Kissel vonKeister Loc: Georgia

Right, especially zooms with long ranges.

photoman022 Loc: Manchester CT USA

Okay, I can only speak from personal experience. I have the Tammy 70-300 and I'm very happy with it. I used it on a road trip I took the west coast this past year and it was great for long distance landscapes. I also have the Tammy 28-75. I've found that 28mm does not always give me the wider angle I want in wide angle landscapes, that is why I still have the Nikon 18-50 kit lens; it's not as sharp as the Tammy 28-75, but it does an acceptable job when I need the wider angle shots (than I can get with the Tammy 28-75).

So, what's my point? The 28-300 would probably be a good all-round lens (I don't know because I don't have it). What I do know is that there will me a time that you appreciate the extra 4mm that your 24-120 gives you. The difference in field view becomes more pronounced on the shorter end zoom scale. You will notice the difference between a 24 and 28mm shot; it will be much more pronounced than the difference between a 296 and 300mm shot. If I were you, I would go with the extra lens; you'll be glad you did more than once in your photo journey.

yorkiebyte Loc: Scottsdale, AZ/Bandon by the Sea, OR

- 50mm F 1.4 ... new or used. In my opinion, the best second lens (or in my case, first - as it is on my camera 85% of the time) for any situation. The rest of you can talk about these "all around - walk about" lenses all day long - I'll stick to primes and short zooms including the "kit" Nikkor (DX)VR 18-55mm (Extremely sharp and at 55mm almost Micro!) and the (DX) Nikkor 55-200 VR. Both of these "Kit" lenses are more than adequate for my style (I don't do birds...). Heavy with a slow aperture precludes any thought of an "all around lens" for me. The Kit lenses are slow also, which is why I don't use them often. Both are feather weight at least!!
- I don't use full frame ( Nikon D7100) so maybe this point is moot.....
This is just my opinion, remember!

lautenk2

I also have a D750 with the 24-120mm "kit" lens, which is a really great walk around lens. I'm not considering buying a 28-300mm lens because I've not read anywhere that it produces better image quality than what I already have, and it's not worth spending a lot of money for the few times I would want to go longer. I discovered years ago that air travel with a large DSLR is a pain, it takes up all of your carry-on space, so unless the whole purpose of a trip is photography, I'd rather just have one lens with me on vacation trips. Car trips, no problem. I recommend you take a couple practice trips before you spend any more money because this lens is very versatile. The wedding photographer we hired 2 years ago shot our whole event with just this lens, and we were happy with the results (outdoor event on a bright, sunny day so perhaps not a challenging test).

I also have the Tamron 70-300mm f4-5.6, which was on-sale (rebate actually) last year for $350, maybe Tamron will repeat that. My local camera shop recommended this lens over the Nikon equivalent because the image quality might even be better and it cost about $150 less. It feels solid, the focus & zoom rings feel much the same (smooth & solid, like Nikon), the AF is almost as fast (in good light). and the VR is outstanding (way stronger effect than any similar lens from any manufacturer, have your local shop show you). In low light, the 24-120mm Auto-Focus is noticeably faster, as you should expect from a shorter & more expensive lens. I like this lens, but you should wait before you buy it until you decide you need this more than, say, a wide angle lens, or a longer telephoto (like a 200-500 or 150-160) or a fast (f2.8) zoom($$$) or an even faster prime (f1.8 or f1.4). Whichever way you go, it sounds like fun.

GLKTN Loc: TN

Thanks everyone. Lots of great advice. No new lens in the near future. I definately need to learn my new camera and how to use it. I am loving the d750 and 24-120 f4g. I took some low light birthday photos ie: 55mm, 1/60-1/100, f4, ISO 6400 and they turned out great. I am going to walk around town and practice. My journey is beginning.

yorkiebyte Loc: Scottsdale, AZ/Bandon by the Sea, OR

Awesome outlook! You will do well, me thinks!!

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

I agree with one of the earlier responses...

You should go shoot with the 24-120mm lens for a while and see if you develop a need for something longer, shorter or different.

Maybe you'll find you shoot a lot of landscapes and want a wider angle lens.

Or, maybe you'll do a lot of portraits and a short telephoto with a larger aperture wioudl be sueful.

Or perhaps you'll enjoy shooting sports or wildlife and will want a longer lens... and where a 70-300mm really isn't long enough, a 200-500 or 150-600mm might be a better choice.

There are other possibilities. But it's hard to say now, just starting to use the camera. Besides, you have plenty of "learnin' to do" with the camera and one lens, without complicating things further with a second lens right away.

