Spirit Vision Photography Loc: Behind a Camera.

Those of us that do not care for the quality of images from the newer 24-120, “do not know how to shoot. End of story.” Bold statement. Can it be backed up with facts? 🤔. You are saying that many of the photographers in this group are inexperienced hacks, lacking knowledge and skill?

Sladecam Loc: Vancouver, BC

I too have the latest generation of Nikkor 24-120 f4 which came paired with my D750 three years back. Aware of the historical criticism of prior iterations of the lens, I can only say that I have been very pleased with my version. I sold that D750 body (kept the lens) and I’ve now had a D850 for a year. Love the new combo just as much. Now, that said, would I like the extra stop down to 2.8? Yes. I have both Tamron’s 15-30 2.8 (G1) and 70-200 2.8 (G2) and love them both. As has been well documented, they’re superb performers and tremendous value. If I didn’t have the 24-120, the Tamron 24-70 2.8 G2 would be my first choice to round out that trinity...and it may happen yet.

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

You are freely generalizing what I said.

Spirit Vision Photography Loc: Behind a Camera.

Not really. I was directly quoting what you wrote.

No big deal.

RonM12 Loc: Washington State

Thanks for the feedback. The 24-120 is my most often used lens. Having recently move from a D810 to the D850, it may be that the D850 is a little less forgiving by magnifying mistakes made by me. I prefer to stick with in my case, Nikon glass. Some of the reviews I’ve read on 3rd party lenses have been quite good. While saving a few dollars is nice, when spread out over several years it becomes less of a factor for me. And, I’d suspect manufacturer lenses have a higher resale value over comparable 3rd party lenses. That being said, most of the reviews on the Tamron 24-70 G2 have been quite good. The Nikon 24-70 g lens may be a viable option, though I’m spoiled and like my VR at times.
Thanks again.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

It hit my daily YouTube link feed this morning...

GoofyNewfie Loc: Kansas City

Is this something you can subscribe to for specific subjects?

msandersal Loc: Alabama Gulf Coast

I have used the 24-120 Nikon for heavy professional use since I got the D850 a year ago. I am happy with everything about it. I shoot panoramic group photos of Senior classes with it and have no trouble with every face being in sharp focus on the 12x36 prints that I sell.

NikonZSeriesMike Loc: Naples, FL

I purchased a Nikon D750 along with the Nikon 24-120. I used the 24-120 for a year and was pleased with it. I then sold the 24-120 and purchased a Tamron 24-70 F/2.8 G2. It’s been a fabulous lens. It’s sharp and I love the extra stop and VC. Since then I purchased a Tamron 70-200 F/2.8 G2 and it’s a fine lens. Excellent build quality on both and a great price as well.

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

VR has it's advantages if you hand holding at a slow shutter speeds. When I did wedding photography I always used flash. Most of the time the flash head was aimed up and behind me for a very NATURAL LIGHT looking shot as if I had not used flash. I never had to worry about shooting slow and having blurred images as the flash speed froze the action and I did not have to be concerned about VR. I still own the g and have hardly ever had a situation where camera shake or a slow shutter speed ruined a shot. BUT, that being said the E series VR version covers it all. But for now, I will stick with my g
And you are correct about Nikon holding their value. Yes, the Tamron is cheaper (and their is a good reason, but that's for another post) and in a few years the Tamron will be worth MUCH less than the Nikon, Nikon will hold it's value much better than third party glass. So, you are actually better off with a Canon, Sony, or Nikon lens in the long run. PLUS, the Canon, Sony, and Nikon will hold their tolerances much longer than third party glass.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

No, it works like Google AdSense. They give you more of what you already watched. However, you can subscribe to anyone’s channel and they email you about each new post.

DavidPine Loc: Fredericksburg, TX

The image quality of the Nikon 24-120 f/4 is excellent. Great walking around lens.

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

saxman71 Loc: Wenatchee

I've had the D810 and 24x120, f/4 combination for over a year and have had ample opportunity to use them together. The combo works well for me and I would buy the package again. For what it's worth, here's two typical examples.

(Download)


(Download)

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

Value is relative to purpose. If reselling is in your future, resale value retention is a consideration. If low cost, yet reliable operation in a business setting is a primary consideration, resale value is practically irrelevant.

In 2004, at the school portrait company I worked for, we had a choice. We could by Canon's excellent 24-70mm f/2.8 zooms for 330 cameras. At that point, the lowest price at which we could get them in bulk was just over $1000, which included a one year US warranty. But alternatively, we could get Tamron's excellent 28-75mm f/2.8 for $339 in quantity. The Tamron came with a six year warranty.

We would be using either of these lenses quite heavily! The average camera would be used for around 450 exposures per day, seasonally, for about 30,000 clicks per year, give or take 10,000. So they had to work.

The decision came down to price and warranty. We bought the Tamrons and never looked back. Our testing showed that the Tamron was just as sharp as the Canon at f/5.6 to f/8, the portrait aperture range we wanted to use on our APS-C Canons. It was noisier, but the application didn't require silence.

Some of those lenses were on their third or fourth camera body when our company division was sold to Lifetouch in 2011. VERY FEW ever required warranty service. A handful were repaired for drops or mistreatment (extreme heat from being stored in a car trunk in summer, or extreme cold from being stored in a car trunk in Minnesota winter).

We did have some photographers complain that they were not very sharp at f/16, and practically useless at f/32 (!), but that was because those photographers didn't have a clue about diffraction limiting of sharpness. They were group photographers used to small apertures on 8x10 view cameras! We had to educate them about depth of field calculators...

The newest Tamron 24-70mm f/2.8 VC lens is quite sharp, focuses quicker than the old 28-75mm, has excellent stabilization, and is MUCH better built than the lenses we were using a decade ago. It is also half the price of the newest Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8. Tamron still includes a six year warranty.

I have nothing against Nikon... I used Nikon (and Canon) cameras and lenses for 40+ years. But I'm also interested in economy. For about the price of the Nikon 24-70, you can buy the Tamron 24-70 AND their excellent 70-200mm f/2.8 VC zoom. I know what I'd do...

That 28-75mm f/2.8 we used so many of is still available for around $500. Used ones are around $275 to $300. I think they hold their value pretty well.