Recommendation of lenses to go with D610

churinchurin Posts: 51Member
edited December 2013 in General Discussions
I am relatively new to DSLR and am going to get D610. Initially I want to get a prime lens and a zoom lens. Presently I am considering 85mm f/1.8G and 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR or 24-120mm f/4G ED VR. Any suggestions or comments are appreciated.


  • WestEndBoyWestEndBoy Posts: 1,456Member
    edited December 2013
    Welcome to Nikon Rumours Churin.

    What kinds of subjects do you shoot? If you ask anybody this question and they answer without asking, "What kinds of subjects do you shoot?", ignore their answer.

    Post edited by WestEndBoy on
  • PhotobugPhotobug Posts: 5,288Member
    Those are two good choices for the D610. But/however...we got to understand what subject matter you shoot or normally shoot. Then we can help with better recommendations.
    D750 & D7100 | 24-70 F2.8 G AF-S ED, 70-200 F2.8 AF VR, TC-14E III, TC-1.7EII, 35 F2 AF D, 50mm F1.8G, 105mm G AF-S VR | Backup & Wife's Gear: D5500 & Sony HX50V | 18-140 AF-S ED VR DX, 55-300 AF-S G VR DX |
    |SB-800, Amaran Halo LED Ring light | MB-D16 grip| Gitzo GT3541 + RRS BH-55LR, Gitzo GM2942 + Sirui L-10 | RRS gear | Lowepro, ThinkTank, & Hoodman gear | BosStrap | Vello Freewave Plus wireless Remote, Leica Lens Cleaning Cloth |
  • roombarobotroombarobot Posts: 201Member

    From what I read there were too many compromises in the 29-300mm, so I opted for the 24-120mm myself and have added a couple primes as I could and the 70-300mm for tele use.

    But, like Jeff and Photobug said, it is all about what you want to do.
  • ChasCSChasCS Posts: 309Member
    edited December 2013
    Hi churin,
    Welcome to the Forum.
    I haven't any experience with the the AF-S 28-300mm. I've have read good things about the 85mm that you mentioned.

    I do have the little phatty AF-S 24-120mm and I really am pleased with it so far. It's a sharp and fun lens to use, and great for an everyday carry around lens. Not too heavy.

    In My Mind, there is only one Major complaint, and it involves all the better glass, from our friends at Nikon corp.
    That prickly point has to be the higher cost of purchase for us. I am only, but a hobbyist, eager enthusiastic perhaps to a fault.
    Ah, and have found the relative prices for the high end of this gear, that it has $kyrocketed!!
    So pick and choose your lenses and peripherals wisely.

    Yes, it is a good practice to ask questions, and though of course, on any forum, you are apt to receive many varied opinions and experienced replies alike.

    Once you describe the types of photography you prefer to shoot, more info will be forthcoming.

    The new AF-S 80-400mm from Nikon is an incredible lens, very handy for it's size and weight also, but very pricey. :-(
    There are some wonderful and informative explanatory lens videos, within the vast Youtube library as well, too.

    Good luck, have fun choosing your gear. Enjoy the Forum.
    Post edited by ChasCS on
    D800, AF-S NIKKOR 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6G ED VR, B+W Clear MRC 77mm, AF-S NIKKOR 24-120mm f/4G ED VR, Sigma DG UV 77mm,
    SB-910~WG-AS3, SB-50, ME-1, Lexar Professional 600x 64GB SDXC UHS-I 90MB/s* x2, 400x 32GB SDHC UHS-I 60MB/s* x1
    Vanguard ALTA PRO 263AT, GH-300T, SBH-250, SBH-100, PH-22 Panhead
    Lowepro S&F Deluxe Technical Belt and Harness ~ Pouch 60 AW 50 AW & 10, S&F Toploader 70 AW, Lens Case 11 x 26cm
    FE, NIKKOR 2-20mm f/1.8, OPTEX UV 52mm, Vivitar Zoom 285, Kodacolor VR 1000 CF 135-24 EXP DX 35mm, rePlay XD1080

  • MsmotoMsmoto Posts: 5,396Moderator

    If as you say you "are relatively new to DSLR", my first question would be , Why are you purchasing a D610? IMO, someone who is looking at DSLR's, has no lens kit, no restrictions, the D7100 plus some lenses might be a much more prudent path to follow. Then, add a 16-35mm f/4 and 70-200mm f/4. If you want a fast lens, the 85mm f/1.8G is IMO the best Nikkor lens for the money.

