Nikon zoom's

[JTPotter]

I was just wondering, why would i buy the Nikon 24-120mm ($1100), compared to the 28-300mm
($800)?

What makes these lenses better than the other, covering the same focal length?
I mean, all camera settings being the same, and shooting in the same range of the two lenses, 28-120mm, would the images be different?

I own the 24-120mm, and love it, but would like to get out a little further.
I also have the 200-500mm, which I, also, absolutely love (can't take it off the camera!)! Just cant carry it all day.

I enjoy bird photography if that helps.
Thanks,
JT potter

 

[snowbear]

I was just wondering, why would i buy the Nikon 24-120mm ($1100), compared to the 28-300mm
($800)?

What makes these lenses better than the other, covering the same focal length?
I mean, all camera settings being the same, and shooting in the same range of the two lenses, 28-120mm, would the images be different?

I own the 24-120mm, and love it, but would like to get out a little further.
I also have the 200-500mm, which I, also, absolutely love (can't take it off the camera!)! Just cant carry it all day.

I enjoy bird photography if that helps.
Thanks,
JT potter

For one thing, the 24-120 has a constant f/4 aperture, while the 28-300 is variable, so you lose some light at the 300mm end. Also, the 24-120 has the Nano coating (gold ring at the large end, "N" in the gold hexagon at the other end) which is supposed to reduce flare and ghosting (sharper images).

 

[ac12]

There is an old saying "a Jack of all trades, is a master of none."
And that is what a super zoom is.

In general, Super Zooms with a zoom ration of 1:10+, compromise on optical image quality to get the large zoom range. The 28-300 is a 1:10.7 ratio zoom.
The pro lenses all have much smaller zoom ranges than the 1:10+ of a super zoom.

Typical pro zooms are just under 1:3; example 24-70 is 1:2.9, 70-200 is 1:2.9.
There are a few exceptions that go a bit higher: 24-70 is 1:4.4, 24-120 is 1:5, 80-400 is 1:5.​

Comparing the 18-140, a 1:7.8 zoom with the 70-200. I can crop deeper into the image from the 70-200 lens.

Second is as @snowbear said. The 24-120 is a fixed f/4 lens, the 28-300 is a variable f/3.5-5.6 lens.
The 28-300 will be slower than the 24-120 for most of the zoom range. Not an issue during the day, but as the sun goes down, it could/will be an issue.

Then there is the issue of construction.
My pro lenses are all made better than my consumer grade lenses.
The materials, how the lens is constructed, and how it feels to use is a step up, with the pro lenses.
The smoothness of turning the zoom ring is one place where I can tell the difference, and how good the designers did their job.

 

[shadowlands]

My crazy self doesn't own a single zoom.

 

[Derrel]

The 28-300 did quite well on 12 to 16mp full frame cameras. Instead of looking at Zoom ratio I typically look at price as being the most important indicator of quality. Of course each lens is somewhat different. The 28 to 300 mm focal length range is quite a bit different from 24 to 120 mm. Both at the wide-angle end and at the telephoto end but most especially at the telephoto end. as I said when used on a 12 to 16 megapixel full-frame Nikon 28 to 300 gave quite good images. You can read a pretty good write-up on it on Ken Rockwell's website. Again the key was on using the lens on Nikon D3 or Df, or D4 cameras.

Again price is usually a pretty reliable indicator of quality and so is era of design. Many modern lenses of outlandish specification are quite a bit better than simple 2x- ratio zoom lens designs from 25 or 30 years ago. However this is not always the case. The lowly 1990's era Nikon 28 to 80mm f/ 3.5 to 5.6 AF-D, which dates from around 1992 and retails now for around $35 on the used Market, is an incredible performer even though it is lightweight, plastic-y ,and wobbly. I have used it on the 36 megapixel D800 with great results at F 7.1, and I have used it since roughly 2001. Even though it is a small lens and was designed a long time ago and it did not cost much new, it performs quite well.

What zoom lens you choose is determined by mainly how much weight you want to carry, how much money you want to spend, and how critical it is to have the absolute best quality image as opposed to convenience. These days it is more important to see how the zoom lens performs on your camera than it is to evaluate the lens based upon specifications of weight or size or price

 

[Derrel]

One truism that has held true for the past 30 years is that a lens that costs $200 is about equal to a $2,000 zoom lens when both are shot at f8.

 

[JTPotter]

Thank you guys for the replies! I'm thinking I would love to try the 28-300mm, maybe rent one?
I will check out Ken Rockwell's review, thanks again!

 

[Designer]

I was just wondering, why would i buy the Nikon 24-120mm ($1100), compared to the 28-300mm
($800)?

What makes these lenses better than the other, covering the same focal length?
I mean, all camera settings being the same, and shooting in the same range of the two lenses, 28-120mm, would the images be different?

I own the 24-120mm, and love it, but would like to get out a little further.
I also have the 200-500mm, which I, also, absolutely love (can't take it off the camera!)! Just cant carry it all day.

I enjoy bird photography if that helps.
Thanks,
JT potter

The more discerning consumer might consider the image quality over the zoom range. So if you can get a better photograph with a less expensive lens, then why would you want to spend more and get less?

Some lenses are known for their contrast, color rendition, and depth, but are sometimes overlooked because people are looking for a certain zoom range.

When you start looking for lenses, look at the reviews and some sample images. If you can get an excellent image using a somewhat wider lens, then just crop to the margins you want. Pretty simple.

 

[480sparky]

........I own the 24-120mm, and love it, but would like to get out a little further............

