Lets see 24-70f2.8 and 24-120f4 same photos test

That's similar to what I have found while comparing those lenses by myself - 24-120 is a very good lens and huge improvement over its predecessor, but 24-70 outputs are visibly better for me.

So that's all about if you prefer better IQ and faster max. aperture or more flexible FL range and VR.
--
http://www.intopicture.com

Chas B said:

These are rather different lenses with different purposes, and not really one or the other. Should we also compare the 24-120 and the 70-200? Also interesting, also not very important.

The 24-120 f/4 is very much a walk-about lens, not so much the 24-70 f/2.8.

I have the previous f/2.8 troika (17-35, 28-70, 70-200) covering a wide range with pro glass. I also have the 24-120 f/3.5-5.6 which I will replace with the new one, since I want f/4 above 35mm.

Click to expand...

There are many factors to consider for a lens, and each of us needs to judge the utility and acceptabilty on the factors we consider important.

For me, the 24-70 is not a great walk-about lens because of weight and limited range. I happen to like the 24-120 range and the new one suits my needs - I'm a little dismayed by the price, oh well.

24-120 @23.6 oz. $1300
24-70 @31.7 oz. $1900
70-200 @54.3 oz. $2400

I will test the 24-120 on the DX..

So far manyt 24-70 f2.8 owners were so wrong saying the 24-120 will NOT come close to their 24-70 LENS ..YA RIGHT..

in fact the 24-120 look better than the 24-70 ...
look at the water reflection ..much better in the 24-120..

as for the slight dark cupper left corner ..no problem removing it in a snap of a finger

AS for your answers to my comment are about the lens advantage are way off line...
talk about a brainless remarks.. man get with it ..

hey bud

tell all of us wanting this wonderful 24-120 vr lens what three stores has them in stock that out perform the 24-70 at 24mm wide..

just look at the very first photo done with 24-70 at 24mm wide
the reflection in water NOT near as clear/ sharp as the 24-120

Again thanks Nikon to provided a super lens for us
we professional realize this lens is a keeper along with 35mm f1.4 lens
for doing weddings ....

glad i sold my 24-70

Chas B said:

These are rather different lenses with different purposes, and not really one or the other.

Click to expand...

Well, one can not own all the lenses Nikon makes. The point of the comparison between 24-120/4 and 24-70 (and 70-200 over the tele range) is that one of the reasons the 24-120 is interesting is because it allows one to zoom around the 70mm "switching point" which is very commonly needed in people photography. However, if the 24-120 doesn't meet acceptable image quality standards or there is a substantial quality loss going from the f/2.8 zooms to the new 24-120, then the lens doesn't serve this purpose. For someone interested in using the 24-120 for portrait photography or outdoor events, this comparison is very important as if the quality difference is too great then it's simply not worth it just for the sake of convenience.

Chas B said:

Should we also compare the 24-120 and the 70-200?

Click to expand...

Yes, we should.

Chas B said:

The 24-120 f/4 is very much a walk-about lens, not so much the 24-70 f/2.8.

Click to expand...

I walk around with 28/2, 50mm, and 85mm primes. I don't see why the 24-120 would be good for that, especially since a lot of walk-around shooting (at least in my case) involves architecture so a lens with high distortion is not a good choice. Also, I usually prefer a walk-around lens to be smaller than a zoom. In many cases I will want to use large apertures. In the shade, or along narrow streets, f/4 is too slow to photograph people. So I would not consider f/4 lenses for street except in unusual situations.

Ilkka

Ilkka Nissilä said:

Chas B said:

These are rather different lenses with different purposes, and not really one or the other.

Click to expand...

Well, one can not own all the lenses Nikon makes. The point of the comparison between 24-120/4 and 24-70 (and 70-200 over the tele range) is that one of the reasons the 24-120 is interesting is because it allows one to zoom around the 70mm "switching point" which is very commonly needed in people photography. However, if the 24-120 doesn't meet acceptable image quality standards or there is a substantial quality loss going from the f/2.8 zooms to the new 24-120, then the lens doesn't serve this purpose. For someone interested in using the 24-120 for portrait photography or outdoor events, this comparison is very important as if the quality difference is too great then it's simply not worth it just for the sake of convenience.

Click to expand...

I agree that "if the 24-120 doesn't meet acceptable image quality standards" then it doesn't serve its purpose. However, I just don't agree that judging against the 24-70 is necessarily the criterion to use. When I absolutely need pro 2.8 glass IQ, I will use that glass, but I don't hold a walk-about lens to that standard. So, as I said, the comparison is interesting but not compelling.

Ilkka Nissilä said:

Ilkka Nissilä said:

Should we also compare the 24-120 and the 70-200?

Click to expand...

Yes, we should.

Click to expand...

I absolutely agree - it's just that no one was asking for it.

Ilkka Nissilä said:

Ilkka Nissilä said:

The 24-120 f/4 is very much a walk-about lens, not so much the 24-70 f/2.8.

Click to expand...

I walk around with 28/2, 50mm, and 85mm primes. I don't see why the 24-120 would be good for that, especially since a lot of walk-around shooting (at least in my case) involves architecture so a lens with high distortion is not a good choice. Also, I usually prefer a walk-around lens to be smaller than a zoom. In many cases I will want to use large apertures. In the shade, or along narrow streets, f/4 is too slow to photograph people. So I would not consider f/4 lenses for street except in unusual situations.

Click to expand...

Yes, there may be as many definitions of "walk-about" lens as there are photographers. Since my main interests are nature and ephemera, having a camera/lens that can cover a good range at a moments notice is valuable. When hiking, the D700 & 24-120 combo is nearly perfect. "Ephemera" refers to events & situations of short duration, so the camera has to be ready now, not after I've switched to the better lens.

For some, the lightest rig is their walk-about. For me, it's the balance of acceptable weight, IQ, and range.

I have the f/2.8 trinity (17-35, 28-70, 70-200) and none of these are walk-about candidates for me, nor are any of my primes.

Here we go again.

Fanboy defending his own purchase choice, and thus it must be better

YOU product something to prove your point or leave us the hell alone with this childish squabling every time.

--
I'z lovez AiS'ez

Fanboy!!!

What, are you 13 and daddy bought you the 24-120 and now it "da bomb". All your posts are of this ridiculous level, comparing apples and oranges and because "it comes close" it is better all of a sudden because you say so, that's stupid-teenager logic.

--
I'z lovez AiS'ez

You don't have any of these lenses yet yap like you know what you are talking about. What a tosser...

--
I'z lovez AiS'ez

Another example of your logic. Reflections in the water look better, so the 24-120 is better. Dude!

--
I'z lovez AiS'ez

This is 18-200 love/hate all over again with one big BUT!

This is a FX zoom so the measurabators and peepers are much more prevelant in FX land you perverts know who you are

There is little question the 24-70 is class leading with missing elements, namely VR.

The 24-120 is a constant zoom of course it will give up a little in speed and quality with the air pump design, but that was a trade off. The 28-300 is truely a do all superzoom.

Each lense was designed with larger overiding priorities.

Perverts go look else where for you fantas, or perhaps get out and use your equipment instead of.... this 24-120 F4 is pretty darn good, the only downside is price/value.

SixDasher said:

Fanboy!!!

What, are you 13 and daddy bought you the 24-120 and now it "da bomb". All your posts are of this ridiculous level, comparing apples and oranges and because "it comes close" it is better all of a sudden because you say so, that's stupid-teenager logic.

--
I'z lovez AiS'ez

Click to expand...

"we professionals"... get serious.