    The imoprtant decision is for you to decide what you want to do. If wide angle is your cup of tea, then maybe one of the wider lenses is good, the 10-24 or 14-24 zoom, and if telephoto is what you will be doing most, the 70-200 gives you a 300mm equivalent on the D7100.

    And, for anyone who might not have a lot of experience in photography, possibly coming from what we call a "point and shoot" camera, a photography course to learn about what is currently going on is a good idea, actually before you drop a few thousand dollars on equipment.

    Now, prepare for a lot of opinions, mostly based upon what we as individuals have experienced. And, welcome to the forum.
    Msmoto, mod
  • churinchurin Posts: 51Member
    Thank all for the replies.
    I used for about 3 years D7000+AF-S DX 18-105mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR + AF-S 50mm f/1.4G. The zoom lens came with the D7000 and I added the prime lens. I have come to think that I should get a full frame camera if I ever wanted before building a collection of lenses. Now the D7000 with the DX zoom lens is gone to my son and the FX prime lens is left with me.

    I take pictures of portraits, people, landscapes, flowers, etc.
    I looked for FX equivalent of the above DX zoom lens and thought the closest one is 24-120mm f/4G ED VR. Though I have a FX 50mm/1.4G, FX 85mm lens appears to be the one I would want to use more often instead with D610.
    Further comments or suggestions are appreciated.
  • sevencrossingsevencrossing Posts: 2,800Member
    I have a D800 my "kit lens " is the 24-120mm f/4G ED VR; despite having 3 other zooms and 3 primes; over 60% of my pictures are taken with this lens, it is the one I would not be without
  • churinchurin Posts: 51Member

    What prime lenses do you have and which one do you use most often?
  • churinchurin Posts: 51Member
    This is supplement to my above post:
    I appreciate your letting me know your experience with the zoom lens. I just want to know the same with your prime lenses.
  • WestEndBoyWestEndBoy Posts: 1,456Member
    You pretty much shoot the kind of things I do. There are a few of us that can say the same thing I am sure. Also, I was in your position 6 months ago. I had an old F80 with a 28-200 3.5-5.6 that I used sometimes. I held off on serious digital because I didn't want to spend money on it until I thought the image quality was as good as film could do. I suffered with Pentax point and shoots for my digital until the Coolpix A came out which re-ignited my enthusiasm that I lost with the demise of film and finally pushed me to take photography to the next level. This is how I ended up spending all the money that you can see in my signature. I see you have a D7000, so we are likely different in this regard.

    Have a look at the equipment in my signature. This is the professional grade in mostly everything, but there are cheaper alternatives. For example, instead of my 14-24 2.4 G for almost $2,000, you might want to consider the 16-35 F4, though if you were thinking just like me, you might consider the 20mm 2.8. I only purchased the 14-24 2.8 because it is the best 14 prime that money can buy. I am a prime guy and generally shun zooms because I like the process of shooting with a prime (eg. Zooming with feet) and the superior IQ.

    You already have my 50mm 1.4. That is good. If you shoot like me, this will be on your camera 75% of the time. However some on this forum call it a lens cap - they are likely shooting a 24-70 2.8 or a 24-120 4.0.

    I have the 85 1.4G which might be the best portrait lens in existence. However, the 85 1.8G is also very very good. Actually, the 85 1.4D is a great lens too and it is always fun to use the aperture ring.

    My 135 DC 2.0 is an oddball with no cheaper alternative. I bought it because it is a great portrait lens and when Nikon discontinues it, it will become an instant classic because of its defocus control.

    Most people that cover this range purchase the 70-200 2.8G (expensive) or the 70-200 4G (lighter and cheaper). If you are on a budget, have a serious look at the 80-200 2.8D. This is an old lens but has remained in Nikon's lineup because it is a classic. It is a professional build with an image quality almost is good as the 70-200 2.8G. The gotchas are slower AF (but still good), no VR and the latest teleconverters will not work. However, this is a professional grade lens for about a thousand bucks and is very underrated. If I was on a budget, I would consider this before a Sigma or other third party lens (20 people on this forum are going to disagree with this). You will get a little better image quality from a Sigma, but hold this lens in your hand (you might have to special order it though).

    Try and avoid variable aperture zooms like the piece of junk 28-200 3.5-5.6 in my signature. That is only in my kit for sentimental reasons. One exception might be the 80-400 3.5-5.6 (there are two, I am talking about the more expensive one). However, if you are like me, you would buy the 70-200 2.8G, have superior image quality in the native range, and then slap a TC-20E III teleconverter on it when I needed the extra reach, which would give me the same speed and image quality in the 140-400 range at 5.6.

    I see that you are upgrading to the D610 which makes sense given your D7000. I will assume it is for all the right reasons.

    I am sure that there will be a few other replies on this thread with different ideas. You have two basic choices. Primes or zoom (I chose primes). Professional or enthusiast (I chose professional) or budget (variable aperture zooms). Stay away from budget lens. If you opt for that, buy a D7100 and stick with DX as you are upgrading to FX to fully exploit the superior lens. You are not upgrading to FX to "upgrade to FX".

    I would encourage you to ask lots more questions. Ask specific questions to any one of us and most will be happy to answer. Also, I would encourage you to continue posting on this thread as you buy your kit and let us know what you buy and why. This thread could go on for years and it would be an interesting journey for us to watch you take.

  • MsmotoMsmoto Posts: 5,396Moderator
    Prime lenses for full frame:

    Primes: 24mm f/1.4 Nikkor, 35mm f/1.4 Sigma, 85mm f/1.8G Nikkor, 105mm f/2.8 VR Micro Nikkor, 135mm f/2 Nikkor…..all excellent IMO

    Specialized lenses: Modified 10.5mm f/2.8 Nikkor, 24mm f/3.5 PC-E Nikkor….again, both are excellent IMO

    Zooms: 16-35mm f/4 Nikkor, 24-120mm f/4 Nikkor, 70-200mm f/2.8 VRII……all excellent IMO

    WHile I have some others, the above are the "go to" lenses. I do not have the other "holy trinity" of 14-24mm f/2.8 and 24-70mm f/2.8, but I doubt anyone would criticize these.

    I have used the new 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6 and it is sharp as well. My old version is IMO good for me, but others criticize its focus speed and sharpness. Now if you are planning on selling the house, Nikon offers some incredible telephotos…LOL
    Msmoto, mod
  • churinchurin Posts: 51Member
    I am "relatively new" to DSLR but I think I know the difference betweeen prime lens and zoom lens. I wand to get one zoom lens and one prime lens to start with D610. My budget for these lenses is $1500 but can be stretched to $2000.
  • WestEndBoyWestEndBoy Posts: 1,456Member
    Can you stretch to the 16-35 F4 and 85 1.8? Not sure of prices whereever you are. If you can stretch a little further I might consider the 105 that Msmoto recomended intead of the 85.
  • churinchurin Posts: 51Member

    Is your recommendation Nikkor 16-35mm f/4G ED VR II AF-S IF instead of 24-120mm f/4G ED VR? Is the former something which can be used in place of the latter? Why 105mm instead of 85mm f/1.8? Is it because I already own 50mm f/1.4?
  • sevencrossingsevencrossing Posts: 2,800Member
    edited December 2013
    This is supplement to my above post:
    I appreciate your letting me know your experience with the zoom lens. I just want to know the same with your prime lenses
    16 -35 f4 used a lot for interiors, some landscapes and some wild life close ups
    24 -120 f4 used a lot
    70 -200 f 2.8 used to used a lot now replaced by new 80 -400 variable aperture
    new 80 -400 my fun lens, wildlife and for street portraiture


    16 mm f 2.8 fisheye another" fun lens" not used a lot but earns its keep
    50mm f 1.4 for " black cats in coal holes" used once a year mainly on the 5th November
    105 f 2.8 macro, used in the spring for flowers and creepy crawlies and stuff to put on eBay

    Post edited by sevencrossing on
  • WestEndBoyWestEndBoy Posts: 1,456Member
    Part 1 of 2:

    Hi Churin:

    There are always compromises and your budget for two FX lens for less than $2,000 is a little tight. This means that we have to think carefully about where to spend money.

    The question that you really have to ask yourself is, “Do you want image quality or convenience?” If you want convenience over image quality, then you should probably just updgrade to a D7100. Since you are upgrading to a D610, I am “assuming” that image quality is very important to you.

    The best image quality is shooting with primes over zooms. The only case where I know of a zoom with better image quality then a prime equivalent is Nikon’s 14-24 2.8 compared with Nikon’s 14mm (but not Nikon’s 24mm). That is why I own the 14-24 2.8, because it is the best 14mm lens that money can buy. Also, my 50mm 1.4G should give the 24-70mm 2.8 a run for its money at 50mm. Not sure which one is better, but I doubt they are far off. Importantly to you, the 50mm 1.4G is a $500 lens and the 24-70mm 2.8 is a $2,000 lens. F 1.4 is also four times faster than F 2.8 – you might be shooting where the light is poor at ISO 2,000 with the 1.4 and get good results, but crappy results with the 2.8 at ISO 8,000. Once this is considered, I would put my $500 50mm 1.4G on my camera any day before a $2,000 24-70 2.8G. 905 of the time I won’t even miss the zoom because I can zoom with my feet or crop as a last resort..

    Lens speed is less important at shorter focal lengths for a variety of reason so a 16mm zoom at F4 will be much better in low light than a 70mm at 2.8. Don’t worry too much about F 4.0 at shorter focal lengths.

    Shooting with constant aperture zooms (eg. 24-70 2.8, as opposed to 28-300 3.5-5.6) is better than variable aperture zooms. Also, the greater the zoom range, the more image quality is compromised, all things being equal. Lens design is an exercise in trade-offs.

    If I was in your shoes, my thinking would be governed by my previous comments. However, it is important that I acknowledge that you are in your shoes, not me. I am therefore hesitant to issue a “recommendation”. However, I would make the following choices and you can call it a recommendation if you would like:

    I would buy the Nikkor 16-35mm f/4G ED VR II AF-S IF instead of 24-120mm f/4G ED VR because it will have better image quality in its range and the 16-24 range is very useful. 24 is a little narrow for a lot of situations where you need wide(rooms, buildings). Also, you already have a 50mm lens that will blow away the 24-120mm f/4G ED VR, so why duplicate the focal length? Also, VR will only really be useful at 120mm, not 24mm (for those that disagree and point out that there is some benefit at 24mm, I point out that it is a small benefit. When the budget is $10,000, you can chase those small benefits).

  • WestEndBoyWestEndBoy Posts: 1,456Member
    Part 2 of 2:

    This leaves us with what to do for a telephoto (anything greater than 50mm). If I was into portraits in a big way, then I would go with the 85mm 1.8G and exploit the creamy bokeh potential that this lens will offer. For situations that require a longer focal length, zoom with your feet or crop. However, if I am not into portraits in a big way, I would consider that the 50mm 1.4G has pretty good bokeh and that I can zoom from 50mm to 85mm with my feet. In this scenario, there are no options strictly in your $2,000 budget. The 105mm 2.8 Micro is really your only option but you will slightly exceed your budget. As an aside, a nice benefit of this lens is that it is a Micro lens, so it will be able to get nice close up shots. Everything else will blow your budget. The 80-200mm 2.8 that I mentioned earlier will blow your budget the least and is a great lens, just dated. If you can stretch your budget, that would be a great choice.

    Are you patient and image yourself buying more lenses in the future? The option might be to buy the 85mm 1.8 even if you don’t image portrait photography as your particular passion and then save your money for something like the 80-200 2.8 (fast, great image quality and inexpensive) or even the 70-200 4.0 (a little slower, which matters more at the longer focal length, but new and good image quality – almost as good as the 70-200 2.8). If you did this, you would have a really nice kit and would not need anything else unless you wanted higher performance or wanted to shoot a new genre (Macro, Perspective Control, Wildlife etc.).

    To call this my recommendation, with my caveats/disclaimer.

    A couple of other things to consider.

    Resale value. Nikon lenses have good resale value and the better you buy, the better the resale value. Just go on B&H’s website in the used section and compare. You will see what I mean. The only thing I ever bought used was a teleconverter. You don’t save much because Nikon lenses hold their value.
    Stay away from third party lenses (numerous people on this forum now want to shoot me and I acknowledge that there are possible exceptions such as the Sigma 35mm 1.4 and Zeiss lenses which are $4,000 plus and don’t have auto-focus). Two major reasons – they don’t hold their resale value that well and there are often compatibility problems when you upgrade your camera as Nikon has a secret plan and ensures that their lenses are compatible with future cameras that they don’t tell Sigma, Tamron, Tokina or Zeiss about. You see lots of 20 to 30 year old Nikon glass, but not much 20 to 30 year old Sigma glass.
    The poor always pay twice. What this means is that people that want quality but compromise too much on budget often are not happy with their choices and end up buying the more expensive quality in the end. It is cheaper to spend enough to buy what you really want. If you don’t have the money now, wait until you do. You will spend less in the end.

    I hope that this helps,

  • churinchurin Posts: 51Member
    jshickele & everyone;

    Image quality is very important to me but on the other hand I want to limit the numbers of lenses to two for traveling which include one prime and one zoom.
    As suggested I can save money by not compromising in selecting lenses and spend for an ideal set of lenses up front. Problem is that I do not know what that is not only because of lack of knowledge about lens but also of how far I would be pursuing photography hobby in the future. As to my budget, the $2000 I mentioned previously is not necessarily iron solid limit.

    Having said the above, let me ask about or comment on specific lenses:
    16-35mm f/4G ED VR does not suited for traveling. Is this correct? Besides, I reviewed the sample pictures at Nikon website which are taken by using this lens but the images look all distorted or they do not look as seen by naked eye. I do not like that.

    I am having difficulty understanding why your saying that I should avoid 24-120mm f/4G ED VR because I already have 50mm f/1.4G. I am aware I can zoom in or out by using the 50mm lens by walking closer to or away from the object but the range is not as wide as the zoom lens can provide. Am I correct?
  • WestEndBoyWestEndBoy Posts: 1,456Member
    Hmmm....not sure why the 16-35 is not suited for travelling. I would find out what the source of that notion is so that you can flesh out the reason.

    Yes, the lens are distorted. Wide angle lenses make lengths look longer and telephotos make lengths look shorter. Whether you like that or not is a matter of taste (I love it and what can be done with it, which is why I have a 14mm lens, which is kinda crazy). However, it is your taste and that is what is important.

    You are correct on the 24-120mm comment, but keep one thing in mind. The larger your range, the more you will impact image quality. However, if travelling, the 24-120mm would be a good all day lens and then you could put the 50mm 1.4G on your camera when the light is low or you want a blurry background.

    Perhaps this is a recommendation to consider:
    Buy the 28-300 3.5-5.6 (a couple of hundred cheaper than the 24-120) and carry that with your 50 when you are travelling. If you are truly interested in pursuing photography, the limits of the 28-300 will be apparent but the lens will serve you well while you explore photography and learn what you like. After a couple of years, you will have saved some money and firmed up your opinions. If you feel the urge to spend more money now, buy the 20mm 2.8. This will come out to about $2,000 and the 20mm will be a nice wide angle lens good for architecture, museums and low light street photography (it will be useful for low light in the same way that the 50mm 1.4 is because despite the fact that it is slower, it is a shorter focal length which compensates.

    Consider my kit. If I was travelling, I would keep my 50mm 1.4G on my camera all the time and have the 14-24 2.8 and the 135mm DC 2.0 in my bag. In fact, this is what I walk around my city (Vancouver) with.

    However, if I was to have the "ideal" travel kit in mind, I would keep the 50mm 1.4G but:
    Replace my 14-24 2.8G with a 17-35 2.8D as it takes filters and 17 is good enough. If weight was an issue (it is not), I would have the 16-35 F4.
    Replace the 135mm DC 2.0 with the 70-200 2.8G VRII. If weight was an issue, I would have the 70-200 4.0.

    And then I would have a TC-20E III teleconverter in my pocket to give me 400 mm when I want it.

    My point of the above is that travel is unique. You sacrifice image quality for convenience (zoom) to some extent as you can't run home and switch a lens. As I am a mostly prime shooter, I will be sacrificing image quality if I use zooms. This is one of the tradeoffs you must consider. Are you travelling a lot, or just occasionally?
  • churinchurin Posts: 51Member
    Am I traveling a lot, or just occasionally? I must say "just occasionally", but pictures taken during traveling are always very important.
    Based on the fact that the zoom ratio of the 24-120mm f/4G is the closest to that of 18-105mm f/3.5-5.6 DX lens I used on D7000, I am inclined to pick 24-120mm f/4G for D610. I would expect better picture with this new zoom lens than with the variable aperture DX lens on D7000.
    I will try 50mm f/1.4G I already own to see how it works. This lens used on D7000 was just right for me to take portraitures. But using this lens on D610 means the camera has to get closer to the object, which I may not like. I may have to get one with a little longer focus length as 85mm.

    Back to the 16-35mm lens: I can understand that one can consider 24-120mm lens and 28-300mm lens during lens selection process but do not understand why 16-35mm should be in them.
  • WestEndBoyWestEndBoy Posts: 1,456Member
    Most zoom lens just cover limited ranges. For example, Nikon's professional range is 14-24, 24-70 and 70-200. All the zoom factors (longest range divided by shortest) are less than 3. The "superzooms" that you are suggesting are 5 - 10, where the quality suffers. To put it simply, Nikon markets these to photographers that want to keep one lens on their camera and maybe change it occasionally for something special, or not even.

    So you get better image quality from zooms with limited ranges (and even these can't match decent primes).

    The 16-35 is a limited range offering better image quality than the superzooms above. You already have the mid-range covered (think of the 50 as a 24-70 zoom where instead of a zoom ring, you have your feet). So now you have the wide angle covered with the 16-35, the mid-range covered with the 50mm and just need to fill the telephoto end.

    You are then two thirds of the way towards a decent set of kit, only missing the telephoto. If you get a superzoom, you are only one third of the way towards a decent set of kit because you will own the 50mm 1.4G. The superzooms are mediocre lens that don't exploit the benefits that the D610 will offer. It s kind of like putting tires from the budget family sedan on a Porsche and I would not consider it part of a decent set of kit. When you get decent kit and are dedicated to high quality photography, the superzoom will sit in the closed but you will still be using the 16-35.

    You may get a better picture with the 24-120mm f/4G, but the quality will be closer to the variable aperture than it will be to the 50mm 1.4G.

    I am not saying don't buy the 24-120mm f/4G, it is a great zoom lens for travel and at least it is constant aperture, but I don't want you to be disappointed if the improvement over your old kit is modest.
  • PhotobugPhotobug Posts: 5,288Member
    churin for your situation the 24-120 F4/G makes sense. The last few posts really provide excellent guidelines so I am not going to add my opinions since it would not bring any thing new to the discussion.

    However, let me share my assessment regarding the 24-120 F/4 and 24-70 F/2.8. But first my disclaimer. I am not limited by the funds that you are and "ergonomics" are important for me, more than price. So my requirements are different. Perhaps in 5 or 10 years you will evolve as well and ergonomics "may" play a bigger part of your decision.

    Soon I will be adding a FX body to my bag of tools and I have not decided between the 24-120 F/4 and the 24-70 F/2.8 lens. I spent over 30 minutes shooting both lens on a D610 evaluating both lens switching back and forth. Here are my findings:
    24-120 F/4
    ++Love the shorter length and larger diameter. I don't have big hands but the larger diameter feels great when supporting the camera body and lens.
    ++The front collar is the focus ring and the rear collar is the zoom collar/ring.
    ++Vertically or horizontally, I could zoom easily with my left or right fingers and thumb. It did take an adjustment as to how I held the camera to position my hand turning the zoom ring to be closer to the body.
    ++No issues with weight
    ++I really liked the lens and thought this was the one to buy.

