Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8 v. Nikon 24-120mm f/4 VR

[WDWFigment]

I had previously pretty much dismissed the Nikon 24-120mm f/4 VR out of hand as a basic kit lens. However, the more I read about it, the more impressive it sounds. It seems that the image quality isn't quite as nice as the 24-70mm, but it's really close.

Looking for a recommendation. By way of background, here's what my bag currently includes:

• Nikon D700
• Nikon 14-24mm f/2.8
• Nikon 50mm f/1.8
• Access to, but not ownership of, Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8

I'll be using whichever lens I purchase almost exclusively at in the parks. While the f/2.8 is appealing, I actually think the VR trumps it from the perspective of "speed." Obviously not in the case of dark rides, but in the early-evening when I do a lot of handheld shooting when I ideally should be using a tripod. It'd be my only lens with VR, so that makes it alluring.

The extra range of the 24-120 is also somewhat appealing and might save me from changing lenses to the 70-200 in some cases, but isn't a must. Another plus of the 24-120 is the price, but I'm willing to spend the extra money on the 24-70mm if its quality and features make it worth it.

Has anyone used either of these lenses? Both? Thoughts?

 

[NLD]

Curious to hear thoughts... where is gdad?

Pretty sure a midrange zoom is the next thing I want. Was sort of set on saving up for the 24-70 but enough positive comments about the 24-120 could perhaps change that. It's just... nothing really replaces 2.8 for out of focus backgrounds... and the samples I've seen from both lenses suggest the bokeh is more pleasing on the 24-70.

 

[WDWFigment]

Curious to hear thoughts... where is gdad?

Pretty sure a midrange zoom is the next thing I want. Was sort of set on saving up for the 24-70 but enough positive comments about the 24-120 could perhaps change that. It's just... nothing really replaces 2.8 for out of focus backgrounds... and the samples I've seen from both lenses suggest the bokeh is more pleasing on the 24-70.

I posted the same question on Google+ and tagged Jeff, so hopefully he'll answer it here or there.

The f/2.8 would be great for bokeh and portraits, and if I were a wedding photographer, I'd probably buy the 24-70 without a second thought. But as a "theme parks photographer," I'm not quite sure that the slight improvement in bokeh/oof area is enough for me.

 

[NLD]

Yeah I hear you, Tom.

I've sort turned into the "conference photographer" in my work circles for a bunch of work-related conferences I end up at.... so 2.8 is pretty valuable indoors. So far I'm always shooting them with primes or a 80-200 2.8.

F/4 might be a stretch.... but that little bit of extra reach would be nice.

 

[HPS3]

I don't shoot FF, though I probably would if I could afford it. I currently shoot with a NEX 7 like Hamilton. I have the LA-EA2 adapter and Sigma 17-50 f2.8 with OS. I think the VR would be more valuable to me than the f2.8. I shoot a lot under 1/60. Tom, for your type of shooting(WDW), I think you would fare better with the VR vs 1 stop of light. I know your D700 is a high ISO camera, so my 1600 is like your 6400 or more. I'm just saying that f2.8 on your D7000 would be the same as f4 on your D700. You might lose the bokeh/OOF of the f2.8, but f2.8 doesn't exactly make the background creamy like a 70-200. I know that sometimes I wish I had more range than my 17-50 and have lost shots taking the time to change lenses. I look forward to seeing photos from whichever lens you purchase.

 

[rossb]

I had previously pretty much dismissed the Nikon 24-120mm f/4 VR out of hand as a basic kit lens.

Don't think I've ever seen a kit lens with constant aperture and Nano coating. The samples I've seen from it look very good. I plan to get one when my D800 is eventually delivered, but I think I am going to be waiting a long time. I'd also like to see a 24-70 vs 24-120 shoot out.

 

[Pixel Dust]

Hey Tom, why not have your cake and eat it too? The Tamron 24-70mm f/2.8 DI VC USD has everything you need; full frame, focal length, aperture, and vibration control (vibration reduction for us Nikon guys). It also cost less than the Nikon 24-70mm. It's not out yet but looks to be available May 30th. Hopefully the build quality and sharpness of this lens justifies the high price (relative to 3rd party pricing).

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/845350-REG/Tamron_SP_24_70mm_f_2_8_DI.html

http://fstoppers.com/editorial-why-the-tamron-24-70mm-matters

 

[WDWFigment]

I bought the 24-70, but it still doesn't end this for me. I'm becoming more and more convinced that the 24-120 f/4 is the lens I want, especially after talking to Jeff (Gdad) on Google+.

For now, though, the 24-70 will be nice to have while I try to find a good deal on the 24-120.

Don't think I've ever seen a kit lens with constant aperture and Nano coating. The samples I've seen from it look very good. I plan to get one when my D800 is eventually delivered, but I think I am going to be waiting a long time. I'd also like to see a 24-70 vs 24-120 shoot out.

Good points, but it's also rare to see a pro-grade lens in this focal range with these stats and that price.

You can't fault my thinking here: it seems too good to be true. From the sounds of things, though, it is true.

Hey Tom, why not have your cake and eat it too? The Tamron 24-70mm f/2.8 DI VC USD has everything you need; full frame, focal length, aperture, and vibration control (vibration reduction for us Nikon guys). It also cost less than the Nikon 24-70mm. It's not out yet but looks to be available May 30th. Hopefully the build quality and sharpness of this lens justifies the high price (relative to 3rd party pricing).

