If you use tripod 70% of time, why VR? Better go with the 24-70.
Which lens would you choose???
(38 posts) (22 voices)-
Posted 1 year ago #
-
TaoTeJared said:
One lens? No brainer 24-120mm f/4G VR. Gives you wide, middle, and a bit of tele. Great all around lens. 24-70mm is great but if I had only one lens, I would miss the reach.+1
The AF-S 24-120mm f/4.0G VR makes a lot of sense on an FX body, if you can only choose one lens. The 24-70mm, though very nice, is too short, and lacks VR. EIther that, or two primes: e.g., either an 18mm, 20mm, 24mm, or 28mm f/2.8, and a new AF-S Nikkor 85mm f/1.8G.
Posted 1 year ago # -
jvossphoto said:
So my question is if you all owned a D800E and was limited to just one lens, which would you choose?24mm 1.4G - the best lens I have ever come across (at least in under 2000 euros price segment) and the focal length that does most of the job for me. Honestly, 85% of my images are taken with this. It is fantastic indoors and outdoors.
Posted 1 year ago # -
I got the D800 along with the 24-120 f4 about two weeks ago. Great package. In order to get super sharp photos, you need to choose a smaller aperture for sure. The VR makes a ton of sense if you want to use the Auto-Iso feature along with the 'recommended speed'. When I use Auto-Iso with my 50mm f1.4 lens, I often get blurry photos at 1/50. Not with the VR on the 24-120.
Posted 1 year ago # -
sftwins said:
I got the D800 along with the 24-120 f4 about two weeks ago. Great package. In order to get super sharp photos, you need to choose a smaller aperture for sure. The VR makes a ton of sense if you want to use the Auto-Iso feature along with the 'recommended speed'. When I use Auto-Iso with my 50mm f1.4 lens, I often get blurry photos at 1/50. Not with the VR on the 24-120.Absolutely....shoot this lens with the D4. Best single "walk around" lens. And, I have found it is sharp at f/4.0. But, this may be a simple judgement issue. The advantage of the VR over the fabulous 24-70mm without, is IMO really large. Sometimes the light is just not there and if I have not had enough or too much coffee, the VR is so nice.
But, the new 85mm f/1.8G is an absolutely great lens as well for only $500 if one wanted to start on a budget.
(And she said that about someone getting an 800E, huh?)
Posted 1 year ago # -
There can be a big difference in your needs for wildlife and landscape. Wide angle for landscape, long reach for wildlife.
None of the zooms by themselves will give you that.
I like the idea of getting a couple of primes to start out with. You can get a 35mm f/1.8G, a 50mm f/1.8G, and a 300mm f/4D for right around the same cost as a 24-70mm f/2.8.
I recently changed over to Nikon from Canon, and am starting out with a couple of primes. I have the 35 and 50 G lenses and they're plenty sharp.
Posted 1 year ago # -
In trying to sort out something between the 24-70 f/2.8 and the 24-120 f/4, I think it boils down to what f-stop you use in your landscapes. Most people I know shooting landscapes (although I don't know that many) stop down to somewhere between f/5.6 and f/11 most of the time. But what about you? If you think you're going to need the f/2.8, get the 24-70mm 2.8. If not, the 24-120 is much more bang for your buck.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Here, a full size image with the 24-120mm, handheld. Take a look
http://www.flickr.com/photos/fantinesfotos/7014984231/sizes/o/in/photostream/
Posted 1 year ago # -
TaoTeJared said:
Since it seems that people some have already skipped reading the OPs question and what they shoot:One lens? No brainer 24-120mm f/4G VR. Gives you wide, middle, and a bit of tele. Great all around lens. 24-70mm is great but if I had only one lens, I would miss the reach.
If the F-stop is not that big of a deal, and you want more compression or reach, the 28-300mm VR could be a option as well since you will be stopping down anyway.
tcole1983 brought up a good point if you don't mind primes, the 24mm 2.8, 50mm 1.8, 85mm 1.8 & 60mm macro would be about the same price and you could really do anything with those. Even if you just went with the 24-120, I would add either the 50mm or the new 85mm 1.8s to give you a bit faster or a better bokeh option.
I have to agree with TaoTeJerad, the 24-120 F/4 is an amazing lens. I've had nothing but tack sharp images from this lens at all focal lengths. A perfect "do everything" lens.
Posted 1 year ago # -
TaoTeJared said:
For $500 I don't think it is worth it unless you just really like the idea of if. In practice the IQ is no better than any AF versions of any Nikon lens. You can get a new 50mm F1.4G for about the same price.MF with today's DSLRs, I find is a pain as the viewfinder screen no longer is set up for it. I have tried to shoot with all my old Nikkors but but me it "gets in the way" of making an image rather than enhancing the experience. You can buy aftermarket screens, but it will be a while until those are available for the D800. I would suggest playing with an old MF lens for a week before dropping $500 on one.
+1 . Laser ground focusing screens don't show you the effects of larger apertures beyond about f/2.8 which is a bummer.
Shooting styles differ quite a bit but personally if there was just one lens I'd have on FX then it'd be the 14-24mm (I'm a wide angle junkie). Then later down the line add a 70-200 or Sigma 120-300 for the wildlife tele stuff...
Posted 1 year ago # -
-
msmoto said:
Here, a full size image with the 24-120mm, handheld. Take a lookhttp://www.flickr.com/photos/fantinesfotos/7014984231/sizes/o/in/photostream/
Wow! I thought I had some sharp images from my 24-120, THIS one is even more incredicable considering the shutter speed of 1/100. Nice shot!
Posted 1 year ago # -
50 1.4G.
Posted 1 year ago #
Reply
You must log in to post.
