24-120 VR or 28-70 f2.8

Won · Mar 11, 2004

Hi,
I'm looking for your kind advice as I'm an amateur and no expert.

I will soon be getting either D70 or D100 to move into the digital world (I've been using F80 (N80)), and hoping to take pictures more seriously.

I've sold all my old lenses and recently bought 24-120 VR, but I'm kind of regretting..

I was going to buy another lens with spare money (possibly a second hand 28-200 f2.8 or 80-400 VR..), but I wonder if I should've bought 27-80 f2.8 instead and wait before I can afford another zoom lens. I haven't used the 24-120 vr yet so I can still change my mind, but I'm wondering if I should stick with my original 2 lens set up or go for one better lens. I don't think I need higher zoom that much (mostly I take portraits and indoor shots in shows, exhibitions etc..)

I know my skills must be improved before I take better pictures, but can I expect a lot better picture quality from 27-70 than from a 24-120 vr?
Thanks!

nenad212662 · Mar 11, 2004

Won said:
Hi,
I'm looking for your kind advice as I'm an amateur and no expert.
I will soon be getting either D70 or D100 to move into the digital
world (I've been using F80 (N80)), and hoping to take pictures more
seriously.
I've sold all my old lenses and recently bought 24-120 VR, but I'm
kind of regretting..
I was going to buy another lens with spare money (possibly a second
hand 28-200 f2.8 or 80-400 VR..), but I wonder if I should've
bought 27-80 f2.8 instead and wait before I can afford another zoom
lens. I haven't used the 24-120 vr yet so I can still change my
mind, but I'm wondering if I should stick with my original 2 lens
set up or go for one better lens. I don't think I need higher zoom
that much (mostly I take portraits and indoor shots in shows,
exhibitions etc..)
I know my skills must be improved before I take better pictures,
but can I expect a lot better picture quality from 27-70 than from
a 24-120 vr?
Thanks!

Chris101 · Mar 11, 2004

Won, I have the 24-120 but not the 28-70. If you do a lot of close range natural light work and do not mind carrying a 2 pound lens, then the 28-70 will probably exceed the acuity of the 24-120. I am not dissapointed with the quality of the 24-120 however. I find it quite sharp, the VR function is really nice to have and it weighs just slightly more than half as much as the 28-70. I use the 24-120 mostly for outdoor events, and it really comes in handy when the light gets dim. For night and indoor work, I use a 35mm f/2 prime lens.

You might want to wait until you get your DSLR before deciding on the viability of you VR lens.

Won said:
Hi,
I'm looking for your kind advice as I'm an amateur and no expert.
I will soon be getting either D70 or D100 to move into the digital
world (I've been using F80 (N80)), and hoping to take pictures more
seriously.
I've sold all my old lenses and recently bought 24-120 VR, but I'm
kind of regretting..
I was going to buy another lens with spare money (possibly a second
hand 28-200 f2.8 or 80-400 VR..), but I wonder if I should've
bought 27-80 f2.8 instead and wait before I can afford another zoom
lens. I haven't used the 24-120 vr yet so I can still change my
mind, but I'm wondering if I should stick with my original 2 lens
set up or go for one better lens. I don't think I need higher zoom
that much (mostly I take portraits and indoor shots in shows,
exhibitions etc..)
I know my skills must be improved before I take better pictures,
but can I expect a lot better picture quality from 27-70 than from
a 24-120 vr?
Thanks!

--
http://radio.weblogs.com/0101365/categories/photos/

maxz · Mar 11, 2004

and it was an amazing piece of glass. however the size and weight made it my least used lens compared to primes and 17-35, so i sold it later. I just ordered a 24-120VR because of VR, relatively compact size and wider zoom range. It will arrive next Monday hopefully and I will test it against some lenses that i own.

Won said:
Hi,
I'm looking for your kind advice as I'm an amateur and no expert.
I will soon be getting either D70 or D100 to move into the digital
world (I've been using F80 (N80)), and hoping to take pictures more
seriously.
I've sold all my old lenses and recently bought 24-120 VR, but I'm
kind of regretting..
I was going to buy another lens with spare money (possibly a second
hand 28-200 f2.8 or 80-400 VR..), but I wonder if I should've
bought 27-80 f2.8 instead and wait before I can afford another zoom
lens. I haven't used the 24-120 vr yet so I can still change my
mind, but I'm wondering if I should stick with my original 2 lens
set up or go for one better lens. I don't think I need higher zoom
that much (mostly I take portraits and indoor shots in shows,
exhibitions etc..)
I know my skills must be improved before I take better pictures,
but can I expect a lot better picture quality from 27-70 than from
a 24-120 vr?
Thanks!

chris-fla · Mar 11, 2004

The 24-120vr is super sharp up to 13x19 enlargements and I do not think you will be disappointed. It focuses really close and fast and is a great all around lens.

