Nikon - Mid range zoom advice

S

snaggletooth

Suspended / Banned
Messages
46
Name
Andy
Edit My Images
Yes
Having taken delivery of a D750 my D7200 and 17-55 2.8 dx lens are off to MPB tomorrow.

I'm looking for advice on what to replace what has been my mainstay walkabout zoom with.

Obvious one would be a 24-70 2.8 to pair up with the 70-200 2.8 VR I have already but am I missing a trick?

Budget is up to £600 used.

I've looked at the Nikon 24-120 f4 and the Sigma 24-105 f4 but never used either.

The Nikon can be had for a very reasonable price used but I'm put off by the fact that it is the D750 kit lens. I will admit that this could be a touch of kit lens snobbery though never having used one before.

What are others using on Nikon FX?

Thanks
 
Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8 G ED would be my choice if i was still a Nikon shooter.

I dont like f4 lenses on FF myself, i feel like 2.8 is nice to have
 
Last edited:
I recently traded up from D3200 to D600 and already having a Sigma 150-600C I was looking for a walkabout lens and was recommended the 24-120 f4 by a friend.
Having read lots of reviews I went ahead and purchased one on TP. Very happy with it so far, you may find the review below helpful.
This was my first shot using the lens...

6 Alpacas a-1.jpg
photographylife.com

Nikon 24-120mm f/4G VR Review - Page 4 of 6

photographylife.com photographylife.com
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sky
I use the f4 24-120 and it's a great lens.

I very nearly got the 24-70 2.8 first, but this came up in 'only used twice in original box with warranty' for only £450.00 on here - I couldn't refuse.

I'm glad I didn't buy the 2.8 because I very rarely use such a wide aperture - if I need it, I'll use a prime.
 
Another vote for the 24-120, a great walkabout lens. :)
 
If you go for the 24-70 you will be continually swapping lenses as there is no overlap with the 70-200.
Don't be over concerned about a lens just because it is supplied as part of a kit.
 
Last edited:
Andy
I have a 24-120 here, the D750 came with a kit lens but I was not happy with it, so I sent it back and they sent me a retail version instead, if you are interested in a 24-120 then let me know, its currently on Ebay for £375 but I would let it go on here cheaper ;)
 
I have the Nikon 24-70 G. It's very sharp and it focuses very fast and the f/2.8 makes a difference when you want isolation by shallow depth of field. But it's large and it weighs more than your camera. The 24-120 gives you VR, weighs about 200g less, and the long end may be useful, but you lose that f/2.8. I wouldn't swap the 24-70, but on the other hand it's not a lens I use casually because of the size and weight. Avoid 'well used' examples of the 24-70, or any suggestion of a stiff zoom action (which can get worse and is expensive to fix).
 
I have both the Nikon 24-70 and the 24-140. Since I got it, the 24-140 is on the camera the majority of the time. If you’re a pixel peeper, the difference in image quality is minimal and I personally hardly ever shoot wide open so the loss of a stop is academic. It’s also got VR which is more useful than an extra stop to me.

There’s also the 24-85 which is cheaper and lighter but I wasn’t overly impressed with the one I had.
 
Unless you use wide apertures a fair bit, I'd suggest the 24-120 f/4 (NOT the older, variable aperture version!) but if you like the shallower DoF that wider apertures give, spend more for the shorter range 24-70 f/2.8.
 
Thanks all.

Not sure I need the 2.8 for general purpose walkabout lens, coming from 2.8 on DX I'm sure the DOF will be roughly the same with FX at F4.

Still deliberating but swaying towards that 24-120.

Paul, your copy in the same condition as the 750?
 
snaggletooth said:
Thanks all.

Not sure I need the 2.8 for general purpose walkabout lens, coming from 2.8 on DX I'm sure the DOF will be roughly the same with FX at F4.

Still deliberating but swaying towards that 24-120.

Paul, your copy in the same condition as the 750?
Click to expand...
yup
had a Hoya Pro 1 filter fitted from day one.

all boxed up as well
 
For a budget choice if you can find a good one what about the 35-70mm? Leaves you with spare cash to put towards a nice prime!
 
dweeble said:
For a budget choice if you can find a good one what about the 35-70mm? Leaves you with spare cash to put towards a nice prime!
Click to expand...
I bought the 35-70 f2.8 from eBay when I had my D700 for about £80.

It was fantastic but I think I got a bargain.
 
I've gone with the 24-120 F4. Makes sense as a walkabout jack of all trades lens.

I'll be fleshing out my prime selection too, I'm left with only the 50mm 1.8 now I'm using FX.
 
GreenNinja67 said:
I bought the 35-70 f2.8 from eBay when I had my D700 for about £80.

It was fantastic but I think I got a bargain.
Click to expand...

Beat you there, mine was £55! In fairness, it's weirdly moody - most of the time it's very good verging seriously good, sometimes it's razor-sharp amazing, sometimes it has an off day. Go figure.
 
dweeble said:
Beat you there, mine was £55! In fairness, it's weirdly moody - most of the time it's very good verging seriously good, sometimes it's razor-sharp amazing, sometimes it has an off day. Go figure.
Click to expand...
Mine too - although I think that is more to do with the AF-D characteristics than the 35-70 on it's own. I think I have had 2 - but for the money, their performance is really good.
 
I've got a Sigma 24-105 f4 for my D750 and it is a lovely lens. Really sharp for something with that big a range. The reviews of the Cannon version suggest it is slightly better than the Nikon 24-120. But it is also really heavy so probably not so good as a walkabout lens as the Nikon.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top