Nikon 24-120 or 24-70 f2.8 For D750
Jan 3, 2015 19:10:58 #
pmackd wrote:
Wrong comparison. the f3.5-5.6 is an old lens, not the f4 under consideration. DxO overall for that is 22. The f4 is a much better lens.
jerry's comparison looks valid, the 24-120, old or new, just barely makes it into the starter kit lens category.
But used, its a lot of lens for the money.
Jan 3, 2015 19:19:03 #
oldtigger wrote:
jerry's comparison looks valid, the 24-120, old or new, just barely makes it into the starter kit lens category.
That is what I ran into when I looked into purchasing one.
A professional friend of mine suggested that I take a hard look at the Sigma 24-105. He had sold his 24-120 and eventually purchased the Sigma. It took a while to convince me (1 day) but it was worth it.
Jan 3, 2015 19:23:21 #
GPS Phil wrote:
That is what I ran into when I looked into purchasing one.
A professional friend of mine suggested that I take a hard look at the Sigma 24-105. He had sold his 24-120 and eventually purchased the Sigma. It took a while to convince me (1 day) but it was worth it.
A professional friend of mine suggested that I take a hard look at the Sigma 24-105. He had sold his 24-120 and eventually purchased the Sigma. It took a while to convince me (1 day) but it was worth it.
The 24-120mm f/4 is a 5X zoom. If you need that range of focal lengths, it's the best available. If you don't, there are many other lenses that are more suitable.
Jan 3, 2015 19:23:30 #
oldtigger wrote:
jerry's comparison looks valid, the 24-120, old or new, just barely makes it into the starter kit lens category.
These numbers don't tell the whole story. I was some reluctant to get the 24-120 F4 with my D750 and now I'm glad I did. I've tested it at all focal lengths and it seems very sharp, as others on UHH have said. Especially at f 5.6. (at 24 mm f4 is just as sharp) It's sharp enough in the mid focal length range for me to determine something that few people know, the D7100 DX camera, without AA filter, produces sharper images than the D750, not by much, but my test and a friend's test left no doubt. The 24-120 is even sharp at 120mm and not lacking in contrast. For my shooting style a lens that couldn't go past 70mm or even 105mm would drive me nuts as a walkaround.
Jan 3, 2015 19:28:43 #
Apaflo wrote:
older 24-120mm f/3.5-5.6 and didn't mind the extremely poor optical quality!
.
.
Optical quality is generally much over rated. Check out Graham Smith's pictures on the Critique section, most of which were shot on the old 24-120.
Jan 3, 2015 19:37:52 #
pmackd wrote:
These numbers don't tell the whole story. ... the D7100 DX camera, without AA filter, produces sharper images than the D750, not by much, but my test and a friend's test left no doubt. ...
i had the impression the 750 wasn't designed for high quality, it was more a niche camera for jock straps in action and such.
Sort of an attempt to get back some of the action shooters canon has been catering to.
Jan 3, 2015 19:49:16 #
oldtigger wrote:
i had the impression the 750 wasn't designed for high quality, it was more a niche camera for jock straps in action and such.
Sort of an attempt to get back some of the action shooters canon has been catering to.
Sort of an attempt to get back some of the action shooters canon has been catering to.
The D750 and the D610 are the best Nikon can do with a FF 24 Mp sensor (the best any maker can do at present as far as I know). They probably left the AA filter on because at that relatively large pixel size moire would be too much of a problem, whereas with 24 Mp DX and 36 Mp FX (the D8xx cameras) moire is less of a problem. If they can figure out how to lose the AA on FF 24 Mp sensors, they will do it. So to say the D750 isn't "designed for high quality" is silly. In IQ and for low noise, it's the best 24 Mp full frame camera there is. If you need higher resolution and a tiny bit more dynamic range with Nikon, you get the 36 Mp D810.
Jan 3, 2015 20:42:39 #
pmackd wrote:
The D750 and the D610 are the best Nikon can do with a FF 24 Mp sensor ... So to say the D750 isn't "designed for high quality" is silly. In IQ and for low noise, it's the best 24 Mp full frame camera there is. ...
I sometimes wonder if the net is the place to go for 'the truth'
It just seems the 610 users are defending their turf pretty well against the challenge of the 750.
Jan 3, 2015 20:53:52 #
mcveed wrote:
Optical quality is generally much over rated. Check out Graham Smith's pictures on the Critique section, most of which were shot on the old 24-120.
The first question to ask though, is would his work be better with a 24-70mm f/2.8? I'd expect the answer is that it technically would be better. Not necessarily artistically, nor more satisfying to Graham, so that's his decision to make.
How often does Graham shoot that lens at greater than 70mm? It actually isn't a bad lens at 24mm (where he uses it for a lot of landscape work), but gets progressively poorer as the focal length increases.