Chris

Won said:
Hi,
I'm looking for your kind advice as I'm an amateur and no expert.
I will soon be getting either D70 or D100 to move into the digital
world (I've been using F80 (N80)), and hoping to take pictures more
seriously.
I've sold all my old lenses and recently bought 24-120 VR, but I'm
kind of regretting..
I was going to buy another lens with spare money (possibly a second
hand 28-200 f2.8 or 80-400 VR..), but I wonder if I should've
bought 27-80 f2.8 instead and wait before I can afford another zoom
lens. I haven't used the 24-120 vr yet so I can still change my
mind, but I'm wondering if I should stick with my original 2 lens
set up or go for one better lens. I don't think I need higher zoom
that much (mostly I take portraits and indoor shots in shows,
exhibitions etc..)
I know my skills must be improved before I take better pictures,
but can I expect a lot better picture quality from 27-70 than from
a 24-120 vr?
Thanks!

Won · Mar 11, 2004

Thank you for all your responses. It looks like everyone's going with the 24-120 vr.

It was the question of

1. 28-70 f2.8

or

2. 24-120 vr + 80-200 AF-S f2.8 second hand

or

3. 24-120 vr + 80-400 vr AF brand new/second hand

or

4. 24-120 vr + 70-200 vr AF-S f2.8 brand new since it's a new lens I can't find any second hands..

I wanted to invest on a good lens (chances don't come often..), and either 24-120 or 70-200 seemed to be a good choice.

Option no.4 was my favorite but that would mean I keep the 24-120 and hence over the budget, that's why I thought of option 1. Options 2 & 3 would be just within the budget. I just want to make sure I'm buying the right gear and it's not easy..

I like shooting portraits, and cars (I go to as many motor shows as I can as I'm a car lover, and hoping to take some racing pictures if I get a chance).

Tom Weber2 · Mar 11, 2004

Won said:
Thank you for all your responses. It looks like everyone's going
with the 24-120 vr.

It was the question of

1. 28-70 f2.8

or

2. 24-120 vr + 80-200 AF-S f2.8 second hand

or

3. 24-120 vr + 80-400 vr AF brand new/second hand

or

4. 24-120 vr + 70-200 vr AF-S f2.8 brand new since it's a new lens
I can't find any second hands..

I wanted to invest on a good lens (chances don't come often..), and
either 24-120 or 70-200 seemed to be a good choice.
Option no.4 was my favorite but that would mean I keep the 24-120
and hence over the budget, that's why I thought of option 1.
Options 2 & 3 would be just within the budget. I just want to make
sure I'm buying the right gear and it's not easy..

I like shooting portraits, and cars (I go to as many motor shows as
I can as I'm a car lover, and hoping to take some racing pictures
if I get a chance).

I'm apparently with the minority here. I sold my 24-120 and got the 28-70. Yes, it's big and heavy. But, the results are worth it. There's no comparison in my experience if you want top quality. I'm happy with my decision.

Tom
--
St. Louis, Missouri
equipment is in my plan
http://www.pbase.com/tweber

F. Kamphues · Mar 11, 2004

The 24-120VR is a really nice alround lens to start with.

If you plan to buy pro lenses and have the money now, just get a 80-200 or 70-200VR, and buy the 18-70 kit lens with the D70 as an intermediate solution to give you wide angle capacity as well.

Again, the 24-120VR is a great lens, but you can't compare it with the f/2.8 pro lenses which are at least twice as expensive.

Some samples:
http://www.millhouse.nl/nikon24-120vr.html
http://www.millhouse.nl/nikonafs80-200.html

Fred Kamphues
The Netherlands
http://www.millhouse.nl
http://www.fredkamphues.com

Won said:
Hi,
I'm looking for your kind advice as I'm an amateur and no expert.
I will soon be getting either D70 or D100 to move into the digital
world (I've been using F80 (N80)), and hoping to take pictures more
seriously.
I've sold all my old lenses and recently bought 24-120 VR, but I'm
kind of regretting..
I was going to buy another lens with spare money (possibly a second
hand 28-200 f2.8 or 80-400 VR..), but I wonder if I should've
bought 27-80 f2.8 instead and wait before I can afford another zoom
lens. I haven't used the 24-120 vr yet so I can still change my
mind, but I'm wondering if I should stick with my original 2 lens
set up or go for one better lens. I don't think I need higher zoom
that much (mostly I take portraits and indoor shots in shows,
exhibitions etc..)
I know my skills must be improved before I take better pictures,
but can I expect a lot better picture quality from 27-70 than from
a 24-120 vr?
Thanks!

Hammerli · Mar 11, 2004

Won said:
I don't think I need higher zoom
that much (mostly I take portraits and indoor shots in shows,
exhibitions etc..)
I know my skills must be improved before I take better pictures,
but can I expect a lot better picture quality from 27-70 than from
a 24-120 vr?
Thanks!

Particularly since you mention indoor shots above, and referred to racing in a later thread, you will benefit from the faster lenses. Since it sounds like you can exchange the 24-120, I would upgrade now while you can get out of the 24-120 what you've paid for it. Then save up for a while and get the 70-200 VR, and you'll have an excellent pair of lenses.

Won · Mar 11, 2004

Thank you all for your great advice.

Frankly speaking however, now I'm more confused...

