Reading mode: Light Dark

D750 : 24-85 or 24-120 lens?

Go to last post
Photographer124 said:
BasiliskPhoto said:
The 24-85 is a fine, but rather ordinary lens, not taking advantage of the full frame sensor for creating shallow DOF. What 120mm @ f4 offers you is notably more opportunity for background separation in portraiture type situations. If you are likely to use a kit lens for a lot of this sort of shooting, it might be a consideration, especially with the bargain bundle options.

On the other hand the 24-85 is a nice light and pretty compact zoom, as a backup to a nice set of primes.

The 24-120 might be a good option for video, as the D750 is shaping up to be a pretty good performer there. Fixed aperture is good for video (zoom without changing exposure), and I would like to know if the VR is better for video, a serious consideration for hand held shooting.
Click to expand...
You NEED VR if you want to handhold video... It gets too choppy otherwise, a tripod is a must .
Click to expand...
Not arguing there, my question is: does the more expensive lens have better video VR?

VR has evolved, some of the earlier VR systems had occasional twitches that didn't matter so much for stills, but terrible for video. Modern VR is overall just smoother.
 
Photographer124 said:
paulski66 said:
PSCL1 said:
24-120 hands down for the negligible price difference.
Click to expand...
Am I missing something?

The 24-120 costs $1,300 new. The 24-85 costs $600 new, and due to its inclusion in d600/d610 kits (and the fact that Nikon were practically giving the lens away as part of the kit for a long time), excellent copies can be found on FM and elsewhere for about half that.

But even without taking the robust used market for the 24-85 into consideration, I would say that $700 is hardly "negligible."
Click to expand...
You did not read the original post.... The difference is 150 Euro between the 2 kits.

The 24-120 can be had for 1086 on Ebay, brand new, from US sellers. That's not a bad price....
Click to expand...
I bought my 24-120 f4 for $800 in mint condition from Amazon marketplace with 3 year US warranty left on it.

Great deal for this lens IMO.
 
Last edited:
I haven't seen the kit price with the 24-85mm lens in the US, but the kit price for the 24-120 is 1300 bucks more than just the D750 body. For the price difference you are giving, the choice is clearly the 24-120, just on cost alone.
 
BasiliskPhoto said:
Photographer124 said:
BasiliskPhoto said:
The 24-85 is a fine, but rather ordinary lens, not taking advantage of the full frame sensor for creating shallow DOF. What 120mm @ f4 offers you is notably more opportunity for background separation in portraiture type situations. If you are likely to use a kit lens for a lot of this sort of shooting, it might be a consideration, especially with the bargain bundle options.

On the other hand the 24-85 is a nice light and pretty compact zoom, as a backup to a nice set of primes.

The 24-120 might be a good option for video, as the D750 is shaping up to be a pretty good performer there. Fixed aperture is good for video (zoom without changing exposure), and I would like to know if the VR is better for video, a serious consideration for hand held shooting.
Click to expand...
You NEED VR if you want to handhold video... It gets too choppy otherwise, a tripod is a must .
Click to expand...
Not arguing there, my question is: does the more expensive lens have better video VR?

VR has evolved, some of the earlier VR systems had occasional twitches that didn't matter so much for stills, but terrible for video. Modern VR is overall just smoother.
Click to expand...
To be honest, I think the 24-85 has a better VR... I had both... 24-120mm VR seems weaker, or at least to me.
 
Photographer124 said:
BasiliskPhoto said:
Photographer124 said:
BasiliskPhoto said:
The 24-85 is a fine, but rather ordinary lens, not taking advantage of the full frame sensor for creating shallow DOF. What 120mm @ f4 offers you is notably more opportunity for background separation in portraiture type situations. If you are likely to use a kit lens for a lot of this sort of shooting, it might be a consideration, especially with the bargain bundle options.

On the other hand the 24-85 is a nice light and pretty compact zoom, as a backup to a nice set of primes.

The 24-120 might be a good option for video, as the D750 is shaping up to be a pretty good performer there. Fixed aperture is good for video (zoom without changing exposure), and I would like to know if the VR is better for video, a serious consideration for hand held shooting.
Click to expand...
You NEED VR if you want to handhold video... It gets too choppy otherwise, a tripod is a must .
Click to expand...
Not arguing there, my question is: does the more expensive lens have better video VR?

VR has evolved, some of the earlier VR systems had occasional twitches that didn't matter so much for stills, but terrible for video. Modern VR is overall just smoother.
Click to expand...
To be honest, I think the 24-85 has a better VR... I had both... 24-120mm VR seems weaker, or at least to me.
Click to expand...
Just curious as to which version of the 24-120 you had. Was it the variable aperture model, or the f4 model? The version of VR in those two is different, as far as I know.

Sam
 
greenmanphoto said:
Photographer124 said:
BasiliskPhoto said:
Photographer124 said:
BasiliskPhoto said:
The 24-85 is a fine, but rather ordinary lens, not taking advantage of the full frame sensor for creating shallow DOF. What 120mm @ f4 offers you is notably more opportunity for background separation in portraiture type situations. If you are likely to use a kit lens for a lot of this sort of shooting, it might be a consideration, especially with the bargain bundle options.

On the other hand the 24-85 is a nice light and pretty compact zoom, as a backup to a nice set of primes.

The 24-120 might be a good option for video, as the D750 is shaping up to be a pretty good performer there. Fixed aperture is good for video (zoom without changing exposure), and I would like to know if the VR is better for video, a serious consideration for hand held shooting.
Click to expand...
You NEED VR if you want to handhold video... It gets too choppy otherwise, a tripod is a must .
Click to expand...
Not arguing there, my question is: does the more expensive lens have better video VR?

