Prime Lens vrs Kit Lenses (Page 3): Can do almost as much, at much faster apertures and much less weight with a 24/2.8 and an 85/1.8 prime set, probably at better optical quality.

asiafish Loc: Bakersfield, CA

Reinaldokool wrote:

I don't know the kit lens for this camera, but MTShooter is one of the sharper knives in this drawer. If he says it is good, get it.

I usually don't buy kit lenses because they often offer a short zoom and a longer one, both mediocre. But sometimes. . . and this is one of those times. A 50-200 and an 18-50 would be a poor combination. But an 24-120 is a good range for much use.

Can do almost as much, at much faster apertures and much less weight with a 24/2.8 and an 85/1.8 prime set, probably at better optical quality.

MT Shooter Loc: Montana

Nikon 24-120mm F4G VR Nano, DXOmark scores on different bodies. The sensor makes a HUGE difference, contrary to other "opinions" posted here.

.......................D600 D750 D800E D810
Score.................22 22 25 24
Sharpness..........12 14 15 15
Transmission......4.4 4.4 4.4 4.4
Distortion...........8% .8% .7% .8%
Vignetting.........-1.9 -2 -1.5 -2
Chr. Abberation...11 11 11 11

These numbers are not "opinions", but are highly verified lab results.

asiafish Loc: Bakersfield, CA

MT Shooter wrote:

Nikon 24-120mm F4G VR Nano, DXOmark scores on dif... (show quote)

They are also just numbers, that have little relation to actual pictures of anything other than test charts.

MT Shooter Loc: Montana

asiafish wrote:

They are also just numbers, that have little relation to actual pictures of anything other than test charts.

If you do not understand the statement, or the relationship, why make a comment??

asiafish Loc: Bakersfield, CA

MT Shooter wrote:

If you do not understand the statement, or the relationship, why make a comment??

I understand the numbers just fine, but have found a lens with better numbers (resolution, distortion, etc) does not necessarily take better pictures. The last thing I would do when buying a lens is choose it strictly on DXO test results.

cmcaroffino Loc: Sebring, FL

The kit lens that comes with the D750 is the 24-120 which is a very good lens (this version). You get a substantial discount when buying it with the camera. The lens lists for $1096, the camera body is $1896, the camera & lens as a kit list for $2396 a savings of $600. To me it is a no brainer to get the lens. I would still add a primes as you need them.

asiafish Loc: Bakersfield, CA

cmcaroffino wrote:

The kit lens that comes with the D750 is the 24-120 which is a very good lens (this version). You get a substantial discount when buying it with the camera. The lens lists for $1096, the camera body is $1896, the camera & lens as a kit list for $2396 a savings of $600. To me it is a no brainer to get the lens. I would still add a primes as you need them.

Resale is about $600, so its only a no-brainer if you want to use it.

For a standard zoom its a decent one, but f/4 can be quite limiting. That same $600 can get a 24/2.8 D and an 85/1.8 G or D, both of which are excellent and the two together will cost the same $600, be smaller, lighter, faster and optically better.

GoofyNewfie Loc: Kansas City

asiafish wrote:

Resale is about $600, so its only a no-brainer if you want to use it.

For a standard zoom its a decent one, but f/4 can be quite limiting. That same $600 can get a 24/2.8 D and an 85/1.8 G or D, both of which are excellent and the two together will cost the same $600, be smaller, lighter, faster and optically better.

Sharper? For sure.
Faster? Much!
Better? Depends on what kinds of things you shoot.
I love the 24-120 for events.
The f/4 max aperture has not limited me yet.
The 24-70 sits on the shelf a lot these days.

(Those were my two focal lengths back when zoom lenses weren't fast or very good. )

asiafish Loc: Bakersfield, CA

GoofyNewfie wrote:

Sharper? For sure.
Faster? Much!
Better? Depends on what kinds of things you shoot.
I love the 24-120 for events.

(Those were my two focal lengths back when zoom lenses weren't fast or very good. )

I tried using the Canon 24-70/4 for events (good by zoom standards) and immediately went back to 35 and 50mm primes.

OddJobber Loc: Portland, OR

Another "no brainer" comment. Look at the numbers mentioned. With the bundle you get the 24-120 for $500. If you don't like the lens (doubtful) you can get your money back selling it as like new (-). Just do it.

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

asiafish wrote:

Nope, I do street, travel, events and portraits. Some landscape, no wildlife. I don't even own an SLR anymore, just rangefinders. Of course you won't get many critters in the wild with a kit lens either.

What I am saying your limited arsenal works for you but I would hate it and it might not be for many including the OP. A 120 on a camera is far better than a 50 for critters.

asiafish Loc: Bakersfield, CA

Architect1776 wrote:

What I am saying your limited arsenal works for you but I would hate it and it might not be for many including the OP. A 120 on a camera is far better than a 50 for critters.

A 24 and 85 or 24 and 105 combo can do replace a 24-120 and add many capabilities like macro (Nikon's 105 macro is terrific).

My point is that having every focal length in a given range is often redundant and the cost is usually decreased optical performance and always decreased speed. I wouldn't ever choose a 24-120 f/4 over a pair of primes at the extreme or middle of that range.

For me 35 and 50 cover 95% of what I want to shoot. I still own a 24, a 28 and a 90mm lens though, and occasionally I take them out. Were I going to Yosemite for the weekend I'd bring the whole bag (being rangefinder lenses they are much smaller than SLR equivalents), but on a trip I usually take one or at most two.

My wife and I are taking a vacation in April to the UK. We've never been and I anticipate doing a lot of landscape, street and indoor photography. A fast 35mm will likely be on my camera all day, ever day while a fast 50mm will be on my camera all night, every night. A slow zoom would be useless before and after the sun is out, and wouldn't really add anything I need. I also get the benefit of enjoying my trip while carrying just a small and lightweight rangefinder camera with far better optical quality than even the pro f/2.8 zooms could deliver.

You don't have to be able to cover everything.

VisualMusing Loc: Carrollton, TX

I shoot a D750 and a D5 and I have both of the lenses you mentioned. The 50MM f1.8 is my main walking around lens when I travel light. I use the 85MM exclusively for portraits, but it could function nicely as an all purpose piece of glass; I just find it to be a little long my walking around needs. The nifty 50 was the first lens I ever bought and I still shoot with it almost every week where as the 85MM has become a special purpose piece of glass for me. Good luck. Larry

latebloomer Loc: Topeka, KS

When I bought my Nikon D7100, the best thing was that the knowledgeable clerk at the camera store suggested I ignore the kit lens and led me to a Tamron 16-300. Yes, it is not prime Nikon glass; nonetheless, it is pretty good and a damned good walk around lens.

sholland98 Loc: Benbrook, Texas

I've had the D750 for over two years now and did purchase it w/the 24-120. It is difficult not to get it w/the package because of the price. DxO Gives the Sigma 24-105 much better numbers, but it's $900 so you'd be $300 or so in the hole. I personally find the 24-120 mostly on the shelf opting for the 28-200G. It's plastic, small and light but gets great results. Since it's out of production, I found a new "old stock" for about $275 and consider it a great value. Also, like the 35 f2 for family gatherings and 50 f1.4 for sundown stuff. Neither of these will break the bank. All this said, my favorite, fun, lenses would be the Sigma 150-600 which also works well w/the 1.4 tc in good light. This is all just my personal wisdom and may or may not be helpful for you. I'm sure you will enjoy your 750 regardless of lense choices!