Best full frame 24-120 type travel lens

gregt943 · Jan 23, 2020

I have a Nikon 16-35 for wide angle (which is alright), and a Nikon 200-500 for wildlife (which I love). I shoot with a Nikon D750 and I only shoot landscape and wildlife, I don't do portraits or weddings or sports, literally just landscape and wildlife. I often find myself not being able to get shots that I want due to not having a lens that covers that mid range. I usually shoot mostly while hiking and traveling. I know there are tons of options that cover that 24-120 type range, and I know they won't be as sharp as a bunch of primes. But I can't afford 3-4 primes, and I don't want to deal with hiking with 5-6 lenses. All those mid range zooms seem to have the same types of trade offs, but which option is the best? I don't care about weight, I don't care about brand, and the lens must accept circular filters. What lenses have you all used that have given you good results in that range?

Nikon 24-120 f4? Sigma 24-105 f/4? Tamron 35-150 f/2.8-4? Nikon 28-300? Lots of options and I just don't have experience with any of them.

thorsenmark · Jan 23, 2020

gregt943 said:
I have a Nikon 16-35 for wide angle (which is alright), and a Nikon 200-500 for wildlife (which I love). I shoot with a Nikon D750 and I only shoot landscape and wildlife, I don't do portraits or weddings or sports, literally just landscape and wildlife. I often find myself not being able to get shots that I want due to not having a lens that covers that mid range. I usually shoot mostly while hiking and traveling. I know there are tons of options that cover that 24-120 type range, and I know they won't be as sharp as a bunch of primes. But I can't afford 3-4 primes, and I don't want to deal with hiking with 5-6 lenses. All those mid range zooms seem to have the same types of trade offs, but which option is the best? I don't care about weight, I don't care about brand, and the lens must accept circular filters. What lenses have you all used that have given you good results in that range?

Nikon 24-120 f4? Sigma 24-105 f/4? Tamron 35-150 f/2.8-4? Nikon 28-300? Lots of options and I just don't have experience with any of them.

I had that same question a few years back and still ask it, given the new zoom type lenses coming out. Weight is always an issue I consider. Not so much with the lens but with the total weight of what I have on my back and body as I hike up mountains or whatever landscape in national parks and forest. Having said all that, I use the Nikon 24-120 f4 and found about 95% of my images are with that on my D800E. I'm moving to a D850 and haven't noticed any issues with the lens but will soon find out as I hike a few national parks in Arizona later in April. Yes, there are limits on both ends that I've come across like using the Nikon 16-35mm in Congaree NP or wildlife in Denali NP, but the 24-120mm is my favorite lens.

Michael Benveniste · Jan 23, 2020

gregt943 said:
Nikon 24-120 f4? Sigma 24-105 f/4? Tamron 35-150 f/2.8-4? Nikon 28-300? Lots of options and I just don't have experience with any of them.

I only have experience with the 24-120mm f/4, so my vote goes to "any of the above." It simply depends too much on personal preference.

The choice between the 24-120mm f/4 and the 28-300mm highlights this. For travel, on those occasions when I need a long lens, I'm willing to switch. But my "long" lens was previously a 70-300mm and is now a 100-400mm. Both of those are considerably lighter and smaller than the 200-500mm. So in your position, I think the 28-300mm may be a better choice.

The Sigma 24-105mm tests out slightly better than the Nikon 24-120mm, but it's bulkier, the range is shorter, and the difference is not as great as people would make it out to be. Quoting, "The Nikon 24-120 f/4 VR, though, is aging very gracefully and certainly holds it’s own at f/4:"

https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/20...-sigma-24-105mm-f4-dg-os-hsm-art-series-lens/

I bought my 24-120mm f/4 on a pre-release order and have never regretted it, but at current standalone price today, I might well choose the $780 Sigma (with dock) over the $1100 Nikkor. But given that you can buy a used or "white box" 24-120mm for about half that it's not an easy call.