VR has evolved, some of the earlier VR systems had occasional twitches that didn't matter so much for stills, but terrible for video. Modern VR is overall just smoother.
Click to expand...
To be honest, I think the 24-85 has a better VR... I had both... 24-120mm VR seems weaker, or at least to me.
Click to expand...
Just curious as to which version of the 24-120 you had. Was it the variable aperture model, or the f4 model? The version of VR in those two is different, as far as I know.

Sam
Click to expand...
 
Both of these lens are good. I have opted to use the Tamron 24-70 f 2.8 for nikon which costs 1299 USD. This is the best all around lens I have found and costs less and is equal to and in some instances surpasses the Nikon equivalent.
 
I have the Nikon Trinity, but have just bought a 24-120 to take on holidays, I just don't want to take all those heavy lenses and walk around Asia again, so I hope its good.

If you buy a 24-85 you will have to buy a tele lens as well as the 24-85mm. Its just not long enough many times. So factor this into the discussion.
 
Last edited:
After I bought my D750 I also was looking for a standard zoom for travel. I looked at some of the usual suspects and saw that Adorama had the 24-85 refurbished for less than $300.00. After reading various reviews I decided that the 24-120 wasn't worth an extra $1,000.00 to me. So far satisfied with my decision and have a 20mm f1.8 to boot.

Joe
 
tektrader said:
I have the Nikon Trinity, but have just bought a 24-120 to take on holidays, I just don't want to take all those heavy lenses and walk around Asia again, so I hope its good.

If you buy a 24-85 you will have to buy a tele lens as well as the 24-85mm. Its just not long enough many times. So factor this into the discussion.
Click to expand...
Thought I would report back on my 24-120 purchase.

It arrived yesterday and I quickly put it on the camera. I was expecting it to be not even close to comparable with the 24-70 f2.8. To my surprise its actually very good. In fact so good I am starting to suspect there is something wrong with my 24-70 f2.8.

Think I will have to send it in to Nikon for a service..........

I started to think before hand that I should have bought the new Sigma 24-105. Now I am glad I didn't. This lens is quite good enough for a travel lens. In fact quite good enough full stop.

:)
 
Yes, I think your reaction is typical of the people that actually try the lens. I use my 24-120 f/4 on D3s & D7100 with great results. My printer is a 17" one so my largest prints are 16x24 however. Glad to know you like it with 36 m/p also. Enjoy.

I will say that my first 24-120 was a f/3.5-5.6 & was what I would call "underwhelming" at the very least.
 
AikenMooney said:
Yes, I think your reaction is typical of the people that actually try the lens. I use my 24-120 f/4 on D3s & D7100 with great results. My printer is a 17" one so my largest prints are 16x24 however. Glad to know you like it with 36 m/p also. Enjoy.

I will say that my first 24-120 was a f/3.5-5.6 & was what I would call "underwhelming" at the very least.
Click to expand...
AikenMooney,

I've not heard much good about that version of the lens, so this isn't surprising to me. I've heard a LOT of variability regarding the f4 version, though, with some absolutely loving it, while others decry it as too expensive for the results it provides. I did a few test shots at a local store, but will have to do something a bit more at some point soon.

In the meantime, I bought a refurbished 24-85 from KEH to get a more wide-angle coverage than I was capable of with my 35-135 on my D700. The price was only $300, and I figure it will serve me well enough until I get something else.

Sam
 
Aiken,

I hope so! Lens just arrived today, and it looks really good. Looks like very little, if any, real use with it, and it came with all the accessories: lens caps, lens hood, and even the case, even though I don't care about that. Appearance is good, but can be deceptive. I'll know more once I get it on the D700.

Thanks,

Sam
 
The 24 - 85 can be had for only about $300 USD refurbished. Even as a refurbished lens, the 24 - 120 is still about $1000. If you do not need the extra range of the 24 - 120, the 24 - 85 is a MUCH better buy. I have the 24 - 85 and it works well ... BobL
 
Bob L. said:
The 24 - 85 can be had for only about $300 USD refurbished. Even as a refurbished lens, the 24 - 120 is still about $1000. If you do not need the extra range of the 24 - 120, the 24 - 85 is a MUCH better buy. I have the 24 - 85 and it works well ... BobL
Click to expand...
Yeah, this is where I usually come in on this topic. I've purchased a few refurbished lenses and they were absolutely perfect, could not tell them from brand new. For $300 the 24-85VR is a runaway winner based on that price.

But the OP looks like he can get a good deal on the 24-120 in a kit. We don't have that option in the U.S.

It's hard to give a quantitative figure on this but my wild ar$e guess (or opinion) is that the 24-120 is about 10-20% better than the 24-85. If someone was offering both for free I'd take the 24-120 every time. I will probably buy the 24-85 strictly because of that refurb price being ridiculous.
 
Bob,

Yep, and I just bought one. Although I'd rather have the 24-120 or Sigma's 24-105 for the reach, I need a wider lens than the 35-135 I was using for my D700. I can't get either the 24-120 or the Sigma at the moment, so I bought a refurb 24-85 for about $320. I'm hoping it will work well for what I will need it to do.

Sam
 
Nexu1 said:
Nexu1 said:
It's hard to give a quantitative figure on this but my wild ar$e guess (or opinion) is that the 24-120 is about 10-20% better than the 24-85. If someone was offering both for free I'd take the 24-120 every time. I will probably buy the 24-85 strictly because of that refurb price being ridiculous.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Nexu1,

Check KEH.com, as I just bought one from them, and they had quite a few refurbs listed.

Sam
 
I would get the 24-120 for the extra reach.
 
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