Marcin 3M
Veteran Member
With brief motivation please (if possible).
--
Marcin_3M
--
Marcin_3M
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
R U going to keep 24-70/2.8 AND buy 24-120/4 (pool)
- Thread starter Marcin 3M
- Start date
slimandy
Veteran Member
At the moment I have a 24~120 f4 and a 28~70 f2.8. I have not done a side by side comparison yet, but having used the 24~120 to shoot a wedding at the weekend I think the 28~70 might be up for sale. The 24~120 is a smaller lens but has more range, and more specifically gives me the reach the 28~70 lacks. If I want a faster lens, which I would for narrow DoF mainly, I switch to fast primes. The 28~70 doesn't give me the range I get from the 24~120 nor the wide aperture I get from my primes (most used on saturday were a 50mm f1.2 and 105mm f2 DC).
The body was a D700. The high ISO performance was also helpful.
--
http://www.andrewsandersphotography.co.uk
The body was a D700. The high ISO performance was also helpful.
--
http://www.andrewsandersphotography.co.uk
jahern
Leading Member
I have the 24-70, in the past I used Canon's 24-70 and 24-105 when I shot Canon.
At this point I won't be going for the 24-120, I've started into weddings over a year ago, and if I was to spend money on more glass it would be the 24mm f/1.4 or update the 85mm f/1.4 to the new version.
I find I use the 24-70mm on one body and 70-200mm on the other most of the time, due to my experience it is safer to have the above set up as I still learning to know when things are going to happen, the above zoom range and f/2.8 can come with most situations.
When I have a bit more control of things I will pop on the 14-24 or 85mm. I'm renting the 24mm f/1.4 for a wedding this weekend so I'm looking forward to that, I love the images produced by primes. I can see myself going for a 24mm on one body and a 85mm on the other in future.
When I used the Canon lenses, I did not get that 'warm fuzzy' feeling from the 24-105mm, it was sharp, but the f/4 was a bit of the pain for both low light and background blur. The Nikon 24-70mm is a great lens, better than the Canon version and one of the reasons for my swap.
I would not rule the 24-120 out, but I can't see a use for it, the f/4 is a bit limiting and see it more as a travel lens that for wedding for me.
At this point I won't be going for the 24-120, I've started into weddings over a year ago, and if I was to spend money on more glass it would be the 24mm f/1.4 or update the 85mm f/1.4 to the new version.
I find I use the 24-70mm on one body and 70-200mm on the other most of the time, due to my experience it is safer to have the above set up as I still learning to know when things are going to happen, the above zoom range and f/2.8 can come with most situations.
When I have a bit more control of things I will pop on the 14-24 or 85mm. I'm renting the 24mm f/1.4 for a wedding this weekend so I'm looking forward to that, I love the images produced by primes. I can see myself going for a 24mm on one body and a 85mm on the other in future.
When I used the Canon lenses, I did not get that 'warm fuzzy' feeling from the 24-105mm, it was sharp, but the f/4 was a bit of the pain for both low light and background blur. The Nikon 24-70mm is a great lens, better than the Canon version and one of the reasons for my swap.
I would not rule the 24-120 out, but I can't see a use for it, the f/4 is a bit limiting and see it more as a travel lens that for wedding for me.
I have the 17-35, 28-70, 70-200 f/2.8 troika, but for casual stuff I often have the 24-120 f/3.5-5.6 on the D700. I plan to get the 24-120 f/4 to replace it.
I tested the new 24-120 in the store and am impressed. I see it as a great walk-about lens and will try it out fro event-type shooting.
I tested the new 24-120 in the store and am impressed. I see it as a great walk-about lens and will try it out fro event-type shooting.
+1
I might get it as a walk-around daytime lens, but the f2.8 trinity will stay in my bag as my workhorses. I use the 24-70 wide open most of the time as it is already very sharp in the center. A gem of a lens and the last one I would sell.
Your 24/85 idea does sound compelling though, but maybe limiting for weddings.
--
I'z lovez AiS'ez
I might get it as a walk-around daytime lens, but the f2.8 trinity will stay in my bag as my workhorses. I use the 24-70 wide open most of the time as it is already very sharp in the center. A gem of a lens and the last one I would sell.
