D750 + 24-120 or D750 + 24-85?

In My country D750 come only with kit 24-120, the price is +/-USD2,800
If body only, the price is +/-USD 2,300
Most of my friend said 24-120 is not good, better using 24-85vr. Better IQ and light weight.
The price for body and new 24-85 vr is +/- USD 2,900 (more expensive) if i buy used lens the price is +/- USD 2,650

Should i buy body+kit or body+used 24-85vr?
any advise?

anyone know how much IQ different between both lenses?

Thank in advance.

Are you watching this thread.

http://nikonites.com/general-lenses/30800-many-choices.html#axzz3bWVeGEev

The 24-120 is a better lens with a constant f/4 and more reach. The only thing the 24-85 has going for it (over the 24-120) is its size. Unless you want small and lightweight, get the 24-120.

I have them both available to use and I use the 24-120mm 98% of the time. Those who say it's "no good" are out of their minds and base their opinion on internet speculation and not on photos. It's not the 24-70mm f2.8 and it's not supposed to be - but they still use it as a measuring stick and when it doesn't match it then "it sucks" because the price is over $1000.

That said, the 24-85mm is a really nice lens as well, and it has that distinct advantage of being smaller and lightweight. If I'm carrying my 70-200mm f4 as a primary then I'll toss the 24-85mm in my bag to save space and weight, like I will be tonight shooting an outdoor concert where I might want to grab some wide shots of the venue from the back. Is it a "better" choice than the 24-120mm? Not from an IQ perspective, particularly if I need to shoot wide open. But if I'm stopped down it's going to make no appreciable difference for my needs tonight. The one knock on the 24-120mm seems to be CA, and that cleans up automatically for me in Lightroom so I don't give it a second thought.

Check this site. It allows you to compare lab photos of two lenses by mousing over the frame. It shows you Center, Mid-frame and Corner details for each. It's as close as you can get to optical field testing without actually having the lens. Honestly, I'd rather look at these than DxOMark scores. I've preset it for you.

Nikkor 24-85mm f3.5-4.5 vs. 24-120mm f4

Thank all for the input.
Yes I see that thread, but mostly only said about 24-120.
and I want to know about comparison with 24-85 for IQ, but if I see from DxOmark, 24-120 is more sharper.
I will go with 24-120, the price also not much different.

BackdoorHippie said:

Check this site. It allows you to compare lab photos of two lenses by mousing over the frame. It shows you Center, Mid-frame and Corner details for each. It's as close as you can get to optical field testing without actually having the lens. Honestly, I'd rather look at these than DxOMark scores. I've preset it for you.

Nikkor 24-85mm f3.5-4.5 vs. 24-120mm f4

Click to expand...

Nice web site!

Hi,

according to DXO the 24-120 F4 VR is a tiny bit better.
Looking at The-digital-picture.com the 24-120 is sharper.
I bought my kit with the 24-85.
But I liked the reach of the 24-120 lens much better. So I bought the 24-120.
It's a perfect walkaround lens.
I traded the 24-85 lens in for a 70-200 f4 VR lens and I bought the Kenko 1.4x PRO300 DGX extender for this lens.
This extender even works in combination with the 24-120 lens! Fast AF and still sharp.
Now I can travel quite light with the 24-120 + the 1.4 Extender. At the long end I have a 168mm lens, in 1.2 mode (still 16Mp) even a 200 mm (201.6) F5.6 lens!

No doubt, the 24-85 only if you want to have a small lens.

Ad B

From the reviews I've read, the 24-120 lens is better than the 24-85.
If the 24-120 is bought as part of the bundle then $500 is a bargain, otherwise I'd rather wait for the Sigma Art 24-105mm f/2.8-4.0 (it's a rumor that the lens will come out by the end of this year).

I got the 24-85 with my D600 bundle, knowing that I would replace it after researching lenses. The 24-120 range is what I'm used to & much prefer, but the size and weight of the 24-85 is quite nice. I had to purchase the 24-120 fairly soon though as my 24-85 was decentered quite bad. After the lens was replaced with a new one (not sure why they couldn't fix it), I compared the two & found the 24-120 to be sharper, especially in the corners where my 24-85 was still softer. But, like anything else, if one starts with the 24-85 alone, it will seem like a great lens. It's only when one starts buying more lenses and doing comparisons that the minor flaws make themselves known.

OP, I was worried about 24-120 at first as well from various reviews I had read around the net before making my purchase. Other users of this lens on this forum plus my own results have completely put to bed any worries I had about this lens. It's a magnificent lens and takes very sharp photo's. Out of the 3 lenses I have it's the most practical and stays attached the majority of the time. I'd take the 24-120 over the 24-85 in a heartbeat!

Example.... This photo was taken with this lens, handheld, VR on, 1/40s, f/6.3, ISO 100, natural light. You'd be hard pressed to find a flaw in the sharpness of this lens for a handheld shot indoors at that shutter speed, go ahead and pixel peep it. Sharpness only gets better from here!

Miley & Pretzel by Matthew Krei, on Flickr

What?? You mean Nikon D750 with 24-85mm F/3.5-4.5G ED VR is more expensive than Nikon D750 with 24-120 F/4G ED VR?? Here in India the 24-120 costs 2x more than 24-85. 4-85mm f/3.5-4.5G ED VR.

Hi,

When 'm reading tests at DXO.com and Photozone.de, these lenses perform nearly the same.
Very little differences.
I bought my kit with the 24-85 lens. I sold this lens and bought the 24-120 lens.
Because of the longer end, 120 mm and the constant F4.
I like this lens very, very much. I do not need a f2.8 lens with my D750 camera.
When I read tests at Photozone.de, every 24 mm lens (or less) on a FF have quite a lot distortions.

Ad B

I got the Sigma 24-105 F4 which am very impressed with. Check the review out on lenstip it's super sharp and the colours are so vibrant. They can also be adapted to fit Canon.