Nikon 24-70 F2.8 VR ?? or third party lens??

Discussion in 'Nikon Cameras' started by vipgraphx, Dec 12, 2017.

  1. vipgraphx

    vipgraphx No longer a newbie, moving up!

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2011
    Messages:
    2,414
    Likes Received:
    438
    Location:
    Some Where In the Desert
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos OK to edit
    Long time no post but hope everyone is having a great Holliday season thus far!

    I have been in the market for a new lens for my D750. I have been going back and forth from Sigma, Tamron and Nikon.

    Theses are some lenses I have been considering for purchase

    Sigma
    24-35 F2 Art
    35 F1.4 Art

    Tamron
    24-70 F2.8 G
    35 F1.8
    15-30 F2.8

    Nikon
    24-120 F4
    24-70 2.8 VR

    So let me just give a quick overview of my situation. I have currently own the nikon - 50mm 1.8G and a yongnuo 35mm F2. The yongnuo was a purchase that I made to see if I liked the 35mm focal length with the FF D750 and I actually love it and its what stays on my camera 90% of the time. However the downside of this lens is that the focus is a little loud and sometimes will focus hunt for quite a while and I will have to turn on the camera and off to fix it. This is a huge problem for me as it makes me miss my shots or make people have to wait for a while until I can resolve the problem, plus it is a bit soft but hey for under $100 its really not bad.

    One of my concerns with the third party lenses is from all the research I have seen and read watched it seems to me like Sigma and tamron both need to be fine tuned for focus issues and need to be calibrated straight out of the box. Now this may not be difficult to for some but from the videos I watched its not something that I really want to do when buying a lens and quite frankly I don't seem to understand how to or what to do to calibrate them with those docks that both Sigma and tamron sell. The other things is resale value and future proof with those said brands.

    I have tried to narrow down what it is that I really want out of this next lens purchase and I think I would like to have some wide angel and a bit of telephoto thus thinking about the 24-70 VR. I also consider the 24-120 F4 for focal length. My kids play sports and I know this is not your typical sports lens, in day light and snaps it should be ok. I do like to take pictures in low light and this is where the VR would hopefully compensate for the slower glass but for $1000 more I can get a used 24-70 VR.... that is faster and I am sure produces much better images.

    Well I am planning a trip to disneyland very soon and as much as I would be cool with taking the yongnuo 35 F2 and nikon 55 f1.8 what I don't want is to be in that situation of swiping out lenses because the yongnuo is having focus issues. At a place like disneyland you just don't have the time to be messing around when taking family photos. However the 24-70VR is big and heavy and is it a lens to walk around with all day in the park? Would the 24-120 be better? When going on rides there is no way I will leave me camera gear off to the side and will bring it on board with me and so little worried that having a big lens may make things difficult but ,.....

    At the end of the day because all these lenses are pricy I want to make sure I get the best lens first

    I have considered the non VR version of the nikon 24-70 but I kind of feel since this is not an upgrade and rather a new purchase I would be better off with the newer VR version ( i also love to shoot low light and natural lighting)

    any words of wisdom and advise would really help me out here folks.

    Thanks in advance.


     
  2. tirediron

    tirediron Watch the Birdy! Staff Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2005
    Messages:
    40,900
    Likes Received:
    12,419
    Location:
    Victoria, BC
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos OK to edit
    My suggestions would be the Nikon 24-70 NON-VR; IMO, VR in a lens like this is (1) just something else to potentially go wrong; (2) totally unnecessary due to the short focal length; and (3) more sales gimmick than anything else. The non-VR is a stellar piece of glass and a LOT cheaper.
     
  3. Braineack

    Braineack Been spending a lot of time on here!

