I currently have the 24-70 however with the Nikon rebates, I am considering switching to the 24-120 for the extra focal length, VR and weight. Does anyone have experience shooting both of these lenses on the D800/E and comment on image quality? Would it be a signfigicant downgrade?
I rarely shoot wide open and most of my photography is landscape and some travel related.
I have owned both lenses, though I have used them on a D700, not the D800. Both are very fine lenses, and my guess is that you're not going to see any dramatic difference in image quality between the two, based on what and how you are shooting. If the extra focal length, VR and weight difference are important to you (they are to me), then I would recommend you get the 24-120.
I shot with the 24-70 for about 6 months on my D800 and the 24-120 for a couple of months. I basically "downgraded" specifically because of VR and weight plus range. I have had no issues with image quality at all. And in my opinion the 24-120 is a perfect landscape lens.
The only reason to have both lenses, in my opinion, is the extra stop. But it depends on how you would use that extra stop. In some situations the VR benefit outweighs the stop loss -- such as for still subjects. Given your interest in landscape I wouldn't imagine it being a great loss.
Frank, go check out Mansurov's review of the 24-120 at http://photographylife.com/reviews/nikon-24-120mm-f4g-vr. He does a direct comparison between the 24-120 and the 24-70. The 24-120 comes out as a very serious competitor. I have both lenses and I'd agree. I love 'em both, but I love the 24-70 on a tripod.
The "moderator of this forum" at the D800 forum cracks me up. Brian evidently is convinced that the D800 body is a camera all by itself. Doesn't need a lens. Every time a post pops up about lenses on the D800 forum he moves it to this forum. I guess since he doesn't own a D800 he simply doesn't understand how important the right lens is to the D800's performance.
The D800 can "function" without a lens, but it can't make a photograph. Once you put a lens on the camera, a lot of the technical quality of the photograph is going to depend on the lens. The fact is that there are plenty of lenses that will come off just fine on my D3, but won't produce the kind of picture the D800 is capable of producing once I put it on my D800. So now, over here, we end up with a discussion of lenses that only applies to the D800. Maybe that makes sense to you. It doesn't make sense to me.
>The D800 can "function" without a lens, but it >can't make a photograph. Once you put a lens on the camera, a >lot of the technical quality of the photograph is going to >depend on the lens. The fact is that there are plenty of >lenses that will come off just fine on my D3, but won't >produce the kind of picture the D800 is capable of producing >once I put it on my D800. So now, over here, we end up with a >discussion of lenses that only applies to the D800. Maybe that >makes sense to you. It doesn't make sense to me. <Quote<<<
A few of us have discovered that "all" of our lens work better on the D800.
I am torn about whether to put all lens questions here or whether to leave the ones about a particular lens camera combination in the camera forums.
> >A few of us have discovered that "all" of our lens >work better on the D800. > >I am torn about whether to put all lens questions here > or whether to leave the ones about a particular lens camera >combination in the camera forums. > Lenses definitely work better on these camera's I only have a D600 but have been impressed with a relatively soft lens the 28-300 on it. I went to dxo site which compares many lenses and does comparisons with different bodies. My 28-300 on a D3x has similar sharpness to a 24-70 on a D300s. They don't have a D800 yet but I'm sure things will be even better For general purpose I am satisfied with the IQ of the 28-300. I tend to shoot under 120 and would love to be be able to go to 24 so am also considering this lens especially since the rebate has been extended. As I am already satisfied with IQ just not sure it is worth it to me.
"Cameras and lenses are simply tools to place our unique vision on film. Concentrate on equipment and you'll take technically good photographs. Concentrate on seeing the light's magic colors and your images will stir the soul." Jack Dykinga
Why not keep both? I still prefer the 24-70 as long as I can bring along a tripod, though I'll confess the 24-120 is very close to it in quality. And for low light the extra stop makes a difference. There also are times when I just want the extra shallow depth of field.
