Reading mode: Light Dark

24-70/2.8 to 24-120/4?

Go to last post
I use both the 24-120 F4 and the 24-70 F2.8. The 24-120 is a more recent purchase and I seem to use it a lot more on a D700 because of the extended range and VR. However, there is a strong likelihood that Nikon will soon introduce a 24 MP or 36 MP FF body. Assuming it is a high end amateur model and the price isn't too unreasonable, I can't wait to get the 24-70 on this body. I have used a 24 MP Sony A77 and the extra MP is definitely worth it, especially for nature. The higher resolving power of the 24-70 should be a great combination.
 
...no regrets whatsoever.

--
Tom, Ohio USA
http://www.flickr.com/photos/zuikosan/
http://tbower.zenfolio.com/

'One should not LIVE in the past, but one should never FORGET the past'.

'Did you ever get the feeling that the world was a tuxedo and you were a pair of brown shoes?'
---George Gobel, 1969

"You know you can't please everyone so you got to please yourself"
---Rick Nelson
 
Seriously, you guys think the 24-70 2.8 is that big and heavy? I have one, it has some heft to it but overall, it isn't large or heavy to me. The 70-200 2.8 VRII, now that is a big and heavy lens to me.

Dan
--
I am all about the images not the gear.
 
For proper indoor shots, you need to use a flash anyways. To avoid flash completely, even f2.8 isn't fast enough. You would need something like 50 1.4 or 35 1.4 anyways. For 90% of people on this forum 24-120 is probably good enough. 24-120 is definitely the better lens if you are outdoors. I'll take the much lighter weight, longer range, and VR for the little compromise in subject isolation in the 24-70mm range. You will get more bokeh from 120mm at f4 then if you cropped a 70mm at 2.8 anyways.
 
I wouldn't agree that the 24-120 is automatically much the better lens outdoors. Shooting action in low light for example, that VR ain't gonna help.
 
I used the 24-70 2.8 lens for quite some time. It is an excellent lens. Whether shooting for work or for personal reasons I found the 70mm end to be very limiting. The solution for me was to carry my 80-200 2.8 for those shots beyond 70mm reach. In a fast moving situation that meant two bodies in use at one time. OK, if that is what it takes, that is what I do. Then one day I took the time to research my focal length usage. I discovered that the vast majority (like 88%) of my shots were taken within the 24-120mm range. I was using 2 bodies and two lenses to do that.

I looked into the 24-120 4.0 VR. I had owned the earlier 24-120, and it was a dog, so I was skeptical. I read ever review I could find and watched forum discussions about the lens here at DPReview. There was a fair share of criticism in the forums, usually based upon some statistic in a review. I read reviews, but I make final conclusions based upon what the photos that it makes look like. Since I have been buying form the same Nikon pro dealer for decades, I took a body to the dealer and shot a range of pics to try the lens at different apertures and focal lengths. When I examined the photos in my computer I was impressed, really impressed. The 24-70 was a bit better in some ways, but n to enough mean anything in practical use (that is what I care about). I bought the 24-12/4.0 VR.

I use it for about four months and then sold the 24-70/2.8 Now it accounts for well over 80% of the photos I take. It has some distortion at 24mm, but I find it early correctable. I usually batch correct in Capture NX2 and then export the file to Aperture 3. Do I miss the f/2.8? No, i don't. The VR makes up for it. Do I miss the shallow depth of field at 2.8. Rarely, and I work around it when I need to.

A year ago I replaced my 17-35/2.8 with the 16-35/4 VR. No regrets. Recently, when shooting outdoors and in need of a lens over 120mm I use the 70-300 VR. No regrets. I still use the 80-200 2.8 at times, but not often.

My ready top go bag has a D700 with MBD10, a 16-35/4.0 VR, a 24-120/4.0 VR and a 70-300 4.5-5.6 VR in it. It is a fabulous kit when it comes to making good images for practical use.

If I could only have one lens it would be the 24-120/4.0 VR!

--
Richard Weisgrau
http://www.weisgrau.com
Author of
The Real Business of Photography
The Photographer's Guide to Negotiating
Selling Your Photography
Licensing Photography
 
The 24-70 2.8 is a fantastic lens but I LOVE the extra reach and the vivid sharpness of the 24-120 F4 VR!! So far I am impressed.

I went to Tarpon Springs yesterday and tested it out. Here are some samples.

24
 
noegd said:
Uncle Frank said:
Hi, Shaun. I sold my 28-70/2.8 a few months ago and replaced it with the 24-120/4VR. Absolutely no regrets. I'm getting much more use out of the Sweeper.
Click to expand...
Hi Frank,

I have recently got a 2nd hand 28-70 2.8 to go with my D700 and was pleasantly surprised at how sharp it was from full aperture (maybe a bit weaker at 70mm).

I also got a 2nd hand 28-105 AF-D as a lighter alternative, although I have not used it much yet.

A 24-120 f/4 VR seems like a no-nonsense alternative to this two zooms kit and I am sure the new VR zoom is sharper than the old 28-105 AF-D, but it looks quite bulky to me, and probably not as sharp in the corners and with a lot more distorsion than the 28-70 2.8.

Don't you miss the 28-70 2.8 IQ?
Click to expand...
Not a bit. The 24-120/4vr isn't nearly as bulky, and its range make it a better choice for my purposes.

--
Warm regards, Frank
Grand-Paparazzo
Galleries at fdrphoto.smugmug.com
 
I use both 24-70 and 24-120f4 on my D700.

The 24-70 is the better lens without a doubt, BUT the extra reach of the 24-120 and the VR (I don't have steady hands) means that I use the 24-120 most of the time - about 80% of the time.

The fact that the 24-120 aperture is maximum f4 as opposed to f2.8 is not that much of a bother to me.

If I HAD to sell one of these lenses it will be the 24-70, simply because the VR and extra reach of the 24-120 is very useful to me.

BTW - I tried the 24-120 on my Fuji S5 and found it to work VERY nice indeed.
--
Jacques

Apple & Eve : http://www.apple-and-eve.com
 
Yes, of course. The 24-120 has a lot more distortion throughout its range, and much more vignetting at 24mm as well as other settings. Sharpness is comparable at 50mm but at 24mm or 120mm it is far from the 24-70 or 70-200II's performance. In any case at f/4 it is difficult to get enough amibient light in the evening or night into the shots so what you will have then is the falloff of your flash light into distance (further away parts will be darker than those closer to the flash) and this is difficult to counter without letting in more ambient light. And as you let in more ambient light if you do it by dragging the shutter you will get some movement blur, and ghostly appearance of subjects.

The 24-120/4 is better than old variable aperture extended range standard zooms such as the 28-105 D (especially for the tele part of the range) but has more distortion and of course is much more expensive. The 24-70 by contrast is in every way a high standard lens somewhere between old primes and new high-end primes in image quality. What is most important is that the 24-70 delivers consistently high quality across focal lengths, apertures, and distances (with a somewhat weaker but still acceptable performance at 24mm at longer distances). The images are clean and crisp which are require very little post work which set them apart from images taken with the 24-120, which are only occasionally of this high standard.
 
JacquesC said:
The 24-70 is the better lens without a doubt,
Click to expand...
In your opinion, what makes it a better lens without a doubt

Build
f2.8
Distortion
Vignetting

I am no personally not concerned about these, but I do wonder about Sharpeness, Contrast, Color.

Thanks,

Ozzie
 
ofior said:
In your opinion, what makes it a better lens without a doubt

Build
f2.8
Distortion
Vignetting
Click to expand...
Subjectively and without referring to tests, I would say the build quality of the 24-70 is better - it feels somewhat sturdier. Distortion, vignetting, and CA are also better controlled. I don't find much noticeable difference with contrast and colour.
Like I said, my opinion is purely subjective.

i like both lenses very much !
--
Jacques

Apple & Eve : http://www.apple-and-eve.ifp3.com/
 
Thanks for your reply!

Ozzie
 
The responses follow a now common pattern. 5-10% of respondents will tell us that the 24-70 is markedly sharper than the 24-120 ant they can clearly see the difference. I won't rest until I rent a 24-70 and determine whether I can see that difference, and makes a difference in practical use.

In the meantime, I will continue to enjoy the 24-120.

Good luck!

Ozzie
 
I think what other lenses you like to shoot with drives this answer. Personally, I love to use the 70-200, so I don't want the overlap and the 24-70 is my answer, not the 24-120.
 
SUPERHOKIE said:
For proper indoor shots, you need to use a flash anyways.
Click to expand...
If you mean simple snapshots I might agree....might agree. Other wise I think this is an overstatement.

--
Tom, Ohio USA
http://www.flickr.com/photos/zuikosan/
http://tbower.zenfolio.com/

'One should not LIVE in the past, but one should never FORGET the past'.

'Did you ever get the feeling that the world was a tuxedo and you were a pair of brown shoes?'
---George Gobel, 1969

"You know you can't please everyone so you got to please yourself"
---Rick Nelson
 
I went the other way. Had the 24-120, sold it and replaced with the 24-70. While the 24-120 is not at all a bad lens, I was not happy with the minimum f/4 aperture and the bokeh is just "meh" compared to the 24-70. Also 24-70 AF is faster and its construction is much more solid, including weatherproofing (I've shot in the rain with the 24-70, would never try that with the 24-120).

It really depends on what you like to shoot. Personally I shoot wide open a lot (probably 90% of the time with non-landscape work), so for me the 24-120 is no comparison to the 24-70. The extra stop of DOF control and much better bokeh makes a huge difference for the types of things I shoot with it. It is bulky and heavy, but I didn't feel my D700 loaded with the 24-120 was significantly less heavy or bulky anyway. It might make the setup somewhat lighter and smaller, but in neither case was it "light" not "small". So I just suck it up (BlackRapid strap helps a lot).

24-120 tends to be a bit soft at the long end (120mm), 24-70 tends to be a bit soft at the wide end (24mm, but it gets sharp quickly by 28mm).
 
I will say that I wish the long end of the 24-70 was longer. My dream zoom lens (within reason) would be something like a 30mm-105mm f/2.4 with the IQ, AF speed and accuracy, bokeh, and build quality of the 24-70 f/2.8. You can do closeup portraits at 70mm, but it's definitely at the barely acceptable range for that purpose.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top