The Tamron is the newest to market and may be a great fit for you. But once upon a time, I used a 35-105mm f/3.5~4.5 as my travel lens. I found that I always needed something wider; I couldn't leave the wide angle (then a 24-40mm) in the hotel or car without regretting it. I don't feel that way with a 24-120mm. Of course, you could always add a 24-35mm f/2

...

--
Light travels at 2.13085531 × 10^14 smoots per fortnight. Catch some today!

saaber1 · Jan 23, 2020

Hi Greg here is some info on the Nikon 24-120 f/4 VR (not to be confused with the 24-120 variable aperture lens). Sharpest at lower end. Distortion much less than 24-70 VR. Cheap when buying used. If ur talking wildlife, remember you generally want >400mm lens.

saaber1 said:
I agree with the others who said go for the D750 plus 24-120 f/4 VR. It is a great combo and great value. I tested my copy of the 24-120 f/4 VR head-to-head against the 24-70 2.8 (non-VR) on outdoor, real world compositons on a d750. In most of the compositions I preferred the 24-120 images.

I have also tested the 24-120 VR head-to-head against numerous 20-28mm range prime lenses (real-world tests on a tree covered mountain, not lab tests) and it held it's own and often bettered some of the very expensive competition for distant landscape use (I did not test other shooting distances for this 20-28mm range much except against the Zeiss 25mm f/2 and sigma 20mm 1.4 art which were tested at close range)....

saaber1 said:

Here is a post from another thread on the 24-120 f/4 VR that shows 3 examples of the 24-120 f/4 VR. I would also note that this lens is extremely versatile. On one of the hikes shown below I went from shooting wide landscapes to birds to a surprise rattlesnake meal in the same couple minutes.. Very versatile lens for walk around or travel. I also tested it against many wide lenses on the the same tree covered distant mountain and none of the others produces better results at that distance to justify purchasing them.

gregt943 said:

... saaber1 wrote:... Example 1) Benjamin Kanarek said:

My ELLE Cover and fashion story shot with the Nikon D800 and the Nikon 24-120 f/4.0 lens. Great for studio work.

Link: http://benjaminkanarekblog.com/2014...-couture-benjamin-kanarek-cover-elle-vietnam/

View: original size

http://www.benjaminkanarek.com
http://www.benjaminkanarekblog.com
InstaGram @benjaminkanarek

Benjamin Kanarek said:

I just used the Nikon VRII 24-120 f/4.0 yesterday all day in studio and the results were amazing. I did use it before for an ELLE shoot a few months ago in studio and hadn't used it again until yesterday and I have to say...I love it! I forgot how sharp it is, especially when using studio strobe lights. All shot at around f/4.0 to f/8.0.

Will post the images as soon as the embargo is lifted.

Best Wishes

Ben
http://www.benjaminkanarekblog.com
http://www.benjaminkanarek.com

Click to expand...

Example 2)

curiousmike1300 said:

It is incredibly versatile and to my amateur eye, gives me great results.

It's a better lens than I'm a photographer... i.e., it's not my limiting factor.

I love the range - depending on your alternatives, the extra reach beyond 85mm or 105mm could prove really useful.

Click to expand...

Example 3)

saaber1 wrote:

I have tested the 24-120 F4 against the Zeiss 21 2.8, Zeiss 2/25, Sigma art 20mm, Nikon 28mm 2.8 AI-S, Nikon 28mm 1.8, Nikon 24-70 2.8 (non VR)... Some travel shots for examples:

View attachment 760103

View attachment 760104

View attachment 760105

View attachment 760106

View attachment 760107

View attachment 760108

View attachment 760109

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

breivogel · Jan 23, 2020

gregt943 said:
I have a Nikon 16-35 for wide angle (which is alright), and a Nikon 200-500 for wildlife (which I love). I shoot with a Nikon D750 and I only shoot landscape and wildlife, I don't do portraits or weddings or sports, literally just landscape and wildlife. I often find myself not being able to get shots that I want due to not having a lens that covers that mid range. I usually shoot mostly while hiking and traveling. I know there are tons of options that cover that 24-120 type range, and I know they won't be as sharp as a bunch of primes. But I can't afford 3-4 primes, and I don't want to deal with hiking with 5-6 lenses. All those mid range zooms seem to have the same types of trade offs, but which option is the best? I don't care about weight, I don't care about brand, and the lens must accept circular filters. What lenses have you all used that have given you good results in that range?