Chad Gladstone · Mar 11, 2004

Won:

Variable, slow aperture just won't cut it for many indoor circumstances except with an external flash, despite VR. The only problem is the size of the 28-70 2.8 (it is a tank) and its cost. If you do decide to let go of the VR afterall, and for some reason cannot return it let me know. I would certainly entertain trading my D70 kit lens 18-70 3.5-4.5 af-s DX (when it arrives) and cash for the VR.

Won said:
Thank you all for your great advice.

Frankly speaking however, now I'm more confused...

Mike Hegg · Mar 11, 2004

Chad Gladstone said:
Won said:

Thank you all for your great advice.

Frankly speaking however, now I'm more confused...

Click to expand...

Won

I own both lens and they are both excellent for different types of shooting situations.

The 24-120 is a general purpose lens with a great range in focus. I use my 24-120 when I go on day trips and want to travel light, and it feels good on my camera.

The 28-70 is a Nikon classic lens, big and heavy and can produce results that can’t be matched with any other zoom lens in that range. Truly a pro lens - That being said its range is limited and it’s a big heavy piece of glass. And it is expensive.
For a first lens I would go with the VR24-120. Just my opinion.
Mike

--
MikeH

garry_y · Mar 11, 2004

Hi Won,

I shoot a lot of motorsports. Indoor shows I like to shoot available light if possible so f2.8 is a must. As crowded as these events are if you want to get a complete shot of a car you will need something wider than 24. I like my 17-35mm f2.8 and car usually get the whole car in the frame without backing up too far and having people walking in front of your shot (if you know what I mean). When I was shooting film, a 24mm was just right.

Some other options would be some non Nikkor lens. The Tamron 17-35Di f2.8-4 is getting some good reviews. I have the 28-75 Tamron f2.8 Di which is very sharp and I use it alot. It compares well with the Nikkor, and it is not as heavy. The Nikkor was just too big and heavy for me to lug around. I have the 24-120VR, but only use it when there is plenty of light.

At the track I take my 300 and 70-200VR and teleconverters. Sometimes I will take the 80-400 but it is a little slow to focus. Hope that helps.
Garry

Won said:
I like shooting portraits, and cars (I go to as many motor shows as
I can as I'm a car lover, and hoping to take some racing pictures
if I get a chance).

GenoP...! · Mar 11, 2004

Won said:
Thank you all for your great advice.

Frankly speaking however, now I'm more confused...

Won,

That's what you get when you ask for someone's opinion!

After doing photography for nearly 30 years and DSLR for 1.5 years you have to ask what you want to accomplish.

1. You mentioned portraits. 85 1.4 is the winner here. No questiones asked. Also this is my most used lens. You will never regret getting one.

2. Cars. Indoor shots at shows. AFS 17-35 2.8 D will work great!

3. What happens in the middle. I usually use a fixed lens 50 1.8 D will work great and it will cover you if you need to shoot a full length portrait or small group. (we save you $$$ here $99.00) If you want to go for more the 45 2.8 P is what I use but the cost is close to $400.00.

4. As far as long I prefer the VR-AFS 70-200 2.8 G. Expensive but the way to go. If you want to save go for the Nikon 80-200 2.8 D ED.

5. As far as the 24-120 VR I would not buy it. I had it and it's been sold. There are also bad ones around so be sure to check it carefully. It's been well documented so do a search. Basically the corners can be soft and it can be more on one side than the other. To test it set it at 24mm wide open VR on and shoot a brick wall straight on. When checking later on you can see how sharp it is.

6. AFS 28-70 2.8 D is a great lens and it is very impracticle to think your going to carry it around a lot. I have it but it only gets used for big parties (Wedding type) and Photojournalism. I also use it for sports like on the floor furing a skateboard competion. Models on runway is also good. Otherwise it stays home collecting dust.

7. If you get the D70 which I recommend due to the better flash, I would get the kit. The lens in the kit is very good, however it will not work as well as the 17-35 in low light. It will cover you from 17-70 which is very good. My dealer has used the lens and says it's very good. I have sceen samples and I agree. You must remember though it is not a 2.8 so it will be a tad darker. It is an AFS lens so it will focus very fast. It also is sharper than the 24-120VR and has much better macro capabilities. When bought with the kit you will save about $300.00 so think seriously about this lens. It will retail without the D70 for about $470.00! The money you save here can get you the 70-200VR and this may be your best option.

For really great coverage of lenses see:

http://www.digital-images.net/Lenses/lenses.html

Ron Resnick has been and continues to be a big help around here in the learning process of Nikon Digital Photography. See his galleries and you will see what your camera can produce.

Good luck and I hope I have contributed some worthwhile info.

Enjoy your camera,
GenoP

http://[email protected]

--
http://www.pbase.com/genop754

Search

24-120 VR or 28-70 f2.8

Won

New member

nenad212662

Leading Member

Chris101

Senior Member

maxz

Senior Member

chris-fla

Well-known member

Won

New member

Tom Weber2

Senior Member

F. Kamphues

Senior Member

Hammerli

Leading Member

Won

New member

Chad Gladstone

Senior Member

Mike Hegg

New member

garry_y

Forum Enthusiast

GenoP...!

Senior Member

Keyboard shortcuts