Nikon 24-120 f4, hit or a miss?

[PaulWog]

The D750 is being sold at $2200 (CDN) by itself, or $2950 bundled with the 24-120 f4 VR. That's $840 after taxes for the 24-120 f4 lens.

While the lens is appealing to me, an $840 price hike is substantial. The price tag of $1300 new leaves me wondering if it's a 'too good to be true' deal, or an overpriced lens to begin with?

 

[Derrel]

Let's see....24,28,35,50,85,105,120...six commonly used single focal lens lengths, all with an f/4 maximum aperture and VR, all in one barrel....hmmm....naw....who would want such a thing?

I dunno Paul...this lens gets good reviews from people like Thom Hogan, but it gets less than stellar reviews by newbie gear heads who salivate at outdated and overpriced lenses like the Nikkor 24-70/2.8--a lens which is desperately overdue for a re-compute and an update to VR...

The internet photo community is a mix of people who want to make images, take photos, make photos, and shoot, and people who worry about sharpness and test charts on their lenses,and how high the numbers are. F/4 has become a fast enough aperture for GOOD autofocusing performance with the newer AF modules; besides, you wanna be at f/5.6 most of the time anyway...

Look at what the 24-120 does for the buyer of a D750, in terms of full-frame capable focal lengths, all at f/4, all with VR, in an easily carried lens, with no need for lens changes. Price out older, AF-D 24,28,35,105 lens options; you already own a 50 and an 85mm in high-speed f/1.8 models.

 

[PaulWog]

Let's see....24,28,35,50,85,105,120...six commonly used single focal lens lengths, all with an f/4 maximum aperture and VR, all in one barrel....hmmm....naw....who would want such a thing?

Look at what the 24-120 does for the buyer of a D750, in terms of full-frame capable focal lengths, all at f/4, all with VR, in an easily carried lens, with no need for lens changes. Price out older, AF-D 24,28,35,105 lens options; you already own a 50 and an 85mm in high-speed f/1.8 models.

A much appreciated response. The D750 is/was/will be a stretch already, so I don't think I can afford bundling in the lens anyways, but I was/am curious.

I realize how useful a 24-120 range is at f4, especially with VR. The lens is certainly functional.

 

[Derrel]

There are a number of 24-85 AF-S G VR models that are on the used market..."some" of those were almost given away for free back during the D600 oil splatter debacle's full height--which almost stopped the sales of the D600....for a time Nikon buyers who plunked down for a D600 got a basically, FREE 24-85 AF-S VR from authorized dealers, so I have seen those affordably used.

There was ALSO the earlier 24-85mm f/3.3~4.5 AF-S, which was a pretty good lens (I own one from the mid-2000's era) and is compact and VERY affordable, nice to carry too.

The BEST VALUE though in an all-around zoom for a D750 might be the 28-105mm AF-D, the one we did Lens Across America 4 with: I was impressed by that low-cost lens! It has super-low distortion at the wide end, very unusual for a wide to tele zoom, and I think that is probably the best Bang For Dollar utility zoom lens you could get for a D750.

 

[PaulWog]

Great advice again. I'm definitely passing up the 24-120 f4 VR, due to cost. You've provided me with some good things to look at as alternatives in the used market in the future -- save a buttload of money for once, rather than spend through the nose.

 

[Braineack]

The BEST VALUE though in an all-around zoom for a D750 might be the 28-105mm AF-D, the one we did Lens Across America 4 with: I was impressed by that low-cost lens! It has super-low distortion at the wide end, very unusual for a wide to tele zoom, and I think that is probably the best Bang For Dollar utility zoom lens you could get for a D750.

I agree. That lens had a very useful range, could do close-up shots, and rendered beautifully on my D600. If I didn't already have a 24-70 2.8, I'd be using one of those as my normal lens.

here's my shots with it, view full sized:Charlottesville Flickr - Photo Sharing

 

[nerwin]

When I bought my D610, I picked up a barely used 24-85 VR on eBay for $250. Not a bad deal at all, fantastic general lens for full frame and from the tests i've seen, the 24-85 VR and 24-120 f/4 VR are pretty much on par in terms of performance and I guess some say the cheap 24-85 VR is a tad sharper. But obviously you can blow out the background better on the 24-120 f/4 than the 24-85 VR.

Nikon 24-120 F4 VR-G vs Nikon 24-85 F3.5-4.5 VR-G

I thought about getting the 24-120 f/4 myself for a general photography lens..but say the size and weight of it and I'm like meh..my 24-85 VR works fine for me.

 

[goodguy]

Well Paul I never had or used the 24-120mm, great range for sure.
I find with my 24-70mm I always try to shoot at f4-f5, the power of the D750 gives me the piece of mind even in less then perfect lighting conditions BUT in lower light when every bit of light counts I am sure glad I own a f2.8 lens, with a 70-200mm f2.8 I cover 24-200mm at f2.8 which is (for me) all the range I need most of the time.
If you get the 24-120mm f4 and want a lens with more range you might consider a 70-200mm f4 but you loose 70-120mm if you get the 24-120mm lens, worth considering, just remember if you ever get the 24-120mm how it will effect other lenses you own or want to buy.
As many said before the Nikon 24-85mm 3.5-4.5 VR is a great lens, I owned it and its almost as sharp as the 24-70mm, really great lens and you can get it used for roughly 300$ used or even less.