Nikon 24-120 f4? Sigma 24-105 f/4? Tamron 35-150 f/2.8-4? Nikon 28-300? Lots of options and I just don't have experience with any of them.

Also consider the nikon 24-85. It is lightweight, small, inexpensive and pretty similar to the 24-120 over the common range. I have this and the Sigma 24-105 and prefer it when hiking.

Flashlight · Jan 23, 2020

Get a 24MP DX camera like the D7200 and the 16-80E VR lens. It's much better than the 24-120 while the D7200 (and other 24MP DX cameras) have no AA filter like the D750.

If you want to stick with FX and zooms aim at the 24-70E VR.

Andreas Berglund · Jan 23, 2020

I have the 24-120 F4 VR and the 24-85. The 24-120 is my favorite walk around lens:

I sold my 24-70 AF-S F2.8 (original version) since it performed about the same from F5.6 and onwards, and was heavier (the 24-70 has about the same performance at F2.8 vs the 24-120 at F4, then at F5.6 they are about the same)
For travel I like to shoot it at F8 if I can, at 24mm it is quite sharp on my D850, a little less so at 120mm, but ok
AF speed is a little slower than the 24-70, but ok as long as you know it.
VR is very useful I shoot down to 1/20 or slightly slower handheld on for examplel running water.
It has a little distortion at the wide end, easily fixable in post processing with a lens profile
The 24-120 F4 is a bulky and a bit heavy lens with a big hood, but the range is great.
The 24-85 is a little less sharp, AF is slower but the lens is much lighter

If you need one lens for travel this is it for me, I also have a 70-300 and a 70-200 F4 and bring either or as well.

I recommend ;-)

BillW1204 · Jan 23, 2020

I used the 24-140 f4 Nikon for a number of years for travel, walk-around, family events and hiking. Most recently, I used it on a Df and D810. I have taken many photos with it that I like a lot. I think it is a decent (but not great) lens optically, with considerable versatility. The one place where I was disappointed with mine was in shooting landscape shots from a tripod using the D810. I wanted more resolution/sharpness than it gave me -- it was not as sharp as my 16-35, let alone the Nikon f1.8 primes (20, 24, 35 and 85, in my case). I ended up using the Nikon f1.8 primes and a Sigma Art 50 f1.4 for landscape use (on a tripod) and in other cases where I wanted more resolution/sharpness.

I have no personal experience with the other 24-120 lenses you are considering.

The desire to have a better mid-range zoom lens than the 24-120 f4 Nikon (without going to something as big and heavy as the Nikon 24-70 f 2.8 VR in F mount) led me to get a mirrorless Z7 body and the 24-70 f4 lens in the new Z mount about a year ago. I find it is quite a bit sharper than the 24-120 f4 in F mount.

I understand you do not want to buy a large collection of primes. But a used Sigma Art 50 1.4 and a used Nikon 85 f1.8 (AF-S version) in F mount might be fairly reasonable in cost and give you more focal length than your 16-35 for landscape use, with quite good quality.

Of course, I am not a lens tester or a pro.

Good luck with your choice.

ARClark · Jan 24, 2020

gregt943 said:
I have a Nikon 16-35 for wide angle (which is alright), and a Nikon 200-500 for wildlife (which I love). I shoot with a Nikon D750 and I only shoot landscape and wildlife, I don't do portraits or weddings or sports, literally just landscape and wildlife. I often find myself not being able to get shots that I want due to not having a lens that covers that mid range. I usually shoot mostly while hiking and traveling. I know there are tons of options that cover that 24-120 type range, and I know they won't be as sharp as a bunch of primes. But I can't afford 3-4 primes, and I don't want to deal with hiking with 5-6 lenses. All those mid range zooms seem to have the same types of trade offs, but which option is the best? I don't care about weight, I don't care about brand, and the lens must accept circular filters. What lenses have you all used that have given you good results in that range?

