Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8 v. Nikon 24-120mm f/4 VR

W

WDWFigment

Member
I had previously pretty much dismissed the Nikon 24-120mm f/4 VR out of hand as a basic kit lens. However, the more I read about it, the more impressive it sounds. It seems that the image quality isn't quite as nice as the 24-70mm, but it's really close.

Looking for a recommendation. By way of background, here's what my bag currently includes:

  • Nikon D700
  • Nikon 14-24mm f/2.8
  • Nikon 50mm f/1.8
  • Access to, but not ownership of, Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8

I'll be using whichever lens I purchase almost exclusively at in the parks. While the f/2.8 is appealing, I actually think the VR trumps it from the perspective of "speed." Obviously not in the case of dark rides, but in the early-evening when I do a lot of handheld shooting when I ideally should be using a tripod. It'd be my only lens with VR, so that makes it alluring.

The extra range of the 24-120 is also somewhat appealing and might save me from changing lenses to the 70-200 in some cases, but isn't a must. I don't mind carrying more gear. Another plus of the 24-120 is the price, but I'm willing to spend the extra money on the 24-70mm if its quality and features make it worth it.

Has anyone used either of these lenses? Both? Thoughts?
 
I WISH Canon would make a 24-120! ; I have the 24-105 f/4 L IS and its my main walkaround lens but the extra 15mm would come in handy quite often. ; With the VR, the extra stop to f/2.8 is less appealing, especially given the price and weight. ; That extra stop won't help you on rides and probably won't give you the focal length needed for shows. ;
 
Don't get confused with the first 24-120VR which had a variable aperture. ; The f/4 is a solid lens. ; I believe Roger had one when he used a Nikon D700. ; With the ISO performance of the full frame sensors, f/4 is not a dirty fixed aperture for lenses anymore. ; :) Not to mention the weight savings. ; The don't call the 24-70 the Beast for nothing. ; It is heavy.
 
Tim - I know it won't be an apples-to-apples comparison, but have you used Canon's 24-70mm f/2.8 (or whatever their alternative to Nikon's 24-70 2.8 is)?

I'm really starting to lean towards the 24-120, but there's an almost irrational fear I have about using a "kit" lens. At over $1,000, it would be an awfully expensive kit lens...something about it just seems too good to be true!
 
"Scottwdw" said:
Don't get confused with the first 24-120VR which had a variable aperture. ; The f/4 is a solid lens. ; I believe Roger had one when he used a Nikon D700. ; With the ISO performance of the full frame sensors, f/4 is not a dirty fixed aperture for lenses anymore. ; :) Not to mention the weight savings. ; The don't call the 24-70 the Beast for nothing. ; It is heavy.
Click to expand...

Oh yeah, I'm well aware of the differences between the f/4 version and the f/3.5-5.6 versions. Only the f/4 is even remotely appealing.

Lens weight is no issue to me. Just quality and the other variables mentioned.
 
Tom, actually I didn't think about what I do have. ;

I have the much older 28-70 f/2.8 L (and the 24-105 f/4 L) and don't really use the f/2.8 all that much. ; It's a nice piece of glass but just doesn't have the range that I would like to prevent swapping out all the time. ; That said, the only thing I have longer than 105 is my sigmonster so I would most likely be swapping out anyway.

Tough call on this one. ;
 
Actually I think my dream lens would be a 18-200 f/2.8 L IS.... ; but they would never make it since it would kill off about 3-4 other lenses (and it would probably cost BIG bank).
 
"Tim" said:
Actually I think my dream lens would be a 18-200 f/2.8 L IS.... ; but they would never make it since it would kill off about 3-4 other lenses (and it would probably cost BIG bank).
Click to expand...

Really? I'm more of a 8-400mm f/1.0 VR guy!

If we're dreaming, why not go for the gold, right?! ;)
 
Nope I never used the 24-120 f/4. ; I had the 16-35 f/4 VR. ; A very nice lens although pincushiony at 16mm.

I loved loved loved the 28-105 f/3.5-4.5. ; Dreamy 1:2 macro ability, if it had VR I would probably still have a Nikon.
 
Just wanted to point out that there were reports of light leaks with the 24-70, but I think Nikon has since fixed the issue. ;

I haven't used the 24-70, but I have the lens it replaced - 28-70 f2.8 and absolutely love it. ; I use it most of the time, especially for my railroad photography and have never had any issues with it mechanically and the image quality is great. ; If the extra range of the 24-105 isn't the deciding factor, it might be worth looking for a used 28-70 as a cheaper alternative to the 24-70.
 
"mSummers" said:
Just wanted to point out that there were reports of light leaks with the 24-70, but I think Nikon has since fixed the issue. ;

I haven't used the 24-70, but I have the lens it replaced - 28-70 f2.8 and absolutely love it. ; I use it most of the time, especially for my railroad photography and have never had any issues with it mechanically and the image quality is great. ; If the extra range of the 24-105 isn't the deciding factor, it might be worth looking for a used 28-70 as a cheaper alternative to the 24-70.
Click to expand...

I'll ditto the 28-70. ; Very nice lens. ; Just make sure that your copy doesn't squeak - the ultrasonic motor in some of them has already gone out, and that's a big sign of it.
 
Tom, have you considered the new Tamron 24-70 VC?

Roger over at Lensrentals noticed and tested it against the Canon 24-70, and while the Canon focused slightly faster, the Tamron is coming up sharper all over the lens. ; (corners, center, at all f-stops)
 
I have the old Canon 28-70 f/2.8 and it still works very well. ; It is fairly heavy and the focus isn't as fast as the newer ones but I am hard pressed to sell it in favor of a 24-70 f/2.8, esp. since the cost of lenses has skyrocketed in the past 2-3 years.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top