I aam interested in some advice on lenses.

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.


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

Both lenses, 24-120 vr f4 and the 24-120 vr 3.5-5.6 are good lenses if you know how to use them. The constant f4 speaks for itself over variable f stop. Both are very sharp in the center. The variable short coming are at the edges. Most people wouldn't notice the difference. If the variable lens is used on a DX camera, the camera automatically cuts off the corners. If used on a FX camera compose more room around the edges so you can crop off the softness. By knowing how to get the most out of your equipment either lens will do the job. Remember there will always be a better product to cause GAS. Learn to use what you have.

I own the D750; the 16-35 f4; the 24-70 f2.8 and the 70-200 f2.8. When I had a cropped sensor, the 16-35 was my go to lens and had amazing quality, now with the D750, the 24-70 is rarely off the camera. I really don't think there is much better lens out there than the 24-70, 2.8. Having said that, if you can get that good of a kit lens for $300, it really should be a no brainer, if only to sell it on ebay for more.

There is a reason some of these lenses are so expensive. I have found them far superior when shooting extremes in lighting and contrast If you are very critical of the quality of your images you can't go wrong with the 24-70 2.8.

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

Thanks everyone for all of the great comments and advice. It has given me a lot to think about. As suggested by many, I will definitely get the kit with the 24-120 for an extra $300, as I can always sell it on eBay and purchase a different lens if desired.

I know some of you have the 24-70 F/2.8 and I am curious as to the image quality of the new version with VR compared to the older version without. Since I shoot mainly on a tripod, I wonder if it would be worth the extra $600 unless there are other improvements besides VR.

Thanks everyone for all of the great comments and advice. It has given me a lot to think about. As suggested by many, I will definitely get the kit with the 24-120 for an extra $300, as I can always sell it on eBay and purchase a different lens if desired.

I know some of you have the 24-70 F/2.8 and I am curious as to the image quality of the new version with VR compared to the older version without. Since I shoot mainly on a tripod, I wonder if it would be worth the extra $600 unless there are other improvements besides VR.