Nikon D600: Lens Upgrade

[Doug]

Good Evening,

As the title suggests, I have a D600 and currently use the 24-120 f4 as my travel lens. I'm being tempted by the new Tamron 24-70 2.8 which gets some seriously glowing reviews!

Are the 24-70 2.8's really an essential for an FX camera? I'm guessing that I am likely to see a good upgrade over the quality of the current 24-120?

 

[TimHughes]

Nothing is essential, no? if you find you need 2.8 more than you need the 70-105 range might be worth switching. If you never missed having 2.8 then no compelling reason to change?

 

[Snapper67]

I’m using one of the Nikon 24-70 2.8 non VR on my Nikon’s (D750, D700, D7200).

Biggest bonus for me is the low light capability for music / party events.

Allows me to set a 3200 max auto iso level and be confident the images are up to my acceptable standards.

Dougie.

 

[Caerus]

Its a good zoom range for FX and if I remember is probably regarded as the best alternative for people who cant afford the top Nikon version.
Im not sure if you would see a difference in lenses but F4 sucks in general apart from weight/size/cost benefits so F2.8 is a good upgrade in my book.

 

[kendo1]

It's a big chunk of lens.
I find it very useful for the type of photography I've fallen into recently.

 

[Doug]

I just found out how to use lightroom to answer my question about ‘do I use the 70-120 range?’

2:1 ratio of 24-70 compared to 70-120.

I think this might be a a go-er

 

[gad-westy]

Not a lot wrong with either of those lenses. You can make a strong argument for either but once GAS starts to niggle you just have to try the new shiny one! You will likely find Tamron's VC more effective than VR though so that combined with the one stop aperture advantage might make it a real winner at times when pushed for light.