I went through the same decision process and went for the 24/120 and so far very pleased. Not to heavy, easy to use and some cracking shots, good sharp focus and I personally like the constant f4 throughout the range. Paired with my Sigma 150-600 gives me all the range I need.
 
Messages
1,845
Name
Peter
Edit My Images
Yes
I’m with nand. Isn’t the d3500 DX?
The 24-120 will start at 36mm Fx equivalent so you won’t get any wide angle shots.
I would go for 16-80 if funds allow. (I used to own this and it was a cracking lens) If not the 18-140.
 
OP
E

EJB

Messages
109
Name
Ted
Edit My Images
Yes
Nand. I did consider the 16-80 but like the longer reach of the other two as a walk about lens on it's own.....but point certainly taken...Thank you.:)
Peter. Didn't think of that....now thinking!
 
Last edited:
Messages
16,307
Name
Toni
Edit My Images
No
I'd say none of the above, though 16-80 is the best walkabout to pair with the 70-300. I'd look for a Sigma or Tamron 17/18-55 f2.8 as having better optical quality and a nice fast max aperture for low light.
 
OP
E

EJB

Messages
109
Name
Ted
Edit My Images
Yes
Thank you one and all.
I have decided on the 18-140.
16-80 too expensive and the others give me more suitable longer reach.
24-120 lack of wide angle and price did weigh a little.
18-55 I do need the extra reach.

18-140 good reach at both ends. Price excellent.
Can attend a day long event without the 70-300.
Image quality, sharpness and low light, below the other two but good enough for me to A4.
I do shoot RAW all the time and minor post processing adjustments can produce acceptable results.

Regards:)
 
Last edited:
Messages
7,698
Name
David
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi Ted

Everyone should have a fast Prime, 35mm or 50mm being the obvious. Either/both are cheap secondhand, and there's loads around.

Shooting RAW or not, you will get acceptable results with one of those. ;)
 
OP
E

EJB

Messages
109
Name
Ted
Edit My Images
Yes
Thanks David.
I have the 18mm - 55mm kit lens which will now be redundant.
I'm not a really serious photographer but treat it as a pleasant hobby and too many lenses only get in the way.
Some of my images from the early 60s, and later, I find as viewable today as any new ones taken on really clever equipment.
I only went 'dSLR' and a proper post processing programme to see if I could 'do it'!
It's a pleasant trip so far especially on here.
 
Messages
7,698
Name
David
Edit My Images
Yes
Indeed, too many lenses only get in the way. Some days I feel like selling a few (and/or buying a few!)

Some days I just want to put a different lens on and go out with a different perspective.

Ted @EJB you know where you are going and what's required (y) Maybe in a year or two you'll be changing direction. No rush. ;)
 
  • Like
Reactions: EJB
Top