Nikon 24-120 f4? Sigma 24-105 f/4? Tamron 35-150 f/2.8-4? Nikon 28-300? Lots of options and I just don't have experience with any of them.

I’d go with a lens that starts at 24mm, thus eliminating the Tamron 35-150 and Nikon 28-300. As an earlier poster noted, you’ll often find yourself at the wide end of the range and will appreciate having 24mm available without having to change lenses vs the 28 or 35mm options. For field work, I would also not consider the Nikon 24-70 due to lack of VR. It’s also very large and heavy and has soft edges - had one and sold it for a refurbished Nikon 24-120 For around $600-700.

The 24-120 f4 is a generally a very decent mid-range zoom if you don’t need the speed of an f2.8. Its one major weakness, based in my experience, is edge softness. This can be mitigated to a large extent by reducing the aperture and adding extra sharpening in PP, but it’s still there. Having said that, I’ve captured a number of award-winning images with it, including landscapes.

I’ve not shot the Nikon 24-85 or Sigma 24-105. Have heard positive things about them. The 24-85 has the advantage of compactness, but loses some focal range. The Sigma 24-104 is said to have extremely good center sharpness, but I’ve never felt compelled to own one. The 24-120’s center sharpness meets my needs, and I’m not convinced the Sigma’s edge sharpness is appreciably any better.

I’ve been tempted at times to purchase the Nikon 24-70E because of its purportedly better edge sharpness, but have yet to get past its size, weight and cost impediments. I really need to rent one.

Good luck with your decision.

Alan

Flashlight · Jan 24, 2020

ARClark said:
I’ve been tempted at times to purchase the Nikon 24-70E because of its purportedly better edge sharpness, but have yet to get past its size, weight and cost impediments. I really need to rent one.

Good luck with your decision.

Alan

This is a full sized image from the 24-70E wide open:

--
Philip

starbase218 · Jan 24, 2020

Flashlight said:
Get a 24MP DX camera like the D7200 and the 16-80E VR lens. It's much better than the 24-120 while the D7200 (and other 24MP DX cameras) have no AA filter like the D750.

If you want to stick with FX and zooms aim at the 24-70E VR.

starbase218 · Jan 24, 2020

For what it’s worth, I just tried a used 24-120 f/4 in a shop. After reading much about it, the build quality was better than I expected. One review said both inner cams are plastic, but one is actually metal, and the construction felt very solid. I also took a shot at 85mm and f/4, supposedly a weak point on this lens. From what I could see looking at the back screen, the corners seemed sharp enough. So my initial impression is good.

As for my reasons for considering this lens, I’m coming from a D7100 with 17-55 and have several 77mm filters. I would prefer not to give up any zoom range. The way I see it, the 24-120 f/4 is like a constant-aperture 16-80 f/2.8 with stabilization on DX. The only things that are worse are ergonomics (zoom ring towards the front) and AF speed (although it’s not that big a difference - the 16-85/3.5-5.6 I had before was slower for sure).

The only downside was that it is a rather large lens and I felt it made my D750 a little front-heavy.

I intend to compare it to the 24-85/3.5-4.5 and then make a decision. That lens has a 72mm filter thread though, and the reports of field curvature aren’t too encouraging either for what I want to do with it.

Flashlight · Jan 24, 2020

starbase218 said:
Flashlight said:

Get a 24MP DX camera like the D7200 and the 16-80E VR lens. It's much better than the 24-120 while the D7200 (and other 24MP DX cameras) have no AA filter like the D750.

If you want to stick with FX and zooms aim at the 24-70E VR.

Click to expand...

Maybe there’s something to be said for having a DX camera for your wildlife shots. A D7100 or D7200 is indeed ever-so-slightly sharper than a D750 (the D7500 and D500 aren’t likely to be, though).

