FiddleMaker Loc: Merrimac, MA

MT Shooter, I think if I had known this, I would have opted for the 24-120 Nano rather than the 28-300. I wish the shop had explained this since I am a real dumb-a$$ when it comes to this stuff. -FiddleMaker

OnDSnap Loc: NE New Jersey

The marketeers at Nikon aren't stupid, they know there are those who will purchase a Body & lens kit (thinking oh what a deal) and then realize I should have just bought the body, then go out and buy another lens once realized the kit lens isn't what they need, win win for Nikon. Same with purchasing DX lenses, knowing quite a few will eventually move to an FX body then they go out and buy FX lenses...another win win for Nikon. IMO, Buy the body (DX or FX)...and only buy FX lenses. FX lenses will hold more value over time. (especially the faster ones) Win Win for the consumer.

Peanut_the_cat Loc: Bradenton, Florida

[quote=iyernat]Hello all. Now I have this itch to buy the D750 and hence the following question. The 24-120 FX lens is actually ore expensive than the 28-300 FX lens. However, all retailers (Adoraa, B & H etc) have the D750 kit which includes the 24-120 lens for $2300. My question is whether they will switch the 24-120 lens to the 28-300 lens for the same price ? I will have more use out of the 28-300 lens.

P.S I already own D7100 with the not so useful 18-55 lens and 18-200 DX lens, 50mm 1.8 and 35 mm 1.8 lens.

I doubt any seller would make the switch as the combo is packaged and would mean breaking down so no outerpackaging for the lens. And these questions as to which is the better or more useful lens are impossible to answer. Bette

Peanut_the_cat Loc: Bradenton, Florida

[quote=iyernat]Hello all. Now I have this itch to buy the D750 and hence the following question. The 24-120 FX lens is actually ore expensive than the 28-300 FX lens. However, all retailers (Adoraa, B & H etc) have the D750 kit which includes the 24-120 lens for $2300. My question is whether they will switch the 24-120 lens to the 28-300 lens for the same price ? I will have more use out of the 28-300 lens.

P.S I already own D7100 with the not so useful 18-55 lens and 18-200 DX lens, 50mm 1.8 and 35 mm 1.8 lens.

I doubt any seller would make the switch as the combo is packaged and would mean breaking down so no outerpackaging for the lens. And these questions as to which is the better or more useful lens are impossible to answer. Bette

billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont

Your savings on this camera and lens is so good it is almost hard to pass up. No, I do not believe they will switch lenses because the lens comes boxed with the camera and the camera retailer would have to take the lens out and put a 28-300 in the box so I do not believe any camera store would do this because then they would have a 24-120 without a box, it would be hard to sell. But the savings and lens are so good that if I did not already own a 24-120 I would buy it. Besides, buy it and welcome to the wide side, you would gain a 24mm lens, very nice lens for general photography. Enjoy the decision making process. And the 35 mm 1.8 would give you great results on the D750.

Peanut_the_cat Loc: Bradenton, Florida

[quote=iyernat]Hello all. Now I have this itch to buy the D750 and hence the following question. The 24-120 FX lens is actually ore expensive than the 28-300 FX lens. However, all retailers (Adoraa, B & H etc) have the D750 kit which includes the 24-120 lens for $2300. My question is whether they will switch the 24-120 lens to the 28-300 lens for the same price ? I will have more use out of the 28-300 lens.

P.S I already own D7100 with the not so useful 18-55 lens and 18-200 DX lens, 50mm 1.8 and 35 mm 1.8 lens.

I doubt any seller would make the switch as the combo is packaged and would mean breaking down, so no outer packaging for the lens or body. And these questions as to which is the better, or more useful lens, are impossible to answer. Better is meaningful if we compare like with like. Longer lenses often have smaller apertures so are slower (poorer) only better if longer is important to you and you actually use it. Only you can answer that question - not a forum.

It's a shame to refer to the 24 -120 Nikon as a "kit" lens as that implies poorer construction or just good enough to "give away" with a body. Often a kit lens does have lower construction quality or not great optics. Although even this is not always true. The 24 - 120mm is my favorite lens by far for usefulness, coupled with my D750 and the 5 others FX lenes - all primes. I personally don't need a long lens with the longest for the D750 being my Nikon 180mm f2.8 - always a great lens even though it has been around forever. The 24 - 120mm is sharp enough for me. I think it more useful to pratice the art of photography than over analyzing the hardware. Although I guess it's fun to do. It's like buying a new set of golf clubs - will they lower your handicap? It's just the pleasure of the new in your hands.

FiddleMaker Loc: Merrimac, MA

billnikon, I have a D750 with only the 28-300. I have been toying with the idea of getting a 16-35 or perhaps a 35mm prime. I figure the prime 35 would be good for indoor group shots such as birthday parties , for example. Would I get a sharper image with a prime? Any thoughts?
-FiddleMaker

billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont

I photographed my son's wedding a year ago with the 24-120 lens shooting candid's only. I was blown away with the sharpness of this lens. And, my personal opinion, sharpness is in the eyes of the beholder. Prime lenses are known for sharpness. If I took a picture and blew to an 8X10 using a 24-120 and a prime 35 I would be hard pressed to see major differences in sharpness, my opinion only. A good photographer can use either lens and produce good results.

OnDSnap Loc: NE New Jersey

Although pricey, I use the Nikon AF-S Zoom-NIKKOR 17-35mm f/2.8D IF-ED for Realty & Architectural jobs, probably could have gotten away with the Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 16-35mm f/4G ED VR Lens (both great glass) being a lot is done with flash and or controlled lighting and don't really need the f/2.8. But have it if needed.

AZNikon Loc: Mesa, AZ

Thanks for that information MT Shooter. Now it makes sense.

BobHartung Loc: Bettendorf, IA

While I don't have a D750, I do own the 28-300 and I do not like its' tendency to extend when the camera is allowed to hang by the strap and I haven't taken the time to lock the lens barrel. I use the 24-120 as my primary walk about lens and find it more than adequate.

Tracyv Loc: Del Mar, Ca

:thumbup:

CraigFair Loc: Santa Maria, CA.

As has been said don't get the Kit get the Camera and Lens separate.
The Nikon 28-300mm is the perfect Lens for the Nikon D750.
I bet you never take it off the Camera. Sell the other stuff.
Craig

Bear2 Loc: Southeast,, MI

I agree with you, but also know the dealers have "white" boxes, Unmarked that they can put the lens in and still sell as new. Bought one that way, and no it was not "grey" marketed.
Duane

Gobuster Loc: South Florida

I have the 16-35 and the 28-300. Find this combination to be a great combo and when traveling these are the two I carry. I also have 24, 50 and 85mm primes that are rarely used and only when wider apertures are required. I think you will find the sharpness of the zooms very little different from the primes, and, if you post process with a program offering lens corrections (I use Lightroom CC), I find the results very, very good. My other favorite lens is the 24-85 VR that was a kit lens with my D600, it is incredibly sharp, I think even sharper than the primes except for the 85mm 1.8. These are not the the holy trinity, but, having shot with the trinity, I think my 16-35, 24-85 and 28-300 offer me better range, lower cost and in some cases, better image quality. They are all VR and offer excellent value - you can buy all three for about the cost of the 70-200 2.8! That said, they are not pro lenses and are thus not weather sealed, not as robustly made and probably won't take the beating the pro lenses can. For me this is not an issue, YMMV.

Getting back to your question about a lens suitable for birthday parties I feel that unless you need higher shutter speeds for stilling subject movement, the 35mm f1.8 prime is probably not going to offer a meaningful improvement over the 28-300 set at 35mm. You would give up VR too, so camera movement will have more effect on the results if shooting slower speeds. The 35mm f1.8 cost about the same as the 24-85 VR zoom and I think you would be better served by the latter. That's my 2 cents worth - other opinions may vary :)