Ditch my 24-120 f/4 VR for the 16-35 f/4 VR?

Have you handled the 16-35?

Nope. I did extensive research between the 16-35 and Tamron 15-30. There's lots of pluses and minuses all over. Just make sure you don't get a soft copy.
 
Have you handled the 16-35?

Nope. I did extensive research between the 16-35 and Tamron 15-30. There's lots of pluses and minuses all over. Just make sure you don't get a soft copy.

Thats what im afraid of. Probably best to get used copy thats sharp.
 
Have you handled the 16-35?

Nope. I did extensive research between the 16-35 and Tamron 15-30. There's lots of pluses and minuses all over. Just make sure you don't get a soft copy.

Thats what im afraid of. Probably best to get used copy thats sharp.

I wouldn't say that. Just make sure the return policy is good. Or buy local and test prior to purchase.

Wish lens manufacturers would seal their boxes with tamper proof stickers and shrink wrap.
 
Have you handled the 16-35?

Nope. I did extensive research between the 16-35 and Tamron 15-30. There's lots of pluses and minuses all over. Just make sure you don't get a soft copy.

Thats what im afraid of. Probably best to get used copy thats sharp.

I wouldn't say that. Just make sure the return policy is good. Or buy local and test prior to purchase.

Wish lens manufacturers would seal their boxes with tamper proof stickers and shrink wrap.

All my lenses are used haha. Except for the 50mm.
 
I just wanted to let everyone know, that I went with the 16-35 f/4 VR! I'll have it Friday :)
 
Now you've had some time to play with it.. how do you like it?

Sent from my SM-G920T using ThePhotoForum.com mobile app

It was a great decision. I'm quite happy with the 16-35 f/4. It's fantastic, pro quality build, fast focusing, great color reproduction, nice micro contrast and most importantly its sharp. Honestly, I probably would have been happy with the 18-35 f/3.5-4.5G, it's lighter but still has good image quality and sharpness. But since I also do video, having VR was a great addition and better build quality and weather sealing is nice too. The thing is, I would have gone with that if it was significantly cheaper but since it was ONLY $100 less than what I paid for the 16-35 f/4 it just made sense to go with the latter.

I think the 24-120 f/4 is a great lens, but it never really impressed me and the image quality isn't any better than the 24-85 VR and actually, I found the 24-85 VR to be sharper. Of course the "bokeh" was quite distracting on both lenses but I'd give a slight edge to the 24-120 f/4 because it had 9 rounded aperture blades instead of 7 which helped it a little. Now the 24-85 VR can be had quite cheaply around $300 used or so. The 24-120 f/4 cost what new? $1100? I barely sold mine for $450. That tells you something right there.
 
The 24-85 VR was thrown in as a free bonus to get rid of the last stock of D600 bodies, but only for a very short time frame, during the height of the D600 shutter and oil-flinging issues. Because Nikon's dealers paired the free 24-85 VR lens with so many kits, the lens has a low price as a used lens. When some people payed $599 or $699 for the lens, and others got it thrown in as a purchase induicement, that prioce disparity really, really hurt the resale price of the lens! And that is why you can find it at vastly different asking prices across the USA market.
 
Ouch really bad resale on those kit lenses. The 16-35 f/4 sounds like a really decent build. I think I might start to save up and watch for a used copy
 
The 24-120 f/4 is my go to lens most of the time. It would probably be the last lens I would sell.
 
The 24-120 it's a great walk around, do anything type lens. For the little amount of time I've had it so far I really enjoy using it. The only complaint I have is the creep, might look at one of those rubber bands or just use a rubber band
 

Most reactions

New Topics

Back
Top