Excellent point
I forgot all about the VR...
A 4 f/stop value in one (or two) easy payment.
Joke apart, I honestly think that the 28-300 is far more interesting than the 24-120.
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Lets see 24-70f2.8 and 24-120f4 same photos test
- Thread starter tomboy
- Start date
I forgot all about the VR...
A 4 f/stop value in one (or two) easy payment.
Joke apart, I honestly think that the 28-300 is far more interesting than the 24-120.
tomboy
Senior Member
was a yanky ..glad i am not living there any more
usa in deep trouble $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
canada way better to be in ...
friendly place..
great for my photography business
making tons of money..
usa in deep trouble $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
canada way better to be in ...
friendly place..
great for my photography business
making tons of money..
These are lenses for somewhat different purposes and users. Again, I am interested in how the IQ compares to the well-regarded 24-70, but it won't likely affect my buy decision.
What was important, for instance, was how the 24-70 compared to the 28-70 f/2.8 that I have. It wasn't enough better for me to get it.
What was important, for instance, was how the 24-70 compared to the 28-70 f/2.8 that I have. It wasn't enough better for me to get it.
tomboy
Senior Member
U R saying things that R not true ..
providing faults information
How Pathetic
providing faults information
How Pathetic
Andre De Angelis
Senior Member
Pathetic is that it took this long to out you as a troll.
The evidence speaks for itself. You simply parrot the same fanboy garbage on every thread about this new lens.
Buy the lens and be happy with it. Strop trying to convince everyone else that they need to sell their 24-70's because you think it's a great idea.
The evidence speaks for itself. You simply parrot the same fanboy garbage on every thread about this new lens.
Buy the lens and be happy with it. Strop trying to convince everyone else that they need to sell their 24-70's because you think it's a great idea.
Andre De Angelis
Senior Member
PhillipAnthony
Well-known member
Well i also have D3X and use it in my studio all the time with the 85 1.4.
I have the 24-70 sitting on my desk never used as its just a boring range and quite long and heavy.
I used to be with Canon and used a 1DS MK2 with the 24-105mm! 105mm is perfect for studio use. 24-70 is good but just not long enough for close up portraiture!!
Used that all the time in studio and it was AMAZING and found myself using that for walkabout also all the time.
So i am very very tempted to buy the new 24-120 as my professional studio lens and walkabout.
My 70-200 MK2 and my 200mm f2.0 are too big and heavy for hour long studio portrait shoots.
I did use my 105vr when i first switched to Nikon but found it just constantly was too SLOW to focus and i missed loads of shots so i decided to use the 85mm 1.4 which is just about long enough in focal length but, and its a big but, i shoot at F16 cos of the powerful lights and thats the max aperture of the 85 so i loose some quality!
Hence the 24-120 seems perfect choice!
Great! another lens to buy!!!!!
--
Phill
I have the 24-70 sitting on my desk never used as its just a boring range and quite long and heavy.
I used to be with Canon and used a 1DS MK2 with the 24-105mm! 105mm is perfect for studio use. 24-70 is good but just not long enough for close up portraiture!!
Used that all the time in studio and it was AMAZING and found myself using that for walkabout also all the time.
So i am very very tempted to buy the new 24-120 as my professional studio lens and walkabout.
My 70-200 MK2 and my 200mm f2.0 are too big and heavy for hour long studio portrait shoots.
I did use my 105vr when i first switched to Nikon but found it just constantly was too SLOW to focus and i missed loads of shots so i decided to use the 85mm 1.4 which is just about long enough in focal length but, and its a big but, i shoot at F16 cos of the powerful lights and thats the max aperture of the 85 so i loose some quality!
Hence the 24-120 seems perfect choice!
Great! another lens to buy!!!!!
--
Phill
f16 for portraiture??? What kind of studio do you run where you have to shoot at f16 to keep shutter speed to 1/8000? That's enough light for high-speed camera work, like in crash-testing. If you have too much light, turn them down man.
24-120 is about the last lens I would think of for portraiture with it's just-okay f4 performance. Just like the 24-70 is not so optimal with it's short range for portraiture (not it's intended purpose btw). If you're a pro dealing with portraiture, I would think you would have the right tools. Lenses and lighting seem to be totally wrong in your case, maybe study up on photography?
On an FX I would go at least 85mm and then only for it's shallow DoF. This is the market they invented the 150/135DC lenses for by the way.
Are you the same kind of "PRO" that Tomboy is? Because your comments make little sense to me.
PS: I'm not a pro, don't need to brag to get a sense of value, I shoot both systems and have or have had the lenses you talk about and a bunch more. If you are a pro, then I should try it as well, maybe get the 28-300 and I'm off to be pro #1.