 

[jsecordphoto]

I passed on that kit when I bought my d750 and I've regretted it ever since. When I shot canon I used my 24-105 on seriously like 90% of my shots, but I was trying to save money when I made the switch and figured (really poor logic here) that I wouldn't miss having that focal range.

I rented a 24-120 when I went out to Utah last month and that just made me regret not buying it even more. It's just a really useful range, that makes for a perfect walk around lens.

 

[PaulWog]

I passed on that kit when I bought my d750 and I've regretted it ever since. When I shot canon I used my 24-105 on seriously like 90% of my shots, but I was trying to save money when I made the switch and figured (really poor logic here) that I wouldn't miss having that focal range.

I rented a 24-120 when I went out to Utah last month and that just made me regret not buying it even more. It's just a really useful range, that makes for a perfect walk around lens.

Gahhh if only it were cheaper! The 24-85 does just make a lot of sense, it's sharper at the 24mm end, which is where I would want sharpness. And the distortion isn't really there on the 24-85. And it's smaller and lighter. The 85-120 reach would be nice though, and slightly faster aperture at the long end. Conversely, f3.5 at 24mm is slightly nice as well (not sure if I'd shoot at f3.5 at 24mm often though).

I'll see if they've got any special deals, but I think $2950 for the d750 + 24-120 is as cheap as they are offering anyways. I just can't afford that 24-120 (since the D750 after taxes, and after I sell my used gear, is still going to cost me a net of about $800).

Way to make it hard on me the moment I head out to get the D750! Thanks for the advice though, it's always appreciated.

 

[Derrel]

Well...I would say buy the D750 body new then, and look for lenses later. Not sure about the 10-20 or the 18-35 Siggies...how much of the frame will those fill on FX? PLUS, you know, I get this feeling that the 24MP FX Nikons are really not "all that demanding" on lenses. I look at them almost like medium format 120 rollfilm; the FX sensors have one million pixels per millimeter for each millimeter of image height, and the sensor is like 2.7x bigger than APS-C in area...in the same way as 35mm was to medium format, the FX frame does NOT require as much magnification as do the smaller sensors, to reach a given image size, let's say 12 inches across...

I feel like 24MP FX Nikon is BETTER at ISO 800 than ANY medium format rollfilm ever was at that ISO level. At low ISO values, I think the amount of detail 24MP FX Nikon can capture is more information that a piece of 6x6 120 rollfilm with 1980's technology. I don't really think it is "imperative" to have the best lenses on FX 24 MP Nikon...

And I mean lenses like the 28-80 plastic-mount D-series at f/7.1 with flash or tripod...look pretty good. Or the $88 28-105 AF-D zoom.

 

[PaulWog]

I feel like 24MP FX Nikon is BETTER at ISO 800 than ANY medium format rollfilm ever was at that ISO level. At low ISO values, I think the amount of detail 24MP FX Nikon can capture is more information that a piece of 6x6 120 rollfilm with 1980's technology. I don't really think it is "imperative" to have the best lenses on FX 24 MP Nikon...

And I mean lenses like the 28-80 plastic-mount D-series at f/7.1 with flash or tripod...look pretty good. Or the $88 28-105 AF-D zoom.

The 10-20 Sigma functions in 1.2x mode with no vignetting at 13mm, and in regular FX mode at about 17mm. Not sure how that works exactly, since 1.2x mode is 15.5-ish equivalent. Anyways, it works. I may keep it, I'm not sure, but that keeps me holding to a fair resale price at the very least.

The Sigma 18-35 functions between 28 and 35mm in FX mode, and I didn't check 1.2x crop mode. I still want to get rid of that lens regardless. It's big and heavy to basically be a 28-35mm lens, when I should be getting $700 or a little more for it on resale. Still trying though, got an offer of $650... I countered, he never responded.

I am definitely interested in getting a second-hand performer like a 28-105 or a 24-85 or something like that... (down the line, not immediately - have to pace the wallet, it's on fire). Even though I'd only be spending in a relatively cheap price range, any cost now is just out of the budget. I'm already hurting from this D750 purchase! It's nice though, really nice. The viewfinder is a beautiful thing, and so too is the ISO performance. I am learning this whole thing though, the controls are foreign to me.

 

[JustJazzie]

The BEST VALUE though in an all-around zoom for a D750 might be the 28-105mm AF-D, the one we did Lens Across America 4 with: I was impressed by that low-cost lens! It has super-low distortion at the wide end, very unusual for a wide to tele zoom, and I think that is probably the best Bang For Dollar utility zoom lens you could get for a D750.

This lens hasn't come off my DF since I bought it, and I honestly havent found myseld eyeing any new lenses at all. Its an excellent, inexpensive choice. I got mine from KEH and it looked brand new!

 

[levueny]

The D750 is being sold at $2200 (CDN) by itself, or $2950 bundled with the 24-120 f4 VR. That's $840 after taxes for the 24-120 f4 lens.

While the lens is appealing to me, an $840 price hike is substantial. The price tag of $1300 new leaves me wondering if it's a 'too good to be true' deal, or an overpriced lens to begin with?

Definitely worth it as an everyday use lens. Went into Adorama today to try it out. Super sharp

NYC Portrait Photographer Gabriel Johnson

 

[jaomul]

Not sure the value of the 24-120 but my friend bought the d750 and 24-120 lens recently. I was sceptical because it seems to get good user reviews but not great internet expert reviews.


Well imo it's a fabulous lens, fast to focus, great range and lovely image quality. I'd def try this lens if it was in budget