As a contrast to that, my photography makes more use of the longer end of the 24-120mm f/4, but I need the wide end to be readily available. Hence I don't want to have to switch lenses to get it, would not be horrified if the short end weren't all that good, and a 24-70mm f/2.8 just doesn't work for me.
Before the 24-120mm f/4 came out I was using a Nikkor 28-105mm and a 28-135mm Tamron (two lenses with very different flare characteristics). The 24-120mm f/4 put the other two in mothballs.
It is always a matter of trade offs and compromises, which are different for each of us.
Jan 3, 2015 22:18:24 #
oldtigger wrote:
I sometimes wonder if the net is the place to go for 'the truth'
It just seems the 610 users are defending their turf pretty well against the challenge of the 750.
It just seems the 610 users are defending their turf pretty well against the challenge of the 750.
The 610 and the 750 use essentially the same sensor. IQ tests run by DxO show them running neck and neck in all aspects of IQ, as expected.
Jan 4, 2015 00:15:05 #
speters wrote:
If you do plan on getting the 70-200 also, than to me that's a no brainer, with the 24-70 and the 70-200 (both 2.8) you'll have that 24-120 covered and much more, why even bother?
Well, both of those lenses are quite of bit weight to carry around on a regular basis. My thoughts are to use a 24-120 as a walk around travel lens and when you plan a day of taking pics use the 24-70 to get the best quality shots. Likewise the telephoto, 70-200, would be use for a planned shoot/trip where you know you need the distance...
Jan 4, 2015 00:28:45 #
Hkhabe wrote:
Well, both of those lenses are quite of bit weight to carry around on a regular basis. My thoughts are to use a 24-120 as a walk around travel lens and when you plan a day of taking pics use the 24-70 to get the best quality shots. Likewise the telephoto, 70-200, would be use for a planned shoot/trip where you know you need the distance...
That's half my travel kit for Hawaii next week; D750 with 24-120 f4 for walk around and landscapes. The rest: D7100 with 11-16 f2.8 Tokina and Nikon 70-300 VR with or without 1.4x TC for birds and whales. 70-200 on FX is rarely enough for birds or other wildlife at a distance.
Jan 4, 2015 03:22:05 #
Hkhabe wrote:
Considering either going with the kit lens, 24-120, or spending a little more for the 24-70 f2.8. This will be my first lens for a FX and thus my main lens other than a 70-200 some day and a prime lens for portraits.
What do you think? Go with the 24-120 or the 24-70? I just would rather spend more on the f2.8 if that's the way to go - I mainly shoot landscape and family pics... Thanks.
What do you think? Go with the 24-120 or the 24-70? I just would rather spend more on the f2.8 if that's the way to go - I mainly shoot landscape and family pics... Thanks.
I was in the very same dilemma back in Nov last year.
Sought the advice of MT Shooter, suggested the 24/120 f4
The extra reach is a benefit on the D750
I have read the 24/120 is next in line after the trinity
Rarely comes off my D750.
Jan 4, 2015 13:08:05 #
Aaron Braganza wrote:
I was in the very same dilemma back in Nov last year.
Sought the advice of MT Shooter, suggested the 24/120 f4
The extra reach is a benefit on the D750
I have read the 24/120 is next in line after the trinity
Rarely comes off my D750.
Sought the advice of MT Shooter, suggested the 24/120 f4
The extra reach is a benefit on the D750
I have read the 24/120 is next in line after the trinity
Rarely comes off my D750.
I took MT shooter's advice too. Glad I did.
Jan 5, 2015 15:27:36 #
Rick from NY
Loc: Sarasota FL
"These numbers don't tell the whole story"
Probably the best comment in the entire thread. DOX scores are meaningless to me. If I were shooting brick walls, perhaps I might pay more attention to such "lab" results. I prefer to rely on my own eye when shooting in the real world.
If the original poster is dissatisfied with his 24-120, then nothing I or anyone else says will have much impact. The only thing that matters is how the equiment functions in the hands of the shooter. My (and others) praise of the lens is only valid if it prods the OP to determine if perhaps he has a poor copy of the lens or if he is using poor technique. If neither is the case, then the lens is not for him.
Probably the best comment in the entire thread. DOX scores are meaningless to me. If I were shooting brick walls, perhaps I might pay more attention to such "lab" results. I prefer to rely on my own eye when shooting in the real world.
If the original poster is dissatisfied with his 24-120, then nothing I or anyone else says will have much impact. The only thing that matters is how the equiment functions in the hands of the shooter. My (and others) praise of the lens is only valid if it prods the OP to determine if perhaps he has a poor copy of the lens or if he is using poor technique. If neither is the case, then the lens is not for him.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.