--
I'z lovez AiS'ez
24-120 is about the last lens I would think of for portraiture with it's just-okay f4 performance. Just like the 24-70 is not so optimal with it's short range for portraiture (not it's intended purpose btw). If you're a pro dealing with portraiture, I would think you would have the right tools. Lenses and lighting seem to be totally wrong in your case, maybe study up on photography?
On an FX I would go at least 85mm and then only for it's shallow DoF. This is the market they invented the 150/135DC lenses for by the way.
Are you the same kind of "PRO" that Tomboy is? Because your comments make little sense to me.
PS: I'm not a pro, don't need to brag to get a sense of value, I shoot both systems and have or have had the lenses you talk about and a bunch more. If you are a pro, then I should try it as well, maybe get the 28-300 and I'm off to be pro #1.
--
I'z lovez AiS'ez
PhillipAnthony
Well-known member
Sixdasher,
Not very nice comments!!
I shoot with elinchrom 500 classic heads which are rather powerful and f16/250th is what is required to get plenty of depth of field for action family shoots. Plus i cant put the lights further away in a smallish studio!
Fyi 24-120 is actually the perfect focal length for what i do and many others do.
Mainly shoot at long end of course but wide is handy for the larger groups.
Perhaps think about what you say before saying it!!
--
Phill
Not very nice comments!!
I shoot with elinchrom 500 classic heads which are rather powerful and f16/250th is what is required to get plenty of depth of field for action family shoots. Plus i cant put the lights further away in a smallish studio!
Fyi 24-120 is actually the perfect focal length for what i do and many others do.
Mainly shoot at long end of course but wide is handy for the larger groups.
Perhaps think about what you say before saying it!!
--
Phill
Andre De Angelis
Senior Member
PhillipAnthony,
I too am a little confused by your requirements. So you are happy to lug arouns a D3X, but a 70-200 is too heavy for you? Wow! I did an all day corporate gig teh other day with my D700 + MB-D10 grip and 70-200. No problem.
Incidentally, I used a combo of Elinchrom Ranger Pack and RX600 heads.
I found the 85 too short for studio work in general, though it produced great results. Was it the D? I'm surprised it wasn't a soft on a D3X?
Yes the 24-70 is a boring range, but happens to be an ideal one for wedding shoots. It's long long and heavy on a small body, but I find balance more important that weight, and the 24-70 balances well on a D3/D3X body.
I too am a little confused by your requirements. So you are happy to lug arouns a D3X, but a 70-200 is too heavy for you? Wow! I did an all day corporate gig teh other day with my D700 + MB-D10 grip and 70-200. No problem.
Incidentally, I used a combo of Elinchrom Ranger Pack and RX600 heads.
I found the 85 too short for studio work in general, though it produced great results. Was it the D? I'm surprised it wasn't a soft on a D3X?
Yes the 24-70 is a boring range, but happens to be an ideal one for wedding shoots. It's long long and heavy on a small body, but I find balance more important that weight, and the 24-70 balances well on a D3/D3X body.
You could always use a tripod to mount it between shooting
I don't get it. You're doing action family shoots, yet you want to shoot tight? How does that work?
The 24-70 does larger groups already.
PhillipAnthony
Well-known member
Hi,
Yes 24-70 ideal for weddings but thats all i find it ideal for.
If your in a studio all day then you wont want to be holding a 70-200 trust me!
I am very happy with everything that i have.. My point was that when i do studio work ( Against a white background ) that i find i need 1 lens to do it all and the canon 24-105 was perfect at that so i reckon the 24-120 will be just as good.
Its a bit limiting using the 85 all the time !
ONE LENS IS ALL I NEED FOR MY STUDIO BUSINESS.
Simple as that.
I just need to know that it can focus fast and is sharp!
So waiting for reviews.
--
Phill
Yes 24-70 ideal for weddings but thats all i find it ideal for.
If your in a studio all day then you wont want to be holding a 70-200 trust me!
I am very happy with everything that i have.. My point was that when i do studio work ( Against a white background ) that i find i need 1 lens to do it all and the canon 24-105 was perfect at that so i reckon the 24-120 will be just as good.
Its a bit limiting using the 85 all the time !
ONE LENS IS ALL I NEED FOR MY STUDIO BUSINESS.
Simple as that.
I just need to know that it can focus fast and is sharp!
So waiting for reviews.
--
Phill
Andre De Angelis
Senior Member
Perhaps, but if you're in a studio, you don't need F2.8 either.
Like I said, that's what a tripod or studio stand is for.
Fair enough, and given that you are shooting F8 and upwards, it's almost academic what you decide to use.
PhillipAnthony
Well-known member
Studio stand! Tripod!
Man you have never shot a young family with kids then!!!
hahaha
--
Phill
Man you have never shot a young family with kids then!!!
hahaha
--
Phill
Ilkka Nissilä
Senior Member
The 24-70mm has a weak spot at long focus distances at 24mm; this shows in these pictures; at 24mm the 24-120 seems quite competitive even edging out at f/8. At shorter distances in my experience the 24-70 becomes excellent even at 24mm.
