chemdoc Loc: West Coast

I am looking to upgrade my Canon T4i to a Nikon D750 and am interested in some advice on lenses. I have read on a multitude of posts the importance of getting the highest quality lenses possible and want to make the best choices I can.

The D750 currently comes bundled with the Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-120mm f/4G ED VR Lens for only $300 more than the price of the body alone on B&H while the lens alone costs $1100. I shoot mainly landscape and fly fishing/landscape photos and almost always use a tripod and the articulated screen on my T4i to compose the shots.

I am very interested in the Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 16-35mm f/4G ED VR Lens as this has excellent reviews and is the perfect range for landscapes. On my current camera I use 10-18 and 18-135 mm lenses and rarely shoot beyond 100mm which is 160 mm in FF. The 24-120 lens is a great range but I wonder if it would be better to sell it new and use that money to invest in something like the Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8E ED VR Lens.

My key question is whether the 24-70 lens is higher enough in quality to justify the cost. I have had several images grace the covers of fly fishing magazines this past year and want to have high quality images when I submit them. However, if the image quality of the 24-70 is not noticeably superior to the 24-120, than perhaps the extra cost would not be justified.

I would appreciate any advice and input from those of you who have used these lenses. Thanks.

Phil

orrie smith Loc: Kansas

the 24-120mm lens that comes with the camera is a great lens, you should not be disappointed. for an additional lens, you might want to look at the 105mm micro lens offered my Nikon. it is a great lens and when you want to get a really good close up macro shot, it works great.

Bret Loc: Dayton Ohio

For $300 bucks I'd keep the 24-120...I here its an exceptional lens. Maybe consider a wide prime lens in the 2.8 area for your fly fishing shots...20....24 perhaps.

wolfman

The Nikkor 16-35 f/4 is an excellent lens for landscape. It's my go to lens on my D800 for that purpose.
I have an image posted here: I also have more on 500px, just click the link below my name.
http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-360154-1.html

chase4 Loc: Punta Corona, California

If you like academic bench/lab test results then checkout:

DxOMark.com

AZNikon Loc: Mesa, AZ

If I had it to do all over again I would buy the D750 body only (love the camera) and buy the AF-S Nikkor 28-300mm F3.5-5.6G ED VR Lens separately. I was trading up from the D5200 w/Sigma 18-300mm and I really missed the extra distance that I lost (300-120) by buying the kit. The 24-120 is a great lens but I wound up selling it on eBay and buying the 28-300 as a walk-around lens. But to each his own. Your needs are probably totally different to mine.

Bill_de Loc: US

There is an old saying that says (something like) 90% of cost goes into the last 10% of quality improvement. The numbers themselves are an very wild approximation.

While these 'kit' lenses may not take the same abuse that their more expensive cousins can, they don't lag far behind in image quality ... in most cases. I'm not talking about lab tests, I'm talking about the image they can produce. Beyond the pixel counters, most people won't have any problem.

I have a couple of kit lenses, all the way up to one of Nikon's most expensive. I use them all.

--

MtnMan Loc: ID

I don't believe the 28-300 takes near the quality of images as the 24-120. Check DXOMark. I use the 24-85 for that range but for $300 likely would go for the 24-120. I'd compare the weight.

I'm thinking of dumping my 28-300 since I got the 200-500. But I do find I use it sometimes on my D5300 when I want to keep the weight modest.

Another lens to consider is the AF nifty fifty. Best possible quality for about $125. Useful for landscape when you want to lighten up. The 16-35 is nice but relatively heavy...nonetheless my primary lens for the D800.

http://www.dxomark.com/lenses/brand-nikon/mounted_on-Nikon_D750-975/launched-between-1987-and-2016/mount_type-Nikon_F_FX/focal-from-24-to-300/aperture_max-from-2.8-to-45/lens_zoom-zoom/sensor_brand-Nikon#hideAdvancedOptions=false&viewMode=list&yDataType=global

Oh, I see there are two 24-120 with quite different ratings. Be sure you compare apples to apples.

Kmgw9v Loc: Miami, Florida

The 24-70 2.8 is well worth what it costs----you get what you pay for.

bdk Loc: Sanibel Fl.

I would get the 24/120 and see how you like it.
you can but that lens for around $550. on ebay. so if u dont like it, you could make some money towards your next lens.

mcveed Loc: Kelowna, British Columbia (between trips)

Take the 24-120. Its a steal at $300. I bought one of those when I switched from a DX D200 to an FX D700 because it has the equivalent range of the 16-85 lens which I loved as a walk around lens. Excellent as a one lens solution for travel and general photography. I was astonished when I saw that Nikon was packing this as a "kit" lens with the D750.

MtnMan Loc: ID

Probably not the same one. The f4 rates substantially better than the 3.5-5.6.

chemdoc Loc: West Coast

Thanks for the input everyone. It is the 24-120 F/4 that comes with the 750. The lens alone costs $1100 at B&H, but as a kit only adds $300 to the cost of the body alone.

Bill_de Loc: US

If you add that same lens to a D810 it is an extra $500. That's the same as Adorama and Nikon. I wonder if a D750 replacement is in the not to distant future. Not that it would keep me from buying now.

tjphxaz Loc: Phoenix, AZ

I have D750 and for your specified uses suggest the Nikon 16-35 f/4 for landscapes, and Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 for fly fishing. The Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 is higher rated than Nikon and less $. A terrific walk-around lens. A good tripod and ballhead rated at least 22lb as well.