Having said that, a 16-80/2.8-4 is equivalent to a 24-120/4-5.6. So a stop slower at the long end. The combo is smaller and lighter though. Pick your poison.

It's not a stop slower at the long end, it's F/4 there just as the 24-120. The difference is that is has a stop more DoF at the long end; with the same amount of light (and shutter speed, ISO, aperture) you have more DoF. But it's not slower.

starbase218 said:
However, I wouldn’t necessarily recommend getting a DX camera just for a standard zoom. In this case I think the tradeoff is not worth it. I have a D7100 and D750 and can already notice the output - and therefore the postprocessing - is different between the two. Besides, if you own more gear, you always have to choose what you take with you. I don’t believe in “travel lenses” either: just get lenses that allow you to do what you want and take them with you in a good bag wherever you go.

It all depends. I'll take my D7200 with 16-80E on a holiday over a D750 with 24-70E any day as it's much lighter. If I have work to do on a trip I'd take my two D750's, the 24-70E, 70-200 f/4 and 20 f/1.8.

starbase218 · Jan 24, 2020

Flashlight said:
starbase218 said:

Flashlight said:

Get a 24MP DX camera like the D7200 and the 16-80E VR lens. It's much better than the 24-120 while the D7200 (and other 24MP DX cameras) have no AA filter like the D750.

If you want to stick with FX and zooms aim at the 24-70E VR.

Click to expand...

Maybe there’s something to be said for having a DX camera for your wildlife shots. A D7100 or D7200 is indeed ever-so-slightly sharper than a D750 (the D7500 and D500 aren’t likely to be, though).

Having said that, a 16-80/2.8-4 is equivalent to a 24-120/4-5.6. So a stop slower at the long end. The combo is smaller and lighter though. Pick your poison.

Click to expand...

It's not a stop slower at the long end, it's F/4 there just as the 24-120. The difference is that is has a stop more DoF at the long end; with the same amount of light (and shutter speed, ISO, aperture) you have more DoF. But it's not slower.

The way I see it, at that same ISO a DX sensor will have roughly twice the noise of an FX sensor, and indeed the DOF will also be a stop greater. Which is why I say “equivalent”.

Flashlight said:
Flashlight said:

However, I wouldn’t necessarily recommend getting a DX camera just for a standard zoom. In this case I think the tradeoff is not worth it. I have a D7100 and D750 and can already notice the output - and therefore the postprocessing - is different between the two. Besides, if you own more gear, you always have to choose what you take with you. I don’t believe in “travel lenses” either: just get lenses that allow you to do what you want and take them with you in a good bag wherever you go.

Click to expand...

It all depends. I'll take my D7200 with 16-80E on a holiday over a D750 with 24-70E any day as it's much lighter. If I have work to do on a trip I'd take my two D750's, the 24-70E, 70-200 f/4 and 20 f/1.8.

I thought we were talking about a 24-120 f/4.

Honestly, if he wants to go light with an FX zoom the best option is probably the 24-85/3.5-4.5 VR. The system weight would be 830 + 465 = 1295 grams instead of 765 + 480 = 1245 grams. So practically the same. The difference is an equivalent faster system at the long end (at least that’s how I look at it) at the expense of telephoto reach, and AF points clustered in the center.

Although I don’t know if nano coating adds something or how well-behaved the 16-80 is (field curvature etc).

Flashlight · Jan 24, 2020

starbase218 said:
Flashlight said:

starbase218 said:

Flashlight said:

Get a 24MP DX camera like the D7200 and the 16-80E VR lens. It's much better than the 24-120 while the D7200 (and other 24MP DX cameras) have no AA filter like the D750.

If you want to stick with FX and zooms aim at the 24-70E VR.

Click to expand...

Maybe there’s something to be said for having a DX camera for your wildlife shots. A D7100 or D7200 is indeed ever-so-slightly sharper than a D750 (the D7500 and D500 aren’t likely to be, though).

Having said that, a 16-80/2.8-4 is equivalent to a 24-120/4-5.6. So a stop slower at the long end. The combo is smaller and lighter though. Pick your poison.

Click to expand...

It's not a stop slower at the long end, it's F/4 there just as the 24-120. The difference is that is has a stop more DoF at the long end; with the same amount of light (and shutter speed, ISO, aperture) you have more DoF. But it's not slower.

Click to expand...

The way I see it, at that same ISO a DX sensor will have roughly twice the noise of an FX sensor, and indeed the DOF will also be a stop greater. Which is why I say “equivalent”.

In equivalent images the content is the same, including noise and DoF.

starbase218 said:
starbase218 said:

starbase218 said:

However, I wouldn’t necessarily recommend getting a DX camera just for a standard zoom. In this case I think the tradeoff is not worth it. I have a D7100 and D750 and can already notice the output - and therefore the postprocessing - is different between the two. Besides, if you own more gear, you always have to choose what you take with you. I don’t believe in “travel lenses” either: just get lenses that allow you to do what you want and take them with you in a good bag wherever you go.

Click to expand...

It all depends. I'll take my D7200 with 16-80E on a holiday over a D750 with 24-70E any day as it's much lighter. If I have work to do on a trip I'd take my two D750's, the 24-70E, 70-200 f/4 and 20 f/1.8.

Click to expand...

I thought we were talking about a 24-120 f/4.

Topic: Best full frame 24-120 type travel lens

starbase218 said:
Honestly, if he wants to go light with an FX zoom the best option is probably the 24-85/3.5-4.5 VR. The system weight would be 830 + 465 = 1295 grams instead of 765 + 480 = 1245 grams. So practically the same. The difference is an equivalent faster system at the long end (at least that’s how I look at it) at the expense of telephoto reach, and AF points clustered in the center.

Although I don’t know if nano coating adds something or how well-behaved the 16-80 is (field curvature etc).

I had the 17-55 in the past and now have the 16-80E. The 17-55 has a far more curved field than the 16-80E, but the 16-80 isn't really flat either. 24-70E is reasonably flat.

starbase218 · Jan 24, 2020

Flashlight said:
starbase218 said:

Flashlight said:

starbase218 said:

Flashlight said:

Get a 24MP DX camera like the D7200 and the 16-80E VR lens. It's much better than the 24-120 while the D7200 (and other 24MP DX cameras) have no AA filter like the D750.

If you want to stick with FX and zooms aim at the 24-70E VR.

Click to expand...

Maybe there’s something to be said for having a DX camera for your wildlife shots. A D7100 or D7200 is indeed ever-so-slightly sharper than a D750 (the D7500 and D500 aren’t likely to be, though).

Having said that, a 16-80/2.8-4 is equivalent to a 24-120/4-5.6. So a stop slower at the long end. The combo is smaller and lighter though. Pick your poison.

Click to expand...

It's not a stop slower at the long end, it's F/4 there just as the 24-120. The difference is that is has a stop more DoF at the long end; with the same amount of light (and shutter speed, ISO, aperture) you have more DoF. But it's not slower.

Click to expand...

The way I see it, at that same ISO a DX sensor will have roughly twice the noise of an FX sensor, and indeed the DOF will also be a stop greater. Which is why I say “equivalent”.

Click to expand...

In equivalent images the content is the same, including noise and DoF.

And viewing angles. So 50mm 1/100 ISO 200 f/2.8 on FX is equivalent to 35mm 1/100 ISO 100 f/2 on DX, assuming similar sensor technology.

Flashlight said:
Flashlight said:

Flashlight said:

Flashlight said:

However, I wouldn’t necessarily recommend getting a DX camera just for a standard zoom. In this case I think the tradeoff is not worth it. I have a D7100 and D750 and can already notice the output - and therefore the postprocessing - is different between the two. Besides, if you own more gear, you always have to choose what you take with you. I don’t believe in “travel lenses” either: just get lenses that allow you to do what you want and take them with you in a good bag wherever you go.

Click to expand...

It all depends. I'll take my D7200 with 16-80E on a holiday over a D750 with 24-70E any day as it's much lighter. If I have work to do on a trip I'd take my two D750's, the 24-70E, 70-200 f/4 and 20 f/1.8.