Something to be aware of with third party lenses (Tamron, Sigma, Tokina) is that there's no 100% guarantee of future compatibility. Sure, third party lenses can be cheaper, but one reason for this is that the manufacturer "reverse engineers" the lens' systems, instead of licensing the technology from the OEM company (Nikon, in this case). For this reason, while the 3rd party lens might work fine with current and earlier cameas, there is no assurance that it will work properly with a future camera, should you upgrade some years from now. OEM lenses - OTOH - are generally pretty reliable and can be expected to work right. For example, Nikon has a lot at stake to insure that their cameras and lenses work together properly. At the same time, they are under no obligation, migith even have disincentives to insure that their caemras work with other peoples' lenses!

Thsi can be important because most of us buy camera upgrades fairly often... lenses a lot less frequently. We continue to use the "old glass" on our new, latest-and-greatest cameras. One reason is that it's quite expensive to have to replace everything you accumulate over time.

So, while they can cost less and there are some excellent third party lenses available, keep this in the back of your mind... In three, five or ten years when you buy the latest-and-greatest camera from Nikon, that 3rd party lens might become an expensive paperweight.

charles tabb Loc: Richmond VA.

This probably won't help you, but here I go anyway.

I don't own a Nikon I have a Sony a99II.
I had a Tamron 28-300mm macro on an a99 and traded up to my a99II.
I then found out that the Tamron lens I had wasn't that compatible with the a99II.
I then bought a new Tamron 28-300 macro that was.
I can't tell you how much I enjoy my new setup.

I never took the 28-300 off until I bought a Tamron wide angle for landscapes.
I have always been happy with the 28-300 for a walk around lens.

I understand that Tamron has a 18-300 but not for my Sony.
I think they are for maybe for Nikon or Canon.

Hope some of my experiences help.

Charles

rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA

This advice has two issues:

(1) If a prime is all you have, then perspective and framing are tied together. Sometimes I want a more intimate view, so I "step into" the picture; if I want to maintain same framing, then I have to be able to zoom out.

(2) This depends so much on what you are photographing. Last weekend my wife and I were at at Pelee National {Canadian} Park. One moment we were on a boardwalk through a swamp, and I needed {I have a Pentax APS-C K-30} my Sigma 10-20mm if I wanted to capture the grandeur of it all. A few hours later we were on a different boardwalk, through a marsh, when a nervous warbler suddenly appeared; fortunately I already had my Pentax 55-300mm mounted and was able to grab a picture before he left again {even at 300mm he was quite small - would have been just a few pixels at 50mm}

Pilot 6 Loc: Eugene, OR

Get a 35 or 50mm and enjoy the liberating feeling of greatly reduced weight and bulk. And let your feet do the zooming.

cambriaman Loc: Central CA Coast

It depends on what your subjects are. The 24-120 is a great walking around lens unless you need more reach. If you need reach and want only one lens to pack around, the obvious choice is the 28-300, I own both and find the 24-120 is more than adequate for most subjects and sharper than the 28-300. I own both because I need more reach for birds and game when hiking but like the lighter weight and sharper IQ for most walking around. I found thru the years that you start with a camera body and kit lens, add telephoto reach, add wide angle space, replace the kit lens for one with better IQ or speed and then add more reach if you do much that needs it. Again, it all depends on you target subject matter. Good luck!

rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA

In my scenarios immediately preceding your comment, how do I zoom out when one step back is off the boardwalk into the swamp? How do I zoom in when the bird leaves when I take just a few steps towards him?

tdekany Loc: Oregon

These poster can't imagine different scenarios from their own. They may think they are helpful but they are not - all they do is confuse the OP. In my case one moment I am after an eagle high up, and the next moment I am shooting a wide landscape. Reason I carry 2 cameras with 2 zooms (covered from 24-300/420 with tc 1.4 in 35mm terms)

TJBNovember Loc: Long Island, New York

I recently got the same kit. I was expanding on the kit I already had, a D5100 my wife had gotten me more then a few years ago, and wanted to upgrade to a full frame sensor camera. Well to cut to the end, she was also sold a Nikkor AF-S VR ZOOM NIKKOR 70-300MM

http://www.nikonusa.com/en/nikon-products/product/camera-lenses/2161/af-s-vr-zoom-nikkor-70-300mm-f%252f4.5-5.6g-if-ed.html

Which is an fx lens. I find it to be a pretty decent lens, reasonably priced, while not being a high end Nikon lens, still worth a look. Others may disagree, but IMHO not a bad choice.

Kissel vonKeister Loc: Georgia

I checked out that lens, and it looks like quite a buy!