That's why I went to the 28-300. It's a great all-around lens. I've never had anyone barf on one of my images, stating, "That was taken with a super-zoom, therefor it's crap."

 

[Derrel]

There is nothing quite like an actual week- long trial of a piece of equipment to give you a real world idea of how it performs. The problem with one day is that if that one day has gray light, then a lens tends to look low in contrast. If that one day has brilliant sunlight then the lens might look to have quite high contrast. After a full year, you really know almost everything there is to know about a lens. But a one-week trial will tell you a lot of things that you should know.

The worst zoom lens I ever used was a 1980s Nikkor 35 to 135 mm. I bought it from a friend who bought it from a friend who bought it from a friend. That alone right there made me kind of suspicious. It was a stinker, and I sold it soon after I bought it. It was terrible. I suspect that it had been dropped. Its images were not very sharp, at any focal length,and at any lens opening. I owned it for less than 1 month.

 

[ac12]

The other thing is a concept called "good enough."

My light/travel kit does NOT have my pro lenses in it. The pro lenses are just too heavy, for me to lug on a trip.
The consumer grade Panasonic-Lumix 12-60 (m4/3) produces an image that is "good enough" for me, for the purpose. The compromise was reduced weight and bulk vs. higher IQ. For travel, reduced weight and bulk won

Similarly the Nikon 18-140 DX lens is a consumer grade lens, but it is "good enough" for me. Yes it isn't as sharp as a pro grade lens, but for the zoom range and cost, it was/is good.

There is a zoom that has the reputation of being Nikon's WORSE zoom, the 43-86/3.5. That was my first zoom, and I was happy with it, most of the time. For me, its only issue was the relatively slow f/3.5 max aperture, which sucked for shooting basketball in a dim high school gym. Except for basketball, that lens was "good enough" for most of what I used it for.

This is similar to the MP race. Just how many MP do you need, to make a 4x6 INCH print?
The answer is just over TWO (2) MP.
Similarly, you do not NEED pro level glass for a small print/image.

 

[Derrel]

For quite some time Canon used to make
(maybe they still make it?) the 35 to 350 mm L-series zoom lens, which was fairly popular among Paparazzi and news photographers. It had pretty much any focal length you would need for almost any event, in one lens,from full-length standing to tight facial close-up. Popular in press scrums and photo lines all across the world. The Nikon 28 mm-300 mm goes wider and loses just 50 mm of length off the top,which is a very slight crop to bring you up to the equivalent of a 350 mm telephoto lens.

 

[ac12]

For quite some time Canon used to make
(maybe they still make it?) the 35 to 350 mm L-series zoom lens, which was fairly popular among Paparazzi and news photographers. It had pretty much any focal length you would need for almost any event, in one lens,from full-length standing to tight facial close-up. Popular in press scrums and photo lines all across the world. The Nikon 28 mm-300 mm goes wider and loses just 50 mm of length off the top,which is a very slight crop to bring you up to the equivalent of a 350 mm telephoto lens.

A 1:10 L series lens, wow.

 

[Derrel]

For quite some time Canon used to make
(maybe they still make it?) the 35 to 350 mm L-series zoom lens, which was fairly popular among Paparazzi and news photographers. It had pretty much any focal length you would need for almost any event, in one lens,from full-length standing to tight facial close-up. Popular in press scrums and photo lines all across the world. The Nikon 28 mm-300 mm goes wider and loses just 50 mm of length off the top,which is a very slight crop to bring you up to the equivalent of a 350 mm telephoto lens.

A 1:10 L series lens, wow.

Yeah... it was quite large and heavy too.
One of the more famous Old School Paparazzi photographers used to just rave about how great this lens was. There used to be a nature photographer on here about 10 years ago who loved his. In more recent times. Within the last 6 months or so as I recall, a member here had a fall and ruined his 35 to 350 L. I guess the lens was quite badly damaged, since he said he literally threw it away. Yes, a 10 to 1 ratio Canon L-series Zoom.

 

[Derrel]

In today's world speed and getting images from the street or a photo event to the Tabloid papers or to Modern websites is of Paramount concern... before the Golden Globes TV show or the Academy Awards show has ended you can find online photos from the red carpet.

Speaking of Red Carpet Events oh, there are often 25-50 photographers in attendance
and many of them have fairly similar equipment.

There is a lot of talk about image quality especially in photography forums, but in the real world having the right focal length is often much more important than having the ultimate in the image quality. As I said earlier There is almost no difference between a $2,000 lens and a $200 zoom lens when both are stopped down to F / 8. Modern photography magazine did an article that tested a bunch of expensive pro-level f/2.8 and quite a few consumers zooms. Optically at f8 there was no difference that really popped out when people were actually judging the pictures. Of course their one takeaway was that there was no telling how long the inexpensive zoom would continue to deliver its qualityand stay in good operating form. There is indeed quite a bit of difference in build quality between the professional level F / 2.8 lenses and the cheaper consumer lenses, some of which are priced at $109. If you compare a Nikon 18- 55mm kit lens with the 17-55mm DX f/2.8, the difference in build quality and fit and finish is quite apparent.

The Nikon 28 mm to 300 mm is not a cheap lens... it is in most ways a high-grade lens, and it is designed to appeal to a photographer who understands what he or she will be getting for the money. Is it as good as having the nine prime lenses that its zoom range spans? Maybe not, but in terms of convenience it sure as heck beats carrying nine different prime lenses(28,35, 50, 85,105,135,180,200,300).