However it is difficult to make a really firm analysis based on these images because the focus distances appear to vary from image to image a bit. Live view manual focus to a pre-designated area would help. Also the focus should be different for corner and center analysis as the field curvature of the lenses differ. A lot of work, yes.
At 50mm the 24-70 shows a much better performance than the 24-120 in these shots. This is very disappointing and pretty much a deal killer for me. The 70mm performance shows perhaps not as wide a margin, but the 24-70 is steadily ahead here also.
It would be useful to see the 120mm end compared to the 70-200 II or another lens in this range such as the 105 Micro.
I think these images clearly put the 24-70 ahead in the middle of its focal length range ... frequently used in event photography as well as other applications.
After reading Bjorn's comments I felt that this was perhaps useful addition but these test results posted on smugmug suggest otherwise; the quality difference between the 24-70 and the 24-120 is too great.
It would be useful to see a short distance comparison also, as in people photography, distances are typically shorter than in landscape photography at wide angle settings.
I think the 24-120/4 will make a great entry-level zoom for FX users, and useful for some travel and casual shooting applications etc. but it will not really be the FX mid-range zoom for demanding users. Same as with the 16-35 vs. 14-24.
However it is difficult to make a really firm analysis based on these images because the focus distances appear to vary from image to image a bit. Live view manual focus to a pre-designated area would help. Also the focus should be different for corner and center analysis as the field curvature of the lenses differ. A lot of work, yes.
At 50mm the 24-70 shows a much better performance than the 24-120 in these shots. This is very disappointing and pretty much a deal killer for me. The 70mm performance shows perhaps not as wide a margin, but the 24-70 is steadily ahead here also.
It would be useful to see the 120mm end compared to the 70-200 II or another lens in this range such as the 105 Micro.
I think these images clearly put the 24-70 ahead in the middle of its focal length range ... frequently used in event photography as well as other applications.
After reading Bjorn's comments I felt that this was perhaps useful addition but these test results posted on smugmug suggest otherwise; the quality difference between the 24-70 and the 24-120 is too great.
It would be useful to see a short distance comparison also, as in people photography, distances are typically shorter than in landscape photography at wide angle settings.
I think the 24-120/4 will make a great entry-level zoom for FX users, and useful for some travel and casual shooting applications etc. but it will not really be the FX mid-range zoom for demanding users. Same as with the 16-35 vs. 14-24.
Sorry, I have no respect for Tomboy and some of the other self proclaimed "pros" here.
Still don't see your point with your 500.
24-120 is a very nice range, but for pro studio portrait work, and at f16 !? Sorry, but there are MUCH better lenses for that purpose than an f4 walk-around.
--
I'z lovez AiS'ez
Still don't see your point with your 500.
24-120 is a very nice range, but for pro studio portrait work, and at f16 !? Sorry, but there are MUCH better lenses for that purpose than an f4 walk-around.
--
I'z lovez AiS'ez
Do some weddings and I think they can amputate your arms even with an old 24-120 by the sound of it.
If you shoot at f16 I don't think you have to worry about sharpness as you are well into running into other problems (diffraction). Still don't get why you shoot these settings for anything besides macro.
--
I'z lovez AiS'ez
If you shoot at f16 I don't think you have to worry about sharpness as you are well into running into other problems (diffraction). Still don't get why you shoot these settings for anything besides macro.
--
I'z lovez AiS'ez
Let me get this straight.Hi all!
I have a d3x and i had 24-70mm for walk around when i am exploring new cities.I just sold 24-70mm for buying 24-120mm but i see that some of the fellows thinks that it will not resolve the demanding sensor of d3x.Yesterday i bought a 16-35VR instead of my trusted zeiss 21mm and guess what i am unhappy with the results.
So what do you think?Even with d3x or a body coming up with the same sensor will need better optics?Is it strange what i experianced with 16-35mm?(i tried and choosed the sharpest)
If you were me what would you do!take back the24-70mm or 24-120mm? Weight is no objecy couse d3x is also heavy and i am used to it
Thanks
Are-you unhappy with the 16-35? or with the 24-120?
I am curious about the 16-35 because it is on top of my next purchase list.
Can you please elaborate on your findings for the 16-35.
Hi Ilkka
You always have the best posts!
I am very interested in the 16-35, I already have the 24-70 and 70-200 VRII and I am a very demanding user. If I am going to log around this massive gear, it is for getting the best results.
I am curious about your comment on the 16-35. The reason why I shy away from the 14-24 is because the front lens cannot be protected and I much prefer the 16-35 range.
So I am interested in better understanding the weakness of the 16-35.
Thank-you in advance for your opinion on this subject.
tomboy
Senior Member
I thank you for the nice comment ..
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum