24-120 f4 v 28-300 v 18-140

Pistnbroke

Strange combination you might say but some of you will know about the terrible problems with focus at 140mm in low contrast situations with the 18-140 on the D7100 I have had. So we must find a solution. Purchased a 24-120 F4 which is just about wide enough and long enough for weddings on DX.
First thing I noticed with the camera off was a much brighter viewfinder and a small circle in the centre with cross markings ..never seen that before but I guess its the cross sensor reflected in some way...can see nothing on the D800.( tell me ) I already had the 28-300. Testing showed at 120mm on all lenses no difference in sharpness (JPEG +9) between them . At 300mm the 28-300 was noticably worse so that can go and I will crop 2x on the 24-120 . The 18-140 can go too

Msmoto

While I cannot compare these, having only the 24-120, I can say that this lens has been excellent, but I have also had a couple of not so great results......more likely than not, my error.

If the conclusion of the participants on this thread is that the 24-120 is the best for all but long shots, I could go along with this.

Pistnbroke

We have yet to see Msmoto if it will give good focus during wedding speeches..not low light but often backlit and very white...

tcole1983

Your signature says you own several bodies, but why do you insist on such mediocre lenses? Why not a 70-200 on one and a wider zoom on a second body? Do you shoot just one body and want a single lens for everything? I have no doubt you would get better focusing with an f2.8 lens. I forgot you shoot at F9 though...so never mind.

The one wedding I shot I can't say I had focus issues with either my D5000 or D5200. Biggest issue was shutter speeds and having to bump the ISO up too much. IE I would shoot an FX body that carried better ISO performance if I did it regularly, but I know you have shot thousands of weddings at F9 and jpeg +9 sharpness with kit lenses.

Ironheart

For some reason the 24-120 f/4 has a much better T-stop rating, only 10% light lost, where the others are closer to 30%
http://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Compare/Side-by-side/Nikon-AF-S-DX-NIKKOR-18-140mm-F35-56G-ED-VR-on-Nikon-D7100-versus-AF-S-NIKKOR-24-120mm-f-4G-ED-VR-on-Nikon-D7100-versus-AF-S-NIKKOR-28-300mm-f-3.5-5.6-ED-VR-on-Nikon-D7100___1208_865_321_865_323_865

Pistnbroke

well tcole misquotes me slightly..f8 most of the time f5.6 if its very dark..I always look at DXO measurements .A recent look on the fine focus adjust menu on the D7100 reminded me that the lenses I used without problem on the old D7000 were sigma 18-250 but F6.3 !!!...Now I am wondering if I wasted my money on the 24-120 ...
With a lifetime of fault analysis I think the D7100 is the problem ..but where to go next.
I shoot a D800 on the left shoulder with 17-35 for what I call wedding landscapes usually at 17mm..about 50 shots a wedding and on the right shoulder the DX 7100 with the longer zoom. My wife has another 7100 with a 18-140. Using a 70-200 is not practical as the D800 is too noisy to use in church and I dont change lenses or carry a bag. about 750 shots each on the DX bodies

sevencrossing

Using a 70-200 is not practical as the D800 is too noisy to use in church

ether get the organist to turn the volume up or, as we love to spend other peoples money, buy a D810
The 70-200 f2.8 is the answer for fast focusing in poor light

tcole1983

Using a 70-200 is not practical as the D800 is too noisy to use in church

ether get the organist to turn the volume up or, as we love to spend other peoples money, buy a D810
The 70-200 f2.8 is the answer for fast focusing in poor light

Seems to be a common setup for weddings. I don't remember noticing my friends D800 and 70-200 making lots of noise during the wedding. Might it be noisier than a DX body...possibly, but obnoxiously so?

Pistnbroke

If photography is your hobby ( like golf) then you throw money at it ..if it is your income you spend as little as is neccessary to do the job....I have had bad looks from registrars with a 7100 in Q mode even when I put it behind my back to release....If you take say 100 pics during a 20 min service they think thats too much..in Warks until recently you were restricted to 3 ..do these people think they are gods ???? I have a potential dispute with Northants at present because I requested the bride went down the isle on the grooms left arm ..I have asked them to quote me word for word why the request was a problem..what they dont know is that I was wired.(with brides permission and that audio is 1/2 a video which they allow...)
Oh what fun Weddings

sevencrossing

...If you take say 100 pics during a 20 min service they think thats too much..in Warks until recently you were restricted to 3 ..do these people think they are gods ???? I

If you are taking about the exchange of vows. I think 100 is too many. I used to do about 10
I but I let rip before and after

Oh what fun Weddings nearly as much fun as retirement

Rx4Photo

The Nikon 28-300mm is not one of my favorites. I own it but don't even list it in my sig line because I've been in the process of wanting to sell it for the pat 2 years. It's a wonderful travel lens because it covers a lot of needs and the VR works well. It pretty much sucks at 300mm in terms of IQ although I've never shot it on a tripod which could possibly improve things.

haroldp

The 24-120 f4 on a D810 is my goto for weddings. I may have 70-200 on another body but do not always use it as the D810 gives me a 16mp DX crop, and I usually use multiple flash at f5.6 (ISO 200 or 400, manual 1/160 shutter to reduce ambient light and control white balance).
Any problems I had were caused by my incompetence.
..H

sevencrossing

duplicate

sevencrossing

Pistnbroke I have had bad looks from registrars with a 7100 in Q mode

haroldp I usually use multiple flash

So there we have it folks. Don' t worry about noise, just use multiple flash


Pistnbroke do these people think they are gods ????