--
I'z lovez AiS'ez

So you feel like a better photographer with your facts and 24-120mm now go enjoy

I don't recall any 24-70mm f2.8 users say the 24-120 will NOT come close..I have the 24-70mm f2.8 and will be getting the 24-120mm for a walk around but there aren't any facts regarding which is better, mft charts and all that nonsense doesn't mean squat if the photographer doesn't know what they're doing...there's other aspect to photography other then sharpness, it's all subjective....

tomboy said:

I will test the 24-120 on the DX..

So far manyt 24-70 f2.8 owners were so wrong saying the 24-120 will NOT come close to their 24-70 LENS ..YA RIGHT..

in fact the 24-120 look better than the 24-70 ...
look at the water reflection ..much better in the 24-120..

as for the slight dark cupper left corner ..no problem removing it in a snap of a finger

AS for your answers to my comment are about the lens advantage are way off line...
talk about a brainless remarks.. man get with it ..

Click to expand...

--

'I am what I am and that's all I am' Popeye 1960. Favorite famous Hollywood celebrity. Don't have time for the rest.....

Andre De Angelis said:

tomboy said:

WHY ..
quality images sharpness is so close ....
most will not able to see any difference ..if any

Click to expand...

Perhaps not on 12 MP images, but the 24-70 has already been proven on the D3X. I am pretty sure the 24-120 will show weaknesses at higher resolutions.

Click to expand...

This is an important but often overlooked issue. While I'm perfectly happy with my D700 and not in any rush to 'upgrade', there's no doubt that a camera with > 20 mp is in my future. When that day comes, the 24-70 will shine. dave

LOL!! Typical.....

SixDasher said:

You don't have any of these lenses yet yap like you know what you are talking about. What a tosser...

--
I'z lovez AiS'ez

Click to expand...

--

'I am what I am and that's all I am' Popeye 1960. Favorite famous Hollywood celebrity. Don't have time for the rest.....

hi dude

i thank you for agreeing that image is better with 24-120 of refection in the water ...
taken at 24 mm wide at f4.

thanks nikon
for doing a great job

oh..really ..we pro get serious ..
so i gather to be a pro one needs to use a f2.8 24-70 lens
perhaps one time .TO RUBBISH ..

face it..the new 24-120 vr f4 will be a delight to use
lots of plus using it ..me and other professional see this lens
be ideal for weddings and portraits..

on i been a pro over 25 years and to this day son i get people
learning

..... a Canadian? You sound like someone from the U.S. of A. :-(

tomboy said:

oh..really ..we pro get serious ..
so i gather to be a pro one needs to use a f2.8 24-70 lens
perhaps one time .TO RUBBISH ..

face it..the new 24-120 vr f4 will be a delight to use
lots of plus using it ..me and other professional see this lens
be ideal for weddings and portraits..

on i been a pro over 25 years and to this day son i get people
learning

Click to expand...

--



http://www.flickr.com/photos/22388579@N08/

NO boy I am NOT 13..nor care to chat with a person your level ..

it seems to me your the fanboy here..

Perhaps u can not accept how good the 24-120 vr is
and you need to take out your frustration with your silly childest comments

My prefers is the 24-120 yours 24-70 so be it ..
now move on boy ..one gets tired of people like u here

tomboy said:

tell all of us wanting this wonderful 24-120 vr lens what three stores has them in stock that out perform the 24-70 at 24mm wide..

Click to expand...

Do you live in Sydney Australia?

tomboy said:

just look at the very first photo done with 24-70 at 24mm wide
the reflection in water NOT near as clear/ sharp as the 24-120

Click to expand...

Rubbish. All the shots taken with with the 24-120 were taken in calmer conditions. the water surface was less relfective during the 24-70 tests.

tomboy said:

Again thanks Nikon to provided a super lens for us
we professional realize this lens is a keeper along with 35mm f1.4 lens
for doing weddings ....

Click to expand...

Oh but won't the 35 1.4 give you limited reach and force you to change lenses?

And how do you know the 35 1.4 is any good?

tomboy said:

glad i sold my 24-70

Click to expand...

Glad I bough mine. It wil ldefinitely pay dividends once we move beyond 12 MP.