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2013
    Messages:
    11,418
    Likes Received:
    4,428
    Location:
    NoVA
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos OK to edit
    This has not been my experience whatsoever... I do hear the new Sigmas may be a little loose from the factory since they've started using these usb bases to micro-adjust. Now they pass the fine-tuning over to the buyer and I've heard many copies come pretty off out-of-the-box.

    any one of those lenses will be a big upgrade from your current line up. The Tamron is a bit smaller and lighter -- the extended barrel helps. Heck even the 24-120 f/4 is smaller than the Nikon 24-70.

    you'd probably love that 24-35 F2 Art, but it's not small by any means.

    you may be interested in older Nikon designs, like the 24-85s or even the 28-105mm -- honestly, if I didn't already have my 24-70 I might have picked that for my walkabout lens. they are cheap even in excellent shape and I may pick one up soon for my next trip for a little extra reach, damn good IQ, with a lot less risk carrying all the $$$$ and bonus: can do macro.


    reach with the 28-105:

    28mm:
    [​IMG]
    UVA Rotunda
    by Braineack, on Flickr

    105mm:
    [​IMG]
    UVA Rotunda
    by Braineack, on Flickr
     
    Last edited: Dec 12, 2017
    • Like Like x 1
  4. vipgraphx

    vipgraphx No longer a newbie, moving up!

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2011
    Messages:
    2,414
    Likes Received:
    438
    Location:
    Some Where In the Desert
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos OK to edit
    Thanks for the fast reply’s. One thing that is important to me is that most all my next lens purchases are quality and fast glass, just because I (with a little embarrassment) am one of those guys that gets buyers remorse and feel like I should have got the better one, if you can understand. I hate it about me and my wife always says why can’t you just be happy.

    With that said I know that sometimes we just need to have a light walk around lens that is not so expensive and need to understand that not every picture has to be a portrait quality shot. One reason I thought about just getting a don’t a6300 with kit lens for these types of occasions


    Sent from my iPhone using ThePhotoForum.com mobile app
     
  5. Braineack

    Braineack Been spending a lot of time on here!

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2013
    Messages:
    11,418
    Likes Received:
    4,428
    Location:
    NoVA
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos OK to edit
    I had an a6000 for travel, but I sold it because that was the only time I was using it.

    fast glass is cool, but I don't find it very necessary -- just depends what you're going for. when I travel, I'm typically at f/5.6 or f/8.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  6. vipgraphx

    vipgraphx No longer a newbie, moving up!

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2011
    Messages:
    2,414
    Likes Received:
    438
    Location:
    Some Where In the Desert
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos OK to edit
    Yeah trying to really figure out what the “right” lens for the job.

    I will want to get some other lenses in the future some more primes like the 85 or the newer nikon 105 1.4

    I thought that if I did the 24-70 I would probably be good with that and not need anything else in my bag.

    If I do go with the nikon 24-120 f4, then for sure I will be looking to add in the 85 or 105 in the future


    Sent from my iPhone using ThePhotoForum.com mobile app
     
  7. Braineack

    Braineack Been spending a lot of time on here!

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2013
    Messages:
    11,418
    Likes Received:
    4,428
    Location:
    NoVA
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos OK to edit
    I bet youd be happy with the 24-140. Your D750 has a enough ISO to make up for any lack of speed.

    Nikons 24-70 is nice, it's just so damn pricey. Which is why I went Tamron. Sigmas new 24-70 and Tamrons G2 version both look promising. I like the 24-70, but to me it's just a lens -- nothing really special about it; just good quality images.
     
  8. vipgraphx

    vipgraphx No longer a newbie, moving up!

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2011
    Messages:
    2,414
    Likes Received:
    438
    Location:
    Some Where In the Desert
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos OK to edit
    Yeah I see your point. I’ve tried not to impulse buy anymore and give myself time to really decide. I have found a nikon 24-120 f4 certified refurbished for $550 on amazon. Not a bad price but does make me a little worried what happens to the lens in the first place.

    This newer 24-120 looks promising and for that price should really consider it for the focal length. I’m sure taking pictures of my sons soccer games or football games with the longer reach would really be beneficial.


    Sent from my iPhone using ThePhotoForum.com mobile app
     
  9. nerwin

    nerwin Been spending a lot of time on here!

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2015
    Messages:
    3,171
    Likes Received:
    1,065
    Location:
    Vermont
    I'd suggest watching this video about the 3 24-70 2.8 lenses. It's pretty informative I think.



