Discussion in 'Nikon Cameras' started by vipgraphx, Dec 12, 2017.
FWIW I have the Tamron 24-70 G2 and I can't say enough good things about it. Absolutely love it.
I like the 24-85mm lens length; Nikon has made more than one version in that zoom range. The 28-105 braineack speaks of is surprisingly GOOD on 24-MP Nikon full-frame: we shipped a 28-105 across the USA a few years ago,and I shot it on the 24-MP D3x and was happy with the image quality and focus speed.
RE: 35mm prime lens: I personally like the older 35mm f/2 AF-D lens...decent, small, nice rendering to the pictures.
Zooms: 24-70mm f/2.8 lenses...ehhhh...BIG, heavy, PITA for a lens that is not long enough at the top end to do much, and you get sharper, crisper, better images with three primes: a 24, a 35,and a 50mm. And then your real, quality lens is the 85/1.8 AF-S G.
Buy lenses that you think might suck on the used market, from a dealer that offers a money-back return option. RE: the 24-120 VR...and the used price of it...
I think the 24-85 AF-S VR-G might be the lens to buy for the D750: Nikon paired that as a kit for a while with D600 bodies...
Just wanted to update this thread.
I ended up purchasing the Nikon 24-70 VR V2 lens. WOW what a beast! It really performed while on vacation in many lighting situations. I look forward to using it more and more.
Thanks for input!
Congrats. I own the former Nikon 24-70mm and I'm happy with it. Never lets me down. But if it did, I wouldn't have any problems grabbing a Sigma or Tamron to replace it. But it just keeps working.
So how did it handle?
I my concern is the weight of that lens.
I'm looking for a lens too and am between the Tamron 24-70 f2.8 g2 and the Nikon 24-120 f4 VR.
I'm leaning towards the Tamron. Aside from price, weight, and extra reach is there a reason to pick the Nikon?
They are two completely different lenses. Depending on your body and purpose, having the reach is better than speed.
For me it is the zoom range and extra reach of the 24-120.
I prefer the convenience of shooting without having to change lenses.
If you end up in the 50-100mm range, you have to switch between the 24-70 and 70-200. It is easier to just use a lens that has that coverage.
I was at a concert, and the 70-200 was just a bit too tight at the short end, but a 24-70 at the long end would be too short for small group/individuals. So I would have been swapping between lenses all night. Or use 2 bodies with a lens on each.
Most of my pictures are of my kids. I feel like the tamron 24-70 f2.8 will be sharper under f4 and have better bokeh.
Other than that I like the Nikon 24-120 and all of it's advantages.
Just saw a deal posted that Beach Camera
via Newegg has the 24-70 G2 for 1199 with a $200 gift card for Newegg. FWIW
If you haven't already, you might want to research "onion" bokeh before you pull the trigger on that Tamron. The G2 is reportedly better than the G1, but it has not been completely eliminated. A lot of people aren't bothered by it, but it was a deal killer for me.
I ordered my D750 with the 24-120 f/4. I also have a 50mm f1.4, and a 24mm f2.8 and I can tell you that the 24-120 holds up well when compared to those 2 prime lenses. I know that the pixel peepers don't give the 24-120 much love but, I'm very happy with mine.
Covered bridge 20x30 1.0 by TOM STRAIGHT, on Flickr
D750 w/24-120 @24mm f/8
Separate names with a comma.