I am also thinking about picking up a 24-120 because of the rebate. I've been using my 24-70 as my every day lens since I bought it. Having both 24-70 and 24-120 is redundant. I prefer the one extra stop than additional reach. May be there is a 24-120 f2.8 VR in the future.
My explanation to my wife is just like woman needs many purses and shoes man needs camera bags and lenses. I just got a 24-120 mm f4 and 85mm f1.8 after buying the D800 and the trinity last month. Same reason as yours, I bought the 24-120 is to use it as a walk around lens for a lazy photo walk. Sometime it is painful to lug the 12-24, 24-70 and 70-200 along. I got a roller which is helpful but I do not know if the protection is good enough for vibration. Young
I had both lenses (on my D800). After six months of using the 24-120/f4 most of the time, I gave the 24-70 to my son-in-law and he was very happy about it. I did side by side tests of the two and only on the brick wall test, where you could see more distortion, could I find any difference. That distortion isn't noticed at all in normal shooting.
I honestly think that Nikon has done such a good job with all three f4 lenses, that you could live with those three and be very happy and you would never notice any need for better IQ unless someone told you that the 2.8 lenses had slightly, and I do mean slightly, better IQ. For travel I would much rather take those three, all lighter and more versatile, than their heavier 2.8 cousins. Along with them, I would take one or two of the 1.4 primes for really low light shooting.
I think you made a good choice. I shoot a D600 and "downgraded" from a 24-70mm 2.8 to the 24-120mm VR.
I find it to be a more useful range, longer is often handy. The VR is a big asset with the high resolution sensors. I imagine even more so on the D800 over my D600 (all the threads on getting a sharp shot, using a tripod, good hand holding technique needed etc). In short I think the 24-120mm is a far more sensible choice for walk around handheld shooting. Optically the same in real world shooting too as far as my eyes can tell.
On a tripod or in a studio maybe the 24-70 edges it, I use my primes when I think I'll benefit in some way
I use the 24-120F/4 on my D800 in the studio nearly all the time. It is a great lens and I love how versatile it is. It is not as sharp as my 50 or 85mm prime lenses, but I don't expect it to be. Unless you are pixel peeping at 100%, you'll never notice the difference.
I'll just add my extreme satisfaction with the 24-120 f4. I also have the 70-200 f4 and couldn't be happier with the pair. I have the 50 and 85 primes when the occasion arises that I need to shoot in extreme low light. I plan to get a 20 TC for the 70-200, and will eventually add the 16-35 f4 to round out the trinity.
I have been following this thread for a while as I too am interested in buying a 24-120 f/4
However for every day use I prefer the extended reach of the 28-300. I have the 14-24, 28-70, and 70-200. They will do everything the 24-120 does but better except except when comparing the combined weight and cost.
My interest in the 24-120 VR is for Video as the range fits my indoor Church VideoGraphing better than any other lens except possibly the much cheaper 24-85.
>I have been following this thread for a while as I too am >interested in buying a 24-120 f/4 > >However for every day use I prefer the extended reach of the >28-300. >I have the 14-24, 28-70, and 70-200. > They will do everything the 24-120 does but better except >except when comparing the combined weight and cost. > >My interest in the 24-120 VR is for Video as the range fits my >indoor Church VideoGraphing better than any other lens except >possibly the much cheaper 24-85. > >Have any of you used the 24-120 VR for Video?
I don't have a 24-120 but you have a very good point regarding video. One of my friends use the equivalent Canon 24-105mm f4.0 exclusively for video. He loves the image stabilizer and zoom range. The 24-120 would be a great lens for video.
>> >>Have any of you used the 24-120 VR for Video? > > >I don't have a 24-120 but you have a very good point regarding video. One of my friends use the equivalent Canon 24-105mm f4.0 exclusively for video. He loves the image stabilizer and zoom range. The 24-120 would be a great lens for video.<Quote<<<
I don' know how you can compare lens from a different manufacture to recommend a Nikkor?