Click to expand...

I thought we were talking about a 24-120 f/4.

Click to expand...

Topic: Best full frame 24-120 type travel lens

Just my opinion, but I don’t find these combinations really comparable. One has more reach at the expense of fastness. The other one has build quality, ergonomics and super fast AF and is a pro tool, really.

Flashlight said:
Flashlight said:

Honestly, if he wants to go light with an FX zoom the best option is probably the 24-85/3.5-4.5 VR. The system weight would be 830 + 465 = 1295 grams instead of 765 + 480 = 1245 grams. So practically the same. The difference is an equivalent faster system at the long end (at least that’s how I look at it) at the expense of telephoto reach, and AF points clustered in the center.

Although I don’t know if nano coating adds something or how well-behaved the 16-80 is (field curvature etc).

Click to expand...

I had the 17-55 in the past and now have the 16-80E. The 17-55 has a far more curved field than the 16-80E, but the 16-80 isn't really flat either. 24-70E is reasonably flat.

Yeah, I loved the 17-55 (and still do) but with landscapes it could be tricky to use. Still, I put up with that because of its rendering, made-in-Japan build and fast AF.

ARClark · Jan 24, 2020

Very impressive! Are the corners that sharp at 24mm?

Alan

Flashlight · Jan 24, 2020

ARClark said:
Very impressive! Are the corners that sharp at 24mm?

Alan

This is 24mm wide open, focused in the center on the recycle bin:

--
Philip

yray · Jan 24, 2020

gregt943 said:
I have a Nikon 16-35 for wide angle (which is alright), and a Nikon 200-500 for wildlife (which I love). I shoot with a Nikon D750 and I only shoot landscape and wildlife, I don't do portraits or weddings or sports, literally just landscape and wildlife. I often find myself not being able to get shots that I want due to not having a lens that covers that mid range. I usually shoot mostly while hiking and traveling. I know there are tons of options that cover that 24-120 type range, and I know they won't be as sharp as a bunch of primes. But I can't afford 3-4 primes, and I don't want to deal with hiking with 5-6 lenses. All those mid range zooms seem to have the same types of trade offs, but which option is the best? I don't care about weight, I don't care about brand, and the lens must accept circular filters. What lenses have you all used that have given you good results in that range?

Nikon 24-120 f4? Sigma 24-105 f/4? Tamron 35-150 f/2.8-4? Nikon 28-300? Lots of options and I just don't have experience with any of them.

If you're happy with 16-35/4 you should be happy with the 24-120/4. From my point of view the IQ between these two in terms of sharpness and tonality is indistinguishable. Maybe I lucked out on a good copy of 24-120/4, but I absolutely can't relate to the chatter about it not being any good past 70 or 80mm. At most I would stop down to f/4.5, but even that is generally not necessary. Maybe it is not an amazing lens (vignetting, distortion), and f/4 is not an amazing aperture, but as a package it is hard to beat as a general purpose walkabout lens. It is a bit bigger and heavier than I would like, and build quality is not quite professional, but since you have 16-35/4, you'll find 24-120/4 a good match even in these attributes. It also can be had at bargain basement prices, but there seems to be variability between copies, so if you go for 24-120 make sure you can return or exchange if you get a poor copy.

MarvinAlvarez · Jan 24, 2020

I had a Nikon 16-35 F4, Nikon 24-120 F4 and a Nikon 70-200 F4. The F4 trinity. The 70-200 F4 was the sharpest and best among them all.

Anyway, i swapped them all out for the newest Tamron 17-35 and Tamron 35-150. I now only have to carry 2 lenses now instead of 3. Plus, the Tamrons were shaper and could shoot at 2.8 at certain focal lengths.

Best full frame 24-120 type travel lens

Well-known member

Active member

Veteran Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Veteran Member

Leading Member

Well-known member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Veteran Member

Senior Member

Veteran Member

Senior Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Senior Member

Member

Similar threads

Keyboard shortcuts