    24-70 F/2.8.
    ++This lens is longer than the 24-120mm lens.
    ++Lens diameter is smaller than the 24-120mm lens. May or may not be better for people with small hands. I actually preferred the larger diameter but don't have a problem with the smaller diameter.
    ++The front collar is the zoom ring and the rear collar is the focus ring.
    ++Vertically or horizontally, I could zoom easier and faster with this lens over the 24-120mm. Especially in the vertical position.
    ++And most important, the location of the zoom collar and focus collar were the same as my 70-200mm. In the heat of shooting, there is consistency in reaching for the zoom collar ring. This is a big deal for me and may not be for others.
    ++No issues with weight
    ++Final decision, the 24-70 F/2.8

    From my perspective, because the 24-70mm has the same location of the zoom collar ring and it was easier in the vertical orientation of the body to turn the zoom ring, I will be buying the 24-70mm. Now I understand why the Pros love the Holly Trinity. Consistency of placement of zoom collar, build quality, and the F/2.8 aperture.

    When price is an over riding factor, the 24-120 F/4 is an excellent lens and the right lens for you. With the savings of buying this lens instead of the 24-70 F/2.8, you could go buy the macro lens. Two lens for the price of one. My point of this message is that in the early stages of being a photographer when money is the key criteria, you make comprises. Later when your income catches up with your skill level other requirements or criteria over ride the financial constraint. At some point you will evolve and your requirements will change. Trust me on this one.

    No, I am not saying you should buy the 24-70mm lens, just pointing out a different requirement or criteria leads to a different decision. That is why there are options in buying lens.

    D750 & D7100 | 24-70 F2.8 G AF-S ED, 70-200 F2.8 AF VR, TC-14E III, TC-1.7EII, 35 F2 AF D, 50mm F1.8G, 105mm G AF-S VR | Backup & Wife's Gear: D5500 & Sony HX50V | 18-140 AF-S ED VR DX, 55-300 AF-S G VR DX |
    |SB-800, Amaran Halo LED Ring light | MB-D16 grip| Gitzo GT3541 + RRS BH-55LR, Gitzo GM2942 + Sirui L-10 | RRS gear | Lowepro, ThinkTank, & Hoodman gear | BosStrap | Vello Freewave Plus wireless Remote, Leica Lens Cleaning Cloth |
  • spraynprayspraynpray Posts: 6,427Moderator
    I tried the 24-120 VR f4 and apart from the excellent VR, It didn't blow my socks off.
    Always learning.
  • sevencrossingsevencrossing Posts: 2,800Member
    edited January 2014
    I agree, The 24 -120 f4 is not meant to "blow you soaks off". it is a grab and go, general purpose, do most things fairly well, lens

    if you do want to blow every ones soaks off, then yes a set of f 1.4 primes will be far better. but f 1.4 primes are not cheap and if you want switch quickly from wide angle to telephoto you may need a second body
    Post edited by sevencrossing on
  • WestEndBoyWestEndBoy Posts: 1,456Member

    if you do want to blow every ones soaks off, then yes a set of f 1.4 primes will be far better. but f 1.4 primes are not cheap and if you want switch quickly from wide angle to telephoto you may need a second body
    I suppose if you want to do it in a hurry. But I have never found myself in that situation. Mostly the 50mm just stays on until a situation presents itself that the 50mm can't handle.

    Here are the number of photos I have taken with each lens below since I purchased my D800 in July:

    14-24: 1,133
    28-200: 240
    50 MF: 3,555
    50 AF: 6,277
    85: 2,450
    135: 2,669
    Other: 283 (Trying out lenses in the store)

    Churin, you will notice that 50mm is about 2/3rds of the shots, half after you take the MF out of the picture. You will also note that the 28-200 doesn't get much action. In the two cases that I did use it, I specifically took that lens out and left the others at home.
Sign In or Register to comment.