    I've owned the 24-120 f/4 VR and it was a decent lens but I really found it awkward to use because it was a rather chunky lenses, wasn't TOO heavy..nowhere near the 24-70 weight. Because of the size and weight of the lens, it has lens creep so its just something to be cognative about. The VR though was outstanding, great for video work which is where I think it shines. The image quality was fine, but nothing better than the cheap 24-85 VR kit lens...actually...I think the 24-85 VR has a slight edge in sharpness and I didn't see a HUGE difference between 85 and 120mm. At 120mm, I found the lens quite soft, especially wide open but it cleans up okayish when stopped down whereas the 24-85 @ 85mm wide open I found to be plenty sharp.

    Now these were my experiences, perhaps my copy wasn't the greatest but they seem to align with a number of other users who owned that lens as well.

    Put it this way. The 24-120 f/4 VR sells brand new for $1100. I barely sold mine for $400 used. The lens has terrible value for a reason. It's certainly doesn't perform like $1100 lens should I can tell you that much, especially when the cheaper 24-85 can out do it.

    Again, these are my own experiences and opinions. They may differ from other users but I felt like I should share them so you can make a better decision.

    I agree with @Braineack 2.8 lenses are not always necessary, are they great to have? Sure. But they aren't required, especially with today's image sensors. Some say f/4 is the new 2.8. Just something to keep in mind. I woulden't limit yourself to 2.8 lenses only.
     
  10. Peeb

    Peeb Semi-automatic Mediocrity Generator Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2015
    Messages:
    2,675
    Likes Received:
    1,592
    Location:
    Oklahoma
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos OK to edit
    The bold print really resonates with me. I find this focal length (so similar to the human FOV) to be really challenging because you are shooting in the 'snapshot' focal range. In other words- a 50mm shot of your family member standing in front of the Disneyworld Magic Kingdom castle at noon is likely going to look like a snapshot whether you use a D5 with fast expensive glass, or an iPhone.

    Avoiding the 'snapshot effect" probably the one argument in favor of faster glass- easier to blow out the background for close-up portraits (tho you lose the interesting background you traveled to see). I went from the old 28-105 to the more modern 24-85 and didn't notice much difference. The bought an old F100 film camera that had a 35-105 mounted and that lens is fine too. The real difference maker for image quality in that focal range is ME. My favorite images in that focal range are mostly from my f/1.8 nifty fifty prime. Just a little better than ANY zoom I've tried.

    Due to the above observations, I've avoided spending a prohibitive amount on an expensive and heavy fast mid-length zoom. I (personally) just can't justify the cost and weight simply to go from f/4.5 to f/2.8.

    My suggestion (for you and me both!) is renting one to see if you perceive a noticeable jump in image quality. In fact, I've just talked myself into considering doing just that for the holiday to see if my family pics benefit enough to justify the trade offs!

    PS @Braineack - when are we gonna get a review of that D800?

    PSS- @Braineack - your flicker banner image of the cat is epic. Really cool!
     
    Last edited: Dec 13, 2017
    • Like Like x 1
  11. nerwin

    nerwin Been spending a lot of time on here!

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2015
    Messages:
    3,171
    Likes Received:
    1,065
    Location:
    Vermont
    I've been thinking about picking up a used 24-85 VR as they are quite affordable now and quite a decent lens. I think of these kind of lenses as "utility" lenses because there are circumstances when it's just not possible to change lenses. I love my 20 1.8G and 50 1.8G (though still debating between 35 and 50 can't decide which is my absolute favorite) but having the flexibility of 24mm-85mm range is incredibly handy for those moments when it's not ideal to change lenses.
     
  12. Peeb

    Peeb Semi-automatic Mediocrity Generator Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2015
    Messages:
    2,675
    Likes Received:
    1,592
    Location:
    Oklahoma
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos OK to edit


    I picked up a non-VR 24-85 on ebay for a really great price and there have been only a very few times I've missed the VR. A very lightweight and unobtrusive lens to carry about for a trip!
     
    • Like Like x 1

Share This Page