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

Anybody switched from the Nikon 24-70mm to the 24-120 f/4? I've recently sold my mine and was thinking about picking this up and the 35/2 for low light.

Although I do have some regret selling the 24-70 because it was absolutely amazing, it was just so big and heavy. I find myself using my old 24-120 AF-D more often and only pulling the other one out for special events.

Just want some opinion from people that has experience with both.

BTW, I shoot with the D700.

Thanks for the input!

Best,
Shaun

shaunly said:

Anybody switched from the Nikon 24-70mm to the 24-120 f/4? I've recently sold my mine and was thinking about picking this up and the 35/2 for low light.

Although I do have some regret selling the 24-70 because it was absolutely amazing, it was just so big and heavy. I find myself using my old 24-120 AF-D more often and only pulling the other one out for special events.

Just want some opinion from people that has experience with both.

BTW, I shoot with the D700.

Click to expand...

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. Btw, I owned the 24-120 afd, and the new version is a huge improvement.

--
Warm regards, Frank
Grand-Paparazzo
Galleries at fdrphoto.smugmug.com

I love this question, can't wait for the thread to grow! Hotly debated issue.

I own the 24-120 F4, and I am very happy with it, I do not own the 24-70 so I cannot compare.

Nikon Cafe, Lens Lust forum also has some excellent threads on both lenses.

Ozzie

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?

Here is a direct comparison of both lenses and a review of the 24-120mmm f4 I think is accurate regards everyday shooting. Good Luck

http://mansurovs.com/nikon-24-120mm-vr-review/4

I will watch this thread as well.

I have a 14-24 2.8 and at some point, will want to get into the 24+ range with my next lens purchase. I am on a D300 now but plan that my next body will be in the D700-range FF.

the 24-70 2.8 has always seemed to me to be the 'obvious' choice, but the 24-120 4.0 has piqued my interest. Losing a stop (and its DOF) going to F4, but the added benefit of VR, plus a bit more reach and at a lower price... its tempting.

Is there a big drop off in image quality?

I would mainly use such a lens for architecture & landscape, but i would guess the occasional portrait would happen now and again.

That rascal got me to get "the beast" 28-70) back in 07. I kept reading his posts on how good it was. He was right and then came the 24-70. I had a loaner 24-70 from NPS after I dropped my 28-70 and it was sweet, but not worth the cost TO ME to upgrade. I am extremely intrigued by the newest 24-120 as sometimes at events you are not physically able to get closer. I have had both the previous versions of 24-120. I actually tested 3-4 of the 1st VR lenses (along with both 24-85 flavors) and the sample variation was HUGE. I ended up keeping the best 24-120 as it was better than all of the 24-85s that I tried. I have since given that to my son with a D70s when I got a D300 17-55 and a D700. But, I never got rid of my 28-105. And I have started using it again when I need more reach and the 70-200 is too long. 70-200 is not a do-all people event lens. It is great when you dont need less than 70mm, but people events are not the place to be swapping lenses and bodies all the time. I am glad I kept the little gem. It is slower and noisier to focus, but still delivers great results.

And with the explosion of mommies and guys with cameras shooting events for burger money, most people seem to care less about quality and want it cheap. Most brides cannot tell the difference from a great shot and a Rebel program shot with a kit lens. I will keep the 28-70 and 28-105 until after the election and see how the trends are.

I'm not a peeper but appreciate a good lens.

Had a 24-70 2.8 for a couple weeks, totally with you huge, expensive and really very limited range, but very nice. Found my self using the Tamron 28-300 more just for the range when the 24-120F4 came out picked it up, very happy with the range and IQ. Not as sharp wide open in the corners compared to 24-70 stopped to F4 but like I said you can't do 120 on the 24-70 and the VR can't be beat.

Later picked up a 28-70, of course when you only pay 800 bucks like it a lot more but its not on my camera very often either.

What good is IQ if you don't happen to have the propsective or reach you want at that moment... run fast I guess.

This is a hugely frustrating thread, damn the OP for starting it!!

I had the 24-70 a couple of years ago and I absolutely loved it. The 'pop' which that lens produced on the D300 and D700 was just awesome - it is a simply beautiful piece of glass. Like many however, for day to day use it was just too heavy and cumbersome for a mere amateur, so when the 24-120 f4 came along, with a very heavy heart I made the decision to part with the 24-70.

I love the 24-120, and have used it extensively since September 2010 when I got one of the earliest examples on the market. Great lens, very contrasty, super sharp for most uses, well, just for my needs a great lens.

BUT...... On my lounge wall at home at two or three family portraits shot with the 24-70. They stand out a mile over everything else I've bothered to print and frame over the years, particularly over the results from my 24-120 decent though they are. I miss the lens very much indeed, and I have thought repeatedly about reversing course and getting the 24-70 back again. The weight, size and grief were perhaps small prices to pay for simply wonderful images.

I bought a 24-120 because I found my 28-70 a bit heavy for an all day event and also because it lacked the reach I'd like for portrait. After using it foe a while I was impressed enough that the 28-70 was sold. I had tried a 24-70 but the drawbacks I saw with the 28-70 were not really addressed with the 24-70. I guess if I had owned the 24-70 first the outcome would have been the same even though it is a high quality optic. It depends what you need for what you do but the 24-120 is the choice for me.
--
http://www.andrewsandersphotography.co.uk

Didn't realize this was such a sensitive subject. It's quite a delima that's for sure

I think I will just pick up the 24-120/4. Worse case scenario, if I can always sell it and get the 24-70 back.

