Yay another what lens thread! 24-70 f2.8 or 24-120/105 f4?

Nixon

Nixon

Messages
34
Edit My Images
Yes
I know we all love these threads, i'm in the market to quench my neglected GAS condition. Hopefully there will be a trip to an exotic land upcoming and I have realised that my shortest focal length is a 50mm Prime. I'm looking to invest in a new to me 2nd hand lens to compliment my kit bag and increase versatility,

A little about me, my shooting and my kit, i'm running a Nikon D750 FF body, I primarily will be spotted carrying a 70-200 F2.8 and a 50mm 1.8 prime, I also have a 150-600 and a 105 macro from Sigma.
I like to shoot cars, bikes and planes, with some animals and travel/holiday stuff, with a bit of street and opportunistic event type things thrown in. Not much modelling or portraiture, but do shoot people in their environment. The 70-200 is an essential lens for me, and does 80% of what I want to shoot.

I feel like I am limited without the wider focal lengths and need to address this, so far I am considering a Nikon 24-70 f2.8 (non VR) and either the Sigma 24-105 F4 or the Nikon 24-120 F4.

I have spent a good while checking stats and comparing the lenses theoretically, have a good grasp of what each ones offer over the others, but still its not a clear choice to me which way to go, and neither does the search or other forums. unfortunately no local stores have both to test back to back. Do I trade off the F2.8 for the F4 and stabilisation, or do I keep the line of pro levels matching up to the 70-200, they are all bulky and none are particularly "light". is the practicality of the wider focal length better than the more premium lens, i really am torn!

So I thought I would throw it out here to those that have had the real world experience, any nuggets of info for these lenses that go beyond stats and numbers? Talk me into it one way or another!
 
Last edited:
Nixon said:
I know we all love these threads, i'm in the market to quench my neglected GAS condition. Hopefully there will be a trip to an exotic land upcoming and I have realised that my shortest focal length is a 50mm Prime. I'm looking to invest in a new to me 2nd hand lens to compliment my kit bag and increase versatility,

A little about me, my shooting and my kit, i'm running a Nikon D750 FF body, I primarily will be spotted carrying a 70-200 F2.8 and a 50mm 1.8 prime, I also have a 150-600 and a 105 macro from Sigma.
I like to shoot cars, bikes and planes, with some animals and travel/holiday stuff, with a bit of street and opportunistic event type things thrown in. Not much modelling or portraiture, but do shoot people in their environment. The 70-200 is an essential lens for me, and does 80% of what I want to shoot.

I feel like I am limited without the wider focal lengths and need to address this, so far I am considering a Nikon 24-70 f2.8 (non VR) and either the Sigma 24-105 F4 or the Nikon 24-120 F4.

I have spent a good while checking stats and comparing the lenses theoretically, have a good grasp of what each ones offer over the others, but still its not a clear choice to me which way to go, and neither does the search or other forums. unfortunately no local stores have both to test back to back. Do I trade off the F2.8 for the F4 and stabilisation, or do I keep the line of pro levels matching up to the 70-200, they are all bulky and none are particularly "light". is the practicality of the wider focal length better than the more premium lens, i really am torn!

So I thought I would throw it out here to those that have had the real world experience, any nuggets of info for these lenses that go beyond stats and numbers? Talk me into it one way or another!
Click to expand...
I've had both the 24-120mm f4 and 24-70mm f2.8 (non VR) and always found myself using the 24-120mm more. In terms of sharpness there's not much in it, but I found the extra focal length useful. The 24-70mm foes have nicer bokeh when shooting with shallow DOF.
 
I’ve got the 24-120mm on my D750, and it’s not bad, but the 70-200mm I also have feels like a proper quality lens and I love it at f2.8.
it’s always made me want to change the 24-120mm for a 24-70mm to get the matching pair and that ability to go to f2.8, combined with the solid build quality.
if it was me I’d get the 24-70mm.
 
snerkler said:
I've had both the 24-120mm f4 and 24-70mm f2.8 (non VR) and always found myself using the 24-120mm more. In terms of sharpness there's not much in it, but I found the extra focal length useful. The 24-70mm foes have nicer bokeh when shooting with shallow DOF.
Click to expand...

Dito on all counts, and I found the lighter weight and VR on the 24-120 handy at times too.
 
The choice all depends on your wants/needs. If you want/need the extra stop of light gathering or the shallower DoF that the f/2.8 option gives, then that's the only option open to you. For me, the extra flexibility of the 24-120 and the VR made that my choice and I'm happier with it than I was with my 24-70 f/2.8 (unstabilized).
 
snerkler said:
I've had both the 24-120mm f4 and 24-70mm f2.8 (non VR) and always found myself using the 24-120mm more. In terms of sharpness there's not much in it, but I found the extra focal length useful. The 24-70mm foes have nicer bokeh when shooting with shallow DOF.
Click to expand...

I have both too and completely agree with this. If I'm shooting in the studio, I'll use the 24-70 as it's invariably on a tripod, but if I'm out and about, I'll take the 24-120 for the stabilisation.

I really should sell the 24-70 and buy the VRII version - I'll get round to it one day . . .
 
Those that like to extra reach, would you usually be carrying a telephoto as well or would you only be lugging the 24-70?
 
I don’t really use the extra reach, another reason I wish I had the 24-70, but I guess it depends what you shoot.
 
I have the D780 and the Nikon 24-120 f4 lens and love it. I don't have any telephoto lenses, the 24-120 covers pretty much all I need. I have a set of Nikon primes that offer faster speed in low light or for a shallow DOF.
 
Nixon said:
Those that like to extra reach, would you usually be carrying a telephoto as well or would you only be lugging the 24-70?
Click to expand...


I'll be carrying the 70-300 VR as well.
 
Depending on what I'd intended shooting, I'd have either the 70-200 or 150-600 as well.
 
Nixon said:
Those that like to extra reach, would you usually be carrying a telephoto as well or would you only be lugging the 24-70?
Click to expand...
It depends, if I'm away on hols I prefer to travel light and often it's too much faff to swap lenses so will usually just have the one lens. Also in these situations I'm usually taking landscapes or cityscapes and will be shooting at f8-11 and therefore there's no benefit of the f2.8 lens so I'd just be carrying extra weight for no reason. I only use 70-200mm f2.8 lenses for specific things, I don't use it for travel.
 
Nixon said:
I know we all love these threads, i'm in the market to quench my neglected GAS condition. Hopefully there will be a trip to an exotic land upcoming and I have realised that my shortest focal length is a 50mm Prime. I'm looking to invest in a new to me 2nd hand lens to compliment my kit bag and increase versatility,

A little about me, my shooting and my kit, i'm running a Nikon D750 FF body, I primarily will be spotted carrying a 70-200 F2.8 and a 50mm 1.8 prime, I also have a 150-600 and a 105 macro from Sigma.
I like to shoot cars, bikes and planes, with some animals and travel/holiday stuff, with a bit of street and opportunistic event type things thrown in. Not much modelling or portraiture, but do shoot people in their environment. The 70-200 is an essential lens for me, and does 80% of what I want to shoot.

I feel like I am limited without the wider focal lengths and need to address this, so far I am considering a Nikon 24-70 f2.8 (non VR) and either the Sigma 24-105 F4 or the Nikon 24-120 F4.

I have spent a good while checking stats and comparing the lenses theoretically, have a good grasp of what each ones offer over the others, but still its not a clear choice to me which way to go, and neither does the search or other forums. unfortunately no local stores have both to test back to back. Do I trade off the F2.8 for the F4 and stabilisation, or do I keep the line of pro levels matching up to the 70-200, they are all bulky and none are particularly "light". is the practicality of the wider focal length better than the more premium lens, i really am torn!

So I thought I would throw it out here to those that have had the real world experience, any nuggets of info for these lenses that go beyond stats and numbers? Talk me into it one way or another!
Click to expand...
I can relate somewhat - I would go with a 28mm prime rather than a wide angle zoom.
 
really depends on the type of photos you want. 24-105 is more of an allrounder. Shooting in good light nothing particularly shallow it will be great. If you prefer low light or shallow then go for the 2.8
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nod
Thanks for all the input guys.
I found that two stores in the city had one of each in stock so went over to have a back to back comparison.

The first 24-120 was priced up as over £900, which was a bit of a shock considering it’s half that price everywhere else. after trying to clarify with the sales boy, he told me it was because it was a “G” lens, and there were a few versions of it, after a few other inane excuses he only conceded to double check on the system after I showed the exact lens on their website at the correct price.

The lens itself was “meh” more heavily used than they wanted to believe and not all that sharp, pretty soft with some strong distortion at 24 but also at 35, which was disappointing, but would stand to reason that it’s maybe one of those bad copies, hence has been traded in.

Next I went off to seek the 24-70, got to the store, checking the window and it’s not there, go inside, nope. Ask the sales guy and he tells me it’s gone, got sent to another store an hour ago, so can’t even try one out. No go on that one either.

So all round a fairly dull trip, although I did discover the fantastic wandrd prvke bag and was impressed by the DJI mini 2 drone to replace my ageing and soon to be unflyable phantom 3.

I decided to plump on the 24-70 from MPB in the end, weight wise is similar to the sigma 24-105 and can share 77mm filters with the 70-200. It’s hefty, but is so far ahead in quality and IQ than the 24-120 I tried. I’m convinced it was the right decision. If I’m wrong, it’s not going to lose me a great deal of value if I need to trade it in.
 
Nixon said:
Thanks for all the input guys.
I found that two stores in the city had one of each in stock so went over to have a back to back comparison.

The first 24-120 was priced up as over £900, which was a bit of a shock considering it’s half that price everywhere else. after trying to clarify with the sales boy, he told me it was because it was a “G” lens, and there were a few versions of it, after a few other inane excuses he only conceded to double check on the system after I showed the exact lens on their website at the correct price.

The lens itself was “meh” more heavily used than they wanted to believe and not all that sharp, pretty soft with some strong distortion at 24 but also at 35, which was disappointing, but would stand to reason that it’s maybe one of those bad copies, hence has been traded in.

Next I went off to seek the 24-70, got to the store, checking the window and it’s not there, go inside, nope. Ask the sales guy and he tells me it’s gone, got sent to another store an hour ago, so can’t even try one out. No go on that one either.

So all round a fairly dull trip, although I did discover the fantastic wandrd prvke bag and was impressed by the DJI mini 2 drone to replace my ageing and soon to be unflyable phantom 3.

I decided to plump on the 24-70 from MPB in the end, weight wise is similar to the sigma 24-105 and can share 77mm filters with the 70-200. It’s hefty, but is so far ahead in quality and IQ than the 24-120 I tried. I’m convinced it was the right decision. If I’m wrong, it’s not going to lose me a great deal of value if I need to trade it in.
Click to expand...
Sounds like you tried a bad copy of the 24-120, I have one and it's a lovely lens, especially considering it only cost an extra £250 new when I bought the D780 with lens combo.
Hopefully you will be happy with the 24-70. Sounds like a good lens.
 
I have been quite happy with the results from my 24-120 f/4 VR glass on my D750 & D780. Don’t go near the earlier versions of the 24-120 lenses.
 
I think the 24-120/f4 is the best "kit" lens I've ever had, or used. The 24-70/f2.8 (of which I have owned two) is also an excellent lens but IME the 24-120 is more practical due to the extended range. YMMV.
 
When the 24-70/2.8 came out the other option as a 'kit lens' was the 24-120/3.5-5,6. I bought my D3 in 2010 and having splurged all the cash on the body I had to save up for the zoom. Ideally I wanted the 2.8 and advice was avoid the 24-120. Gash was one of the descriptions used for the 24-120. Then the 24-120/4 came out, and the chasm between the 24-120/4 and 24-70/2.8 was much narrower, the new lens was such an improvement over the older one. So, I bought the 24-120, leaving the extra pennies for the 300/4 and 70-200/2.8 VR1. Not regretted it, fabulous all-round lens. Then I bought the 24-70 when they started coming down in price used. Amazing lens, especially for the D810 I have now and for the type of photography I use the D810 for, the 24-70 is default (camera is mostly on tripod).

On a D750 I don't think you'd be disappointed with either lens. If you had D8*0 (810 or 850) I'd recommend the 24-70, and saving for the Mk2.
 
Bristolian said:
I think the 24-120/f4 is the best "kit" lens I've ever had, or used. The 24-70/f2.8 (of which I have owned two) is also an excellent lens but IME the 24-120 is more practical due to the extended range. YMMV.
Click to expand...


For Nikon, yes, although the old 18-70 was pretty good in its day! However, IMO the Fuji 18-55 is better than the f/4 24-120 (but only on the Fujis!!!) Having had the old version of the 24-120, I can confirm that it was rather less than good... If I wanted/needed the shallower DoF that the f/2.8 lens offers, I'd have one but I'm happy with upping the ISO a stop to compensate for the lack of light gathering and having the extra flexibility of the extra 50mm zoom range.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top