Which Nikon lens for D610?

[connorc]

Currently upgrading to the D610 and have a Nikon AF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 G which I may upgrade but that remains to be seen. Which of the following would you recommend or do you have any other recommendations? I am on a budget.

Nikkor 24-85mm f/2.8-4 VR
Nikkor 24-120mm f/4 VR or the f/3.5-5.6
Nikkor 35-70mm f/2.8
Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 (since I can't afford the Nikkor 24-70 f/2.8)

 

[480sparky]

I can vouch for the 24-120/4.

 

[Derrel]

Thom s Recommended Lenses for FX Users byThom Thom Hogan

Posted earlier this month.

 

[Braineack]

I like the top two for the range, the last for the speed.

 

[robbins.photo]

Ok, well a lot depends on the sort of shooting situations you find yourself in most often. For me I discovered that a variable aperture zoom worked just fine for most of my shooting situations since when I was using a shorter range zoom in the 24-70ish range I was generally either in good lighting conditions or was using a flash.

For some folks however the constant 2.8 can be a real plus, it really does depend on the sort of shooting situations you find yourself in most often.

In generally I've had good luck with Sigma lenses, I owned a 24-70 3.5 - 5.6 and for an inexpensive lens it really did a remarkable job on both my D5200 and my D7100.

I ended up selling it as I found that for the vast majority of the shooting situations where I needed something shorter than my 70-200 mm the 50 mm prime seemed to be what I ended up mounting 90+ % of the time.

The biggest downside to "off" brand lenses at least IMHO is the resell value, a Nikkor will hold it's resell value quite well, however a sigma or a tamron will depreciate a lot more and be worth less if you do go to resell it.

So generally for me at least if I do buy a Sigma or Tamron I generally buy used, let someone else take the big depreciation hit you experience when buying the lens new and selling it used.

But for some folks of course they prefer all new equipment, me I don't mind working with used. I've gotten great service out of all of the camera bodies and lenses I have and none of them were purchased new, but of course YMMV.

 

[jaomul]

24-120 f4 is one of those lenses not fabulously reviewed by "experts" but great in real life lenses. My friend got one recently with a d750, it is imo a great lens for the day to day. Very underrated

 

[Troy M Duffer]

I got the 24-120 f4 with my D750 a couple of week ago and I love it the extra reach over the 24- 70 f2.8 works for me

 

[PaulWog]

I wanted the 24-120 f4 until I found out how soft it is from 70mm to 120mm. Wide open, until stopped down to f5.6, the lens is pretty bad in that range. Why does that matter? If your optical zoom is worse than digital zoom, going from 50mm to 70mm, then that's kind of terrible.

At the 50% reduced price with the D750, the lens does make sense. Sigma's 24-105mm f4 is better on paper in just about every way, however. At 105mm and cropped to 120mm, it will render much much much more detail. I would look at Sigma's 24-105mm first. However, I'm not sure how focus accuracy and consistency compares between the two lenses.

At $650-ish (discount bundle), the lens seems pretty nice though.

 

[jaomul]

I wanted the 24-120 f4 until I found out how soft it is from 70mm to 120mm. Wide open, until stopped down to f5.6, the lens is pretty bad in that range. Why does that matter? If your optical zoom is worse than digital zoom, going from 50mm to 70mm, then that's kind of terrible.

At the 50% reduced price with the D750, the lens does make sense. Sigma's 24-105mm f4 is better on paper in just about every way, however. At 105mm and cropped to 120mm, it will render much much much more detail. I would look at Sigma's 24-105mm first. However, I'm not sure how focus accuracy and consistency compares between the two lenses.

At $650-ish (discount bundle), the lens seems pretty nice though.

I'd say you got a bad one, it happens

 

[goodguy]

Currently upgrading to the D610 and have a Nikon AF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 G which I may upgrade but that remains to be seen. Which of the following would you recommend or do you have any other recommendations? I am on a budget.

Nikkor 24-85mm f/2.8-4 VR
Nikkor 24-120mm f/4 VR or the f/3.5-5.6
Nikkor 35-70mm f/2.8
Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 (since I can't afford the Nikkor 24-70 f/2.8)

Best value for money Nikon 24-85mm VR
Best range 24-120mm
Fastest Sigma 24-70mm

From this lens I personally would go with the Sigma
FYI- see if you can get the Tamron 24-70mm 2.8 VC

 

[PaulWog]

I wanted the 24-120 f4 until I found out how soft it is from 70mm to 120mm. Wide open, until stopped down to f5.6, the lens is pretty bad in that range. Why does that matter? If your optical zoom is worse than digital zoom, going from 50mm to 70mm, then that's kind of terrible.

At the 50% reduced price with the D750, the lens does make sense. Sigma's 24-105mm f4 is better on paper in just about every way, however. At 105mm and cropped to 120mm, it will render much much much more detail. I would look at Sigma's 24-105mm first. However, I'm not sure how focus accuracy and consistency compares between the two lenses.

At $650-ish (discount bundle), the lens seems pretty nice though.

I'd say you got a bad one, it happens

I've never owned one, I've read up and seen all the reviews, and read on the technical details. The Sigma 24-105mm f4 is technically a better performer on most fronts, save for possibly durability, autofocus reliability, and longevity (no idea how those would pan out).

I'm not saying the Nikon 24-120mm f4 VR is a bad lens. However, it is overpriced at its regular list price.

 

[jaomul]

I wanted the 24-120 f4 until I found out how soft it is from 70mm to 120mm. Wide open, until stopped down to f5.6, the lens is pretty bad in that range. Why does that matter? If your optical zoom is worse than digital zoom, going from 50mm to 70mm, then that's kind of terrible.

At the 50% reduced price with the D750, the lens does make sense. Sigma's 24-105mm f4 is better on paper in just about every way, however. At 105mm and cropped to 120mm, it will render much much much more detail. I would look at Sigma's 24-105mm first. However, I'm not sure how focus accuracy and consistency compares between the two lenses.

At $650-ish (discount bundle), the lens seems pretty nice though.

I'd say you got a bad one, it happens

I've never owned one, I've read up and seen all the reviews, and read on the technical details. The Sigma 24-105mm f4 is technically a better performer on most fronts, save for possibly durability, autofocus reliability, and longevity (no idea how those would pan out).

I'm not saying the Nikon 24-120mm f4 VR is a bad lens. However, it is overpriced at its regular list price.

I don't mean this in a smart way, but I wouldn't rate a lens because of what one read. I have done this before and it was a mistake. I didn't buy this lens some time back because if ok reviews, but after using it I know it would have been a good but. User ratings are very high for this lens, experts not so high,

 

[nerwin]

I really like the 24-85 VR, I think its quite sharp. In some cases, it can actually be sharper than the 24-70 2.8. I am really impressed with this kit lens, it's quite good. I picked up mine used for $250. You can't go wrong with that price..use the money saved to buy a 50 1.8G. That's my recommendation.

Worth a read.

Nikon 24-70mm vs Tamron 24-70mm vs Nikon 24-85mm review Cameralabs

 

[connorc]

Thanks everyone for the help!

Does anyone know of any differences or issues with the Nikon 24-85 having an aperture of 2.8-4 or 3.5-4.5? I'd obviously prefer the 2.8-4 lens for the lower f stop but am not sure if it's a better lens.

 

[jaomul]

The 2.8-4, is an older screw drive version, the newer one is f3.5-4.5 vr version with af-s motor. Just on specs alone I'd go with the newer one, but that's not a statement backed up by any experience so it's only worth the paper it's printed on

I do believe that the older ones have a macro mode also