Nikon 24-70, 28-70 or 24-120??

bsmotorsport

bsmotorsport

Suspended / Banned
Messages
918
Name
Stephen
Edit My Images
Yes
Okay, so ive gone full frame and now need something to cover the bottom end, my manual focus 50mm isnt really getting me the results Id hope for. On a pound for pound basis which would be the better lens? Ive already got 70-200 covered so the there would be a slight bit of overlap with the 24-120 but the range would be a nice walkabout lens. But then theres the renowned quality of the beast or Im led to believe the even better quality of the 24-70. Money isnt too much of an issue so given the choice, what would be the better option?? Its going on a D700 if that would bias any opinions?
thanks
Steve
 
Well I havent used the 24-120, but several people here have sold thier 24-70's for one. From what Ive heard the build quailty isnt up there with the 24-70, but the IQ is.

I love my 24-70 and wouldnt sell it for anything, but the thought of that extra range is appealing.
I also looked at the beast, but decided to spend the extra and get a little bit wider on the 24-70.
Tough choice really, they are all excelent lenses.
 
If money isn't a problem then I would say the 24-70 as well - the beast I found was bigger/heavier than the 24-70 hence its name but can be found about 1/3 cheaper than the 24-70... I sold mine in order to get the 24-70 as it was said to be a mtach made in heaven with the D700...

I unfortuneatly didn't get the chance to try the beast on my D700 but used it with a D300s - Tis a cracker of a lens...

Trev (Trevorbray) will prob be a long sooner or later as he has the beast on his D700....
 
bsmotorsport said:
Okay, so ive gone full frame and now need something to cover the bottom end, my manual focus 50mm isnt really getting me the results Id hope for. On a pound for pound basis which would be the better lens? Ive already got 70-200 covered so the there would be a slight bit of overlap with the 24-120 but the range would be a nice walkabout lens. But then theres the renowned quality of the beast or Im led to believe the even better quality of the 24-70. Money isnt too much of an issue so given the choice, what would be the better option?? Its going on a D700 if that would bias any opinions?
thanks
Steve
Click to expand...

It depends what you plan to use it for. If you shoot moving indoor stuff, or you need the extra separation on product shots or portraits, then the 24-70 is great. AF is faster, you have an extra stop and less distortion.

On the other hand if you plan to use your lens outdoors for scenery and urban street shots, or travel, then most of the time all you need is the 24-120. The difference in sharpness and contrast is not that great.
 
Hi Stephen,
i have the 24-70 and 24-120 f4 the 120 arrived on Friday.
I have to say the 24-70 is built better but what difference does that mean unless the 120 will fall to bits in 3 years time which nobody knows.
They are both as sharp as each other in my opinion and i believe the difference really comes down to this and this alone, the 24-120 has 50 extra mm at the long end and VR.
The 24-70 has f2.8 and slightly quicker AF.
If you are going to shoot portraits in a studio or low light situations then go for the 24-70 and dont look back.
If you want a general walkabout lens with optics as good as it gets at the moment on a 24-120 Zoom range then simply go for the 24-120 and you will love it.
IMHO
 
I had an old old pre vr 24-120 and I loved the range but hated everything else about it.
I then bought a 24-70 f2.8 and about 3 weeks later the new 24-120 f4 came out, I was raging!
It probably depends - as everyone else has said - on what you want to use it for.
If they'd made it an f2.8 lens without the VR for the same price I'd probably sell my 24-70 and buy it.
 
It's no secret that I'm a big fan of The Beast. For me 28mm is plenty W I D E enough on FF. It's got great colour and contrast. Pin sharp...and you can knock nails in with it.
Sure, the extra range and overlap of the 24-120 is a serious advantage, but I use The Beast wide open too often to ever consider it an alternative. Maybe as an addition...but that's a long way off right now.
My best Buddy has the 24-70, he's seriously contemplating trading it for the 24-120. When he was a Canon owner he favoured the 24-105 f4 and misses the extra length.
We should consider ourselves fortunate to have such a choice...tough one...but not for me. Hand me the Beast every time. (love that name) !
 
The 24-120 will be an excellent out door general purpose lens, just like the Canon 24-105 has been for years.

Just because 24-70mm is covered by the 24-120, don't imagine its the same.

The 24-120 is designed to cover both the perceived "gap" Nikon had over Canon (its pretty much the most bemoaned defeciency of Nikon in the past, together with the 100-400 and a 70-200 f4)

Its release now is more to do with the FX bodies capability to use high ISO than anything else. If the OP has a D200, I'd stick to a 24-70, like I do on my D300.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top