AF-S 24-70 f2.8 or 24-120 f4 ????

Joined
Jan 25, 2013
Messages
396
Location
Indiana
Have tried to glean info through the lens lust category on these two lenses but still in a quandary.

Shoot with a D7000 and want/need to upgrade the 18-105 kit lens. Have spoiled myself with the a 500 f4, a 300 f4 with 1.4, a 70-200 f2.8, and a 105 f2.8 macro. Now need to work on the other end. Which of these two would I be the most happiest with?

Am looking at perhaps a 10-24 f3.5-4.5 DX for the smaller end.

Help please !!!!!!!!

Spoonbill
 
Joined
Sep 6, 2006
Messages
2,476
Location
Lompoc, CA
Hard to say what you'll be happy with without knowing what's important to you. Do you need f/2.8? Do you need VR? Is cost and/or weight an issue? The 24-70 is expensive and heavy but slots in nicely between the 10-24 and the 70-200. If it were me I'd be happier with the 17-55 f/2.8 or the 16-85 VR than either of those choices. 24mm just isn't that wide on DX and I'd be swapping out a 24-anything for something wider way too often. Or, maybe just a 35mm f/1.8 and 50mm f/1.8. They are better, faster, cheaper and lighter than any zoom.
 
Joined
Nov 21, 2009
Messages
7,261
Location
Baton Rouge, La.
On DX, 24-70. I use the DOF of the 2.8 and would miss it. That said the 17-55 is still one of my favorite lenses and is the perfect DX midrange IMO and if I didn't shoot FX that is what I would still have.
 
Joined
Sep 28, 2007
Messages
6,329
Location
NYC
Both. They're both good for their specific needs. I use my 24-120 as a walk around/every day lens. And my 24-70 is on the camera for paid events or concerts that I shoot. And the 24-120 is a PERFECT one lens solution for me when I have an assignment for the paper I freelance for.

Both used on FX.
 

Thorsten

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Jan 19, 2009
Messages
4,458
Location
San Jose, California
I went with the 24-70/2.8 and 70-200/4. I use the former indoors a lot when I need the f/2.8, and also at that focal length, f/2.8 is needed for some reasonable subject isolation. The 70-200/4 is my main outdoor event lens where the light is usually good, as is the subject isolation at 200mm. This combo works great, and so the 24-120/4 has not crossed my mind. But if you'd look for a single lens to cover both ends with some compromise, the it may make sense.
 
Joined
Mar 4, 2005
Messages
15,429
Location
Los Angeles, USA
The 24-70 is a beast. Sharp, 2.8 aperture and with an all-metal build. It's a great pro lens. If you don't need all that, I think the 24-120 f/4 VR makes a better well rounded lens.
 
Joined
May 4, 2009
Messages
41
Location
US
18-105 is a good lens for casual shooting as it has very good zoom range and reasonably good image quality.
Assuming you are keeping 18-105 for that range, I would choose 24-70 for its speed.
 

JPS

Joined
May 7, 2005
Messages
9,284
Location
North-East of Brazil
The 24-70 is a beast. Sharp, 2.8 aperture and with an all-metal build. It's a great pro lens. If you don't need all that, I think the 24-120 f/4 VR makes a better well rounded lens.
"All metal built and pro lens" ???

...doubt it: I had one 24-70 for almost two years and reall liked it very much, but some day it fell in heavy grass from less than 3 feet ! The zoom ring got blocked, so I sent it to Nikon for repair.... One week later I received an email saying that the cost of repair would be almost as high as the price of a new lens !!!

...so I bought a 24-120 f/4 (because it's definitely cheaper, and if ever it breaks too, the prejudice wouldn't be so high)... And I'm perfectly happy with it: it extremely sharp wide open at all F-lenght and the VR easely replace -IMO- the f/2.8 of the 24-70 !

Now, to say the would be PRO lenses are sturdier than "normal" ones, I don't beleive it anymore !

:wink:
J-P.
 
Joined
Apr 30, 2005
Messages
3,756
Location
Massachusetts
Real Name
David
Without knowing the intended use it's hard to say. The 24-85 f3.5-4.5 and 24-120 f4 would each be upgrades in image quality over the 18-105. The 16-85 f3.5-5.6 might also be. The 17-55 and 24-70 f2.8s are something else.

I would look at how wide you need and if you think you might be moving to FX anytime in the next few years. With the D7100 out and rumors heating up about a D400 again I wouldn't see a point in upgrading if your interest is in the 300-500 wildlife range. If 18mm has been wide enough and you plan on staying DX for a while the 17-55 is a great option and prices used are hard to beat. It makes it easy to consider the something else option. If 18mm hasn't been wide enough or you plan on going FX then you have to ask yourself if you're looking for an upgrade or the "something else" and are willing to pay got it.
 
Joined
Jan 25, 2013
Messages
396
Location
Indiana
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #14
Hey.......thanks so much to all you fellas with your experience, ideas, feedback, and help. Still a loaded and mixed bag of decision. With the thought of going to perhaps a FX in the next few years (who knows) I had always used that in my decision towards lens purchasing. Just love taking shots at the golden hour also, whether macro or not. So have decided on the 24-70. Have spoiled myself on the 70-200 f2.8 and 300 f4 and wanted an IQ as good as them so this will give it.

Thanks,

Spoonbill
 

Latest posts

Links on this page may be to our affiliates. Sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.
Nikon Cafe is a fan site and not associated with Nikon Corporation.
Forum post reactions by Twemoji: https://github.com/twitter/twemoji
Copyright © 2005-2019 Amin Forums, LLC
Top Bottom