I too had the 28-70 back when I first bought the D700. Although its still a terrific lens, I feel like the 24-70 just makes it looks old and outdated. Maybe I had a bad copy but the 24-70 color , contrast, sharpness and CA control was much better. IMHO it's worth the upgrade if you don't mind the size.

I'm glad I just re-read the thread. Get it and enjoy it. It's my first nano coated, ed af-s lens and VR - it's my first taste of that and it's brilliant. I've only rented the 24-70 a couple of times but here's my tuppence worth.

I'll chime in although I haven't been shooting a 24-70 but used a 50/1.4d and 85/1.8d and 28-105d - and an 18-35d and a 105/2.5Ai - 6 months ago I sold the lot and bought a 24-120/4 to use on my D700 with a view to picking up some primes as funds allow. As it is, I'm looking at either a Sigma 12-24 or 14-24 for real estate as my priorities are shifting towards real-estate from portraiture but still getting occasional auto/vehicle gigs and events.

I shot a wedding with the 24-120 and a sigma 50/1.4 and used flash a lot more than I'd have had to with a 2.8, but it's a stylistic thing and maybe I should use more or less anyway.The stop of DOF that you gain with the 2/8 zooms adds a lot to event image qualityWith f/2 one can get acceptable people shots in candlelight pretty much, but by f4 the shutter speeds and ISO are maxed beyond what a candid human will freeze for - but all this is mitigable to an extent if flash is used. In this case one's only losing a stop of ambient to the 24-70 by choosing the 24-120 - But I also shot a couple of weddings with a 24-70 and 70-200 and there's a lot to be said for faster apertures. At all focal lengths you end up with exactly twice as much noise and twice the DOF as soon as you become ISO limited, ie you're shooting wide open and a slow as you dare and losing DR and details. I'd like a set of f/2 primes - 'that's it!' Maybe just a 35 and a 105..

Something I find hard to explain is the overall impact of the relatively deep DOF at f/4. It wasn't until going and plugging the figures into a calculator and realizing that the DOF was essentially the same at 120/4 as 50/1.4 and 85/2 (or thereabouts, I may be a third of a stop out but it's about that) at the same subject distance that I went for it and sold my primes. I cant's get the same framing but it's all swings and roundabouts from here.

There was a Sigma 12 - 24 in the shop today - Brand new, I'm just loading some sample shots now - I got distracted in my testing by a woman who was considering a 24-105/4 for her new canon 5D, to shoot kids indoors without a flash.It was my fault - I always interfere with people going about there business. I said don't bother, get a 85/1.8. I may have lost my coffee privileges in the shop for a bit. If she'd had a D700 I would have said the same thing.

Trying to cut a long story short, for me, low light means no flash and the 35/2 is a lens I've considered as a flashless candid tool. Did I mention the 200/2 - with the vr that'd be a thing! Imagine if they made a 'prosumer 180/2 just for fun! The thing is, we tend to want the widest available apertures by default unless we require depth of field and there's adequate light to stop down for it.

In my opinion the IQ of the 24-120 is good enough for sure. I'm only chipping in here because I guess what I'm saying is that if 'low light' means 'no flash' then f/4 is too slow if you are ISO limited. That's the biggest hit to IQ. Having said all this, it would have to be a well lit event before I considered using no flash at anything slower than f/2 or thereabouts.
--
My Flickr:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/8189967@N04/

I had the 24-70 and bought the 24-120F4 about a year ago. Sold of the 24-7o right after. Not due to size or price. The 24-70 is a good lens, but the range is kinda useless, not long enough. A flash is often needed indoors, if the 24-120 is mounted, even with the D3s I have - the kids move....

I do have the 50 1.5G and will next week get the 85 1.4D, so these two lenses will be for indoors of the kids. And no problem using the 24-120 with a flash - I have the SB400 for it's size and the SB800 for bigger areas.

To sum it up - sold of the 24-70 due to it's short range and have no regrets. If money was not an option, I wouldn't mind having them both.

i have them both and like them both alot
the 24-120 is my vacation lens
the 24-70 is the lens i use for work

I just returned my Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8 sob sob....loved that lens, but can't really use it without VR, and am now thinking of getting the 24-120mm f/4.0 VR, and so far what I can see from reviews, it is a great lens, and the VR is great.

Once I get this, I will probably just sell my 18-105mm and get a Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 UWA lens.

Its posts like this that have me itching to rent the 24-70 to try to discover what I am missing in IQ with the 24-120. Sigh.....

Ozzie

I was going to buy the 24-120 last week but was talked out of it. Bought the 24-70 instead and am sure glad I did.

Got it this week and went out today in bad weather and am sure glad I went for the f2.8 instead of the slow f4.
Turned what would have been a miserable shootin' day into a pretty good trip.

It seems at though most posters agree that the 24-70 has a special something that the 24-120 may not have - although both are great lens and particular users may prefer the advantages of one over the other.

For those that have noticed or mentioned the special something of the 24-70, is that apparent only with existing light photos? If you were to use them both inside, with flash, would you be able to determine which lens was which over their comparable range, other than exit info?

Thanks!

Don't shoot much flash, but the 24-70 wouldn't be my choice for non-studio or casual indoor shooting with flash due to the weight, and I would think you wouldn't need the f2.8 either.
I've got a 17-50 Tamron I'd probably use for that.