>>> >>>Have any of you used the 24-120 VR for Video? >> >> >>I don't have a 24-120 but you have a very good point >regarding video. > One of my friends use the equivalent Canon 24-105mm f4.0 >exclusively for video. > He loves the image stabilizer and zoom range. > The 24-120 would be a great lens for >video.<Quote<<< > > >I don' know how you can compare lens from a different >manufacture to recommend a Nikkor? > Simple. He only spoke to the usefulness of the zoom's range and image stabilization for video. That has nothing to do with comparing the quality of the Nikon vs. Canon.
Just got mine the other day (used rebate plus $400 from selling D600 kit from December discount package). Essentially paid $600 for lens, but feel it would have been worth it at list price. Really great lens that I've already used for landscape work (in addition to my 16-35 f/4). IQ is fantastic and extra range compared to 24-70 is a huge plus. Great walk-around lens, great filter size, great landscape lens. Couldn't be happier.
No 24-70 unfortunately. Was, and probably always will be, out of my price range. Only experience is with the 24-120. I read a number of comparison reviews and felt comfortable losing a stop of light and plastic exterior never bothers me if solidly built. I can say that most reviews I've read state that IQ is very similar (except distortion which can be fixed in PP). I was most interested in using as a walk-around for day trips and to compliment my 16-35 f/4 during landscape shooting. I have primes for any low-light situations. If you don't do any studio work, I feel the trade-offs (including great VR on the 24-120) are worth it. Hope this helps.
I think this link has already been posted, but this is one of the better side by side comparisons I've found.
cameralabs.com has a standard landscape shot in their reviews of the two lenses. The corners of the 24-120 really suffer by comparison, to the point where the difference would bother me in a 17"x25" print. As much as I hated to have to, I went for the more expensive, heavier 24-70 based on those comparisons (I did not rent and compare the lenses myself). But then across the print sharpness is very important to me.
First off neither of these lenses are ideal for shooting landscapes if you are super concerned with corner to corner sharpness. These larger focal range zooms all must make compromises, even the 24-70 which despite the well deserved praise has flaws, like all lenses do. Second, if landscape shooting and sharpness is a real concern my opinion is get a prime or something like the 14-24.
BTW, I rented the Sigma 35mm F1.4 A and the 24-70 to compare, and by f8, the Sigma and 24-70 were amazingly close in the corners. I may rent the 24-120 to compare to the 24-70.
>I wouldn't put much stock into what one review concludes. >You have sample variations in all lenses and bodies, so one >persons tack sharp combo may be another person's in need of >fine tuning pair. > >Photography life compared the two and found no real difference >(see page 3 of review): >http://photographylife.com/reviews/nikon-24-120mm-f4g-vr > >First off neither of these lenses are ideal for shooting >landscapes if you are super concerned with corner to corner >sharpness. These larger focal range zooms all must make >compromises, even the 24-70 which despite the well deserved >praise has flaws, like all lenses do. Second, if landscape >shooting and sharpness is a real concern my opinion is get a >prime or something like the 14-24. > >Jason
I am not surprised in fact I have seen several comparisons of the Nikon 24 1.4 vs. the 24-70 and 14-24 at F/8 and there is not a huge difference amongst them picture quality. I would think most 'good' lenses by f/8 are resolving very well across the frame. Of course no one buys a 24 1.4 to shoot at F/8.
I would note parenthetically that shooting below F/8 on the D800 whenever possible is ideal as at F/8 diffraction is being fully recorded and you will perhaps be adding a great equalizer into the equation.
>I rarely shoot wide open and most of my photography is >landscape and some travel related.
If this is the kind of photography you do, the 24-120/4 is probably quite suitable. I personally would not want to replace an f/2.8 with an f/4 lens, since I value focus isolation and bokeh together with the high IQ which the 24-70/2.8 can deliver. I attach two examples which would be difficult to produce with an f/4 lens.