No but they do like something to moan about. Using multiple flash seems a good one

Msmoto

The thread topic is simply the three lenses, which allows a lot of comments. For one, the use of a 70-200 on one body, a shorter lens, e.g., 35mm on a second body, would work for me. The choice of lens for a shooting venue may be more dependent on the style of the photographer, than anything else.

Sometimes, actually, quite often I like to capture events with a lot in the shot, shooting only a 24 or 35 (full frame) and in close ups having the appearance of wide angle, and having background which tells the story.

For every shoot I can imagine, the 24-120 would be an excellent choice, unless I were after the absolute sharpest image I could have, then a prime or one of the trilogy lenses would be preferred at least by me.

sevencrossing

Msmoto The thread topic is simply the three lenses

The OP was mainly concerned about problems with focus at 140mm in low contrast situations (weddings )

I only have the 24 -120 ( with a D800) and that does indeed struggle to focus at 120mm in poor light
Once it has acquired focus, it is indeed sharp
May be a D400 would be better

Pistnbroke

I am very confused about what to do ..send the 24-120 back because I can see no focus improvement over the 18-140 and sell the 28-300 because I dont use it and its bad over 150......Brain is hurting ...If I could be sure the 7200 is better on focus I would sell and buy two of them ....wait for the D400 ..oh it will be too expensive !!!
As for 10 pics at a wedding you are joking ..there are the 3or 4 bridesmaids on the front row ,grandma crying ..the baby on the 5th row being held up ...the young couple kissing on the 10th row .close up of the vicar,late arriving guests .the video guy dressed like a tramp.the organist ..let alone the service rings glances between couple etc etc ..need I go on ....) well I do a bit ) do I use flash NO the vicar can count !!!
Thanks everyone you are helpfull and professional which cannot be said for all sites.

sevencrossing

I am only suggesting 10 during the exchange of vows

Pistnbroke

sorry 7 it depends how you define that ..I took it as the whole 20min service bit...we wedding men are tough we dont take offence ....ha ha

PS dont come to warwickshire " no photographs to be taken when anyone is speaking"
OK I take the pics between the words.....did not go down well.......
Did you ask those making readings if you could take there pictures ?? WTF
Oh what joy.

sevencrossing

we dont take offence ....ha ha

non taken

heartyfisher

sorry 7 it depends how you define that ..I took it as the whole 20min service bit...we wedding men are tough we dont take offence ....ha ha

PS dont come to warwickshire " no photographs to be taken when anyone is speaking"
OK I take the pics between the words.....did not go down well.......
Did you ask those making readings if you could take there pictures ?? WTF
Oh what joy.

What about video ? set it in 4k vid mode and then extract the frames for photos?

Pistnbroke

Hearty fisher ..video now there is more fun ..you can do a video at birmingham reg but no photographs !!
so you stand there with a video camera that also does stills as well taking photos but looking like a video guy!!

I have spoken to a well known Nikon Pundit ..you know goes on safari and galapagos and all that and it seems its theD7100 focus sensor that is the cause of my problems ..The D610 would bring me back the good focus sensors but I am not jumping that way so the £500 24-120 f4 is going back ..dont you just love consumer law.

Thanks guys all good fun

Photobug

@Pinstnbroke - sent my D7100 back to Nikon and they found the issue...the mirror was out of adjustment. Problem resolved.

manhattanboy

as we love to spend other peoples money, buy a D810
The 70-200 f2.8 is the answer for fast focusing in poor light

Agree with ^^
The QC mode was one of the primary reasons I caved on the 810 (and the lack of QC is one of the main reasons I am avoiding the 7200). The 810 even in regular mode is quieter than the DX cameras because of the new shutter, and its QC mode is quieter than the Canon FF bodies (although that new 7Dm2 is quieter still).
The 70-200 2.8 is relatively heavy. I would consider Mrs Moto's suggestion and use a light weight prime on a second body to save your back and neck B-)

sevencrossing

I would consider Mrs Moto's suggestion and use a light weight prime

The only prime ~ 140mm is AF DC-Nikkor 135mm f/2D. It has no VR and while fine one to one
For weddings I would prefer the AF-S NIKKOR 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR II

manhattanboy

I would consider Mrs Moto's suggestion and use a light weight prime

The only prime ~ 140mm is AF DC-Nikkor 135mm f/2D. It has no VR and while fine one to one
For weddings I would prefer the AF-S NIKKOR 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR II

For a second body, he will need something wider than the 70-200 on his primary body. This is what I meant; apologies for my poor wording.