Your 24/85 idea does sound compelling though, but maybe limiting for weddings.
--
I'z lovez AiS'ez
resident
Veteran Member
i love the 24-70mm and having never tried the new 24-120mm i can't comment on it.
Lately i've been looking at alot of samples from the 24mm f1.4 and i like what i see...so i think that will be my next lens.
--
badui bourizk
http://www.studio102.net
http://www.sicilians.com.au
Lately i've been looking at alot of samples from the 24mm f1.4 and i like what i see...so i think that will be my next lens.
--
badui bourizk
http://www.studio102.net
http://www.sicilians.com.au
There have been several threads (some more constructive than others 
) on the issue of 24-70 vs. 24-120.
I don't think the comparison is terribly useful as these are lenses for different purposes, maybe even for different users. I don't expect the 24-120 to have the same performance as the 24-70, and I wouldn't use it in the same ways.
The 24-120 has a very useful focal range, is reasonably fast, all-in-all an excellent lens. It's not quite a pro lens, but it will be my walk-about lens and a go-to lens when I don't want to carry multiple lenses. The loss of one stop over the 24-70 (in my case, the 28-70) is easily made up for by the excellent ISO performance of the D700.
For those who don't want to (or can't) have both lenses, you will have to determine which suits your photography better. If I can get the IQ I need from the 24-120, it may make me consider selling my 28-70, but I doubt it - the 28-70 is just too good to part with.
) on the issue of 24-70 vs. 24-120.I don't think the comparison is terribly useful as these are lenses for different purposes, maybe even for different users. I don't expect the 24-120 to have the same performance as the 24-70, and I wouldn't use it in the same ways.
The 24-120 has a very useful focal range, is reasonably fast, all-in-all an excellent lens. It's not quite a pro lens, but it will be my walk-about lens and a go-to lens when I don't want to carry multiple lenses. The loss of one stop over the 24-70 (in my case, the 28-70) is easily made up for by the excellent ISO performance of the D700.
For those who don't want to (or can't) have both lenses, you will have to determine which suits your photography better. If I can get the IQ I need from the 24-120, it may make me consider selling my 28-70, but I doubt it - the 28-70 is just too good to part with.
Fullframer
Veteran Member
Exactly...
Sold the 24-70G almost the same week I got the 24-120F4
Reason 1: Got the Tamron 28-75 2.8 already, damm fine for 2.8 and since it is the non BIM pretty snappy
Reason 2: The big, heavy, expensive, and obtrusive 24-70, while very nice at 2.8 and very fast focusing too was really not enough better the few times I needed 2.8 where the Tamron didn't do as well.
Reason 3: For the price of the 24-70 I sold I picked up the 24-120F4, two fast primes and still have a few dollars and prowling for a 85 1.8D.
Need really fast and bokeh go primes at F1.8, F2 or even to 2.8 give the larger 24-70 a run for the money.
Need walkaround got the far more flexible 24-120 and it got VR too!
Need a zoom got the Tamron.
Nuff said, the 300 2.8 now that is a lens to lust for. I'm done in the midrange and the 24-70 is forever in my rear view mirror
Reason 1: Got the Tamron 28-75 2.8 already, damm fine for 2.8 and since it is the non BIM pretty snappy
Reason 2: The big, heavy, expensive, and obtrusive 24-70, while very nice at 2.8 and very fast focusing too was really not enough better the few times I needed 2.8 where the Tamron didn't do as well.
Reason 3: For the price of the 24-70 I sold I picked up the 24-120F4, two fast primes and still have a few dollars and prowling for a 85 1.8D.
Need really fast and bokeh go primes at F1.8, F2 or even to 2.8 give the larger 24-70 a run for the money.
Need walkaround got the far more flexible 24-120 and it got VR too!
Need a zoom got the Tamron.