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/845350-REG/Tamron_SP_24_70mm_f_2_8_DI.html

http://fstoppers.com/editorial-why-the-tamron-24-70mm-matters

I might eventually purchase that lens. I'll have to see how the reviews sound and what it actually costs once Amazon stocks it.

 

[tjl1388]

For very good reason the 14-24, 24-70 and the 70-200 are considered the "Holy Trinity" of Nikon.

While the 24-120 is a great lens it is not a pro grade lens.

The 24-70 lens is ridiculously sharp probably only less sharp than the famed 200 F2....drooool.

 

[handicap18]

This is a tough one. When I got my 24-70 f/2.8 the 24-120 wasn't even available as an option.

I would seriously consider the 24-120 f/4 as almost perfect on a FF. I to have read great things about. I have a old Nikkor 70-210mm f/4 and that lens is great. Very sharp, but no VR. Going down to f/4 through out the range is very nice, adding VR to it makes it even better.

Its a very tough call. I absolutely love the Nikkor 24-70 f/2.8. Its sharp, great IQ and focus is crazy fast and VERY accurate. Your argument about having the 24-120 range for the "theme parks photographer" is very good and might make it the better lens for you.

Either way though, you can't go wrong. There is no wrong answer (though personally I would stay away from the Sigma, I didn't use the one mentioned about, but did buy another version of that f/2.8 and was very disappointed, especially with the focus accuracy and speed).

 

[toomanycars]

I have had the 24-120 and now have the 24-70. If you match the sharpness of your 14-24 you may not like the 24-120. I my opinion the 24-120 is a good lens, but the 14-24 2.8, 24-70 2.8 and 70-200 2.8 are great lenses.

I just sold my 24-120 because on my new D800 it did not make the grade.

 

[SunDial]

i have the 24-70 2.8 and it is a great lense. I have it on my D40 just about all the time. Now just have to get a much better body

 

[WDWFigment]

My 24-70mm f/2.8 arrived over the weekend, and it just doesn't do it for me. I don't know what, exactly, I was expecting. I guess I was expecting it to be the 24-70mm equivalent of the 14-24mm f/2.8. It's not.

While the latter is the most amazing lens I've ever touched and is like a child to me (seriously, it sits at our table and eats dinner with us now; Sarah thinks this is weird for some odd reason!), to me, the 24-70mm is just a "great" lens with very limited range. For the price, at this point in my life, "great" isn't enough.

For now I'm just going to stick with the 14-24mm f/2.8, 50mm f/1.8, and a borrowed Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8 (or Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8 VR if I can borrow that!). If I find a good deal on the 24-120 at some point, I'll get that, too. No rush, though.

 

[NLD]

Tom, may not be an option for you since it doesn't have VR, but...

The older 80-200 2.8 Nikons are worth a look if you're willing to sacrifice VR. I bought a push-pull used and have been very happy with it.


I know that lens is exactly the one folks really want the VR, though.

 

[Gdad]

My 24-70mm f/2.8 arrived over the weekend, and it just doesn't do it for me. I don't know what, exactly, I was expecting.

This made me laugh because I'm pretty sure I posted something similar a few years ago. People love it but I found the 24-70 to be kind of uninspiring- good (too good?) almost clinical- no flavor- no personality. But then again I kind of feel that way about every mid-range zoom.

 

[WDWFigment]

This made me laugh because I'm pretty sure I posted something similar a few years ago. People love it but I found the 24-70 to be kind of uninspiring- good (too good?) almost clinical- no flavor- no personality. But then again I kind of feel that way about every mid-range zoom.

Well, you've never once steered me wrong (Sigma 30, Rokinon Fisheye, IR camera) so perhaps we have similar tastes. Don't get me wrong, the 24-70 was a really sharp lens that produced very nice images (although after making my initial post here I discovered it had an autofocus issue in moderate to low light--I've already returned it). It's actually hard to articulate why it didn't do it for me. The image quality was amazing and the images were tack sharp. I guess it's just that it's a middle of the road focal range that--I feel--is very limiting creatively. If you're going for more traditional photos, it's a great lens. My shooting style isn't very 'traditional' I guess.

Jeff, since you've been right so much in the past, what do you think of the 70-200 lenses on full frame? In the past I have borrowed a Nikon 70-200 VR I and a Tamron 70-200 2.8 from different relatives. I definitely preferred the Nikon due to VR. I didn't use either a ton, but I think they'll be more useful with full frame. Right now, I'm debating between: A) continuing to just borrow the Tamron for now (Nikon is too far away); B) buying the Nikon VR I; or C) buying the Nikon VR II. Suggestions?

 

[rossb]

Do you have any D700/24-70 samples you can share? How about any D700 vs D7000 comparison shots?

 

[WDWFigment]

Do you have any D700/24-70 samples you can share? How about any D700 vs D7000 comparison shots?

I took a lot of sample shots with the lens before returning it, all with the D700. I'll probably write a review on my blog at some point over the weekend or next week.

 

[WDWFigment]

...and I just purchased a 24-120mm! So I won't be able to do side-by-side comparisons, but I'll be able to come close!

 

[rossb]

Nice, I am envious. I'm going to be waiting a long time for my D800.