Nuff said, the 300 2.8 now that is a lens to lust for. I'm done in the midrange and the 24-70 is forever in my rear view mirror
I have the Nikon 24-70 F2.8, normally mounted on the D3 that's my walk around lens along side with the Canon 70-200 F2.8 IS MK2, mounted on the 1Ds2 or 1D2, I am a dual system user, I have no plan to get the 24-120 F4 VR, the weight is never a concern for me, and if I really want a small camera, I have a T2i for those occasions. I sold all my Canon F4 zoom for a F2.8 Nikon zoom and stick to the nice Canon L primes, have no plan to go back to the F4 yet. I sometimes carry the 14-24G too if I think I will need wider FL.
trickortreat
Leading Member
along with 14-24, 70-200VRII and the rest of my lenses are primes. I have lots of primes.
I find I like shooting at f/2.8 too much plus it's just too good to part with. If I do by a 'convenience lens' for say travel it may be what KR recommends the new 28-300....Nah I'll just travel with two primes say the 24 and 85 on FX.
--
John
I find I like shooting at f/2.8 too much plus it's just too good to part with. If I do by a 'convenience lens' for say travel it may be what KR recommends the new 28-300....Nah I'll just travel with two primes say the 24 and 85 on FX.
--
John
slimandy
Veteran Member
Sounds to me you don't need the 24~70 either.
Ilkka Nissilä
Veteran Member
Yes, most likely. I would like to have a zoom that goes both sides of 70mm, e.g., for portrait shooting outdoors or in the studio. However, the 24-120/4 isn't of similar quality as the f/2.8 zooms so I would not be selling the 24-70 which is a lens I trust.
ralphcramdon
Veteran Member
i think so
the 24-120 looks like a good vacation lens
the 24-120 looks like a good vacation lens
Vertigon
Veteran Member
Can't see me parting with my 24-70, it sucks in some dust which is annoying, so if they remedy that I'II consider upgrading to something of no less quality.
ofior
Leading Member
What is not clear, and drives me mad is the statemet that the 24-120 is not a "pro" lens, but a "walk around" lens.
What does this mean?
1- Not sealed as well
2- Too much plastic
3- Not as sharp as the 24-70? Is that true at all focal lengths, and can someone share pictures to demonstrate this?
4- Not a pro lens because it lacks f2.8?
5- Likes to be taken for walks, is caustrophobic?
Item 3 is the real killer for me, because it is the only one that requires a compromise in image quality.
Ozzie
What does this mean?
1- Not sealed as well
2- Too much plastic
3- Not as sharp as the 24-70? Is that true at all focal lengths, and can someone share pictures to demonstrate this?
4- Not a pro lens because it lacks f2.8?
5- Likes to be taken for walks, is caustrophobic?
Item 3 is the real killer for me, because it is the only one that requires a compromise in image quality.
Ozzie
"Walk around" and "Pro" are not opposites.
"Pro" is about build quality, speed, IQ.
"Walk around" is a functional description of use, and one person's walk-around lens may not be another's. For me, it is a lens of such general utility that it stays on the camera by default for general or casual use. For many people, the 24-70 f/2.8 is a walk-around lens, and it is clearly a "Pro" lens.
Partly this: it extends in length, therefore not well sealed.
Partly this.
I have not done this test; it is sharper than the unarguably consumer-grade 24-120 f/3.5-5.6
I don't use this as a criterion. The 200-400 is f/4.
Very amusing.
Leonard Shepherd
Veteran Member
Probably - when the 24-120 is available in UK at a 20% street discount.
Even at 20% off the 24-120 will be more than the 24-70 was in 2008
--
Leonard Shepherd
Practicing and thinking can do more for good photography than buying or consuming.
Even at 20% off the 24-120 will be more than the 24-70 was in 2008
--
Leonard Shepherd
Practicing and thinking can do more for good photography than buying or consuming.
trickortreat
Leading Member
You're probably right. I'm not a pro but if I need to shoot a family party I use the 'event lens' 24-70. For evening events I take a flash but don't like using it and I'm sitting at f/2.8 (and ISO around 5000) most of the time. I have a fast toddler and I find I get the most keepers with the 'indoor toddler lens' 24-70.
The 70-200 is my playground and kids sports lens.
When I'm shooting for leasure I always reach for a prime.
--
John
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum