Rumor: Nikon D850 and D760 Coming This Month?
- Thread starter Don Kuykendall_RIP
- Start date
singlerosa_RIP
Senior Member
Unless you're coming from medium format, you should love the 750. Hopefully, you have decent glass.
For primes I have an 85mm 1.4 and a 50mm 1.8 it comes with a 24-120 zoom, I'm going to definitely have to invest in a better quality zoom, that one didn't have the best reviews.
The zooms that I currently use won't be compatible.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Last edited:
The 24-120mm f/4 is a very good zoom lens. It's sharp, fast and the IQ is just fantastic. I have it now glued onto my D750 . Can you direct me to these reviews that you are worried about?
singlerosa_RIP
Senior Member
I have the 24-120 and think it's fine. Nice and light, compared to the 24-70, fixed at f/4, Nano-coated and more reach. Not bad for a kit lens at 1/4 (street) the price the current 24-70. But a 24-70 2.8 is awesome!
Last edited:
Don Kuykendall_RIP
RIP :(
I love mine.
Don Kuykendall_RIP
RIP :(
Another user that like the 24-120. It is a great walk around lens. The key to the D750 is to Fine Tune all the lenses. A lot of people who have problems with cameras or lenses are not fine tuning them like they should. The better the camera to more picky it is about the glass that is mounted on it. The same goes with how you shoot with it. Any mistakes on your part are only magnified. I was very disappointed when I went from my d7100 to my D750. Just not as sharp. It took me a couple months to figure out how to shoot it. It is much better now.
The midrange zoom choice is often hard. You have two stellar, fast prime lenses and no zoom on this planet is gonna optically beat them. If you can bear to read through my long-winding rambling, there's a suggestion in the end.
From where I am standing there're three options:
1. slow zoom with VR I had the 24-120/f4 VR for one trip to Tuscany in Italy because I wanted to go light. It is rather sharp in the wide end (24~35 mm) and doesn't really need much stopping down to be decent. That is a definite plus. And the VR is excellent. The lens has a worrisome look, when you start zooming... one plastic tube after another plops out of the barrel. I don't know about the possible longevity of that structure, but it feels a lot more solid than it looks.
The smaller, lighter and cheaper 24-85 f/3.5~4.5 VR is optically about equal to the above lens. Note, that there's three different 24-85 from Nikon and the VR is the latest. It also shares the similar telescopic plastic tube structure as the 24-120.
(Funnily enough, the absolute best of the 24-85 lenses optically by Nikon is the oldest AF 24-85 D f/2.8~4, but that has been discontinued long ago. It also has the slow and less accurate screw-drive autofocus.)
2. fast zoom f/2.8
The 24-70/2.8 or 24-70/2.8 VR are the best that Nikon offers in the midrange zoom category. Intended for journalism, travel and walk around use, but are pretty big and heavy for that. Even unwieldy and cumbersome, I'd say. I'm not much of a zoom guy myself, I only have 4 zooms at the moment and one of them is the predecessor to these two, namely the AF-S 28-70/2.8 that I never felt necessary to upgrade. I don't use it much, though.
3. even faster prime
You have two stellar primes. How about adding 28mm f/1.8G to the mix? Superb lens. There's really nothing else to say. Wipes the floor with the 24-120 at 28mm and is 2 and 1/3 stops faster so doesn't need VR.
Conclusion
My personal conclusion follows, take it for what it is worth
I'd pick the best of both worlds. I'd trade the 24-120 to a 24-85VR and 28/1.8G. There you'd have the versatility of a VR-equipped zoom lens in a small package, and a top quality prime lens for those images that matter. Win win.
After the trip to Tuscany I traded the 24-120 up to a Nikkor 58/1.4G, but since you are already covered in the 50ish range, the 28mm might be the best choice.
Good luck.
Thank you for the in depth response. That helps a ton.The midrange zoom choice is often hard. You have two stellar, fast prime lenses and no zoom on this planet is gonna optically beat them. If you can bear to read through my long-winding rambling, there's a suggestion in the end.
From where I am standing there're three options:
1. slow zoom with VR I had the 24-120/f4 VR for one trip to Tuscany in Italy because I wanted to go light. It is rather sharp in the wide end (24~35 mm) and doesn't really need much stopping down to be decent. That is a definite plus. And the VR is excellent. The lens has a worrisome look, when you start zooming... one plastic tube after another plops out of the barrel. I don't know about the possible longevity of that structure, but it feels a lot more solid than it looks.
The smaller, lighter and cheaper 24-85 f/3.5~4.5 VR is optically about equal to the above lens. Note, that there's three different 24-85 from Nikon and the VR is the latest. It also shares the similar telescopic plastic tube structure as the 24-120.
(Funnily enough, the absolute best of the 24-85 lenses optically by Nikon is the oldest AF 24-85 D f/2.8~4, but that has been discontinued long ago. It also has the slow and less accurate screw-drive autofocus.)
2. fast zoom f/2.8
The 24-70/2.8 or 24-70/2.8 VR are the best that Nikon offers in the midrange zoom category. Intended for journalism, travel and walk around use, but are pretty big and heavy for that. Even unwieldy and cumbersome, I'd say. I'm not much of a zoom guy myself, I only have 4 zooms at the moment and one of them is the predecessor to these two, namely the AF-S 28-70/2.8 that I never felt necessary to upgrade. I don't use it much, though.
3. even faster prime
You have two stellar primes. How about adding 28mm f/1.8G to the mix? Superb lens. There's really nothing else to say. Wipes the floor with the 24-120 at 28mm and is 2 and 1/3 stops faster so doesn't need VR.
Conclusion
My personal conclusion follows, take it for what it is worth
I'd pick the best of both worlds. I'd trade the 24-120 to a 24-85VR and 28/1.8G. There you'd have the versatility of a VR-equipped zoom lens in a small package, and a top quality prime lens for those images that matter. Win win.
After the trip to Tuscany I traded the 24-120 up to a Nikkor 58/1.4G, but since you are already covered in the 50ish range, the 28mm might be the best choice.
Good luck.
On my wish list are the 24-70 2.8 and the 70-200 2.8. That 28mm fits into my current budget though, so I may take your suggestion.
Sent from my SM-G935T using Tapatalk
Last edited:
I traded my 24-120mm for a 24-70mm (2.8E VR). As a 'walkabout' lens i'd say the 24-120 is a better option with its range, weight and price. Its the best Nikon zoom for general purpose stuff on the market for the price imo, especially as they flooded the market with them as kit lenses that dropped the second hand residual prices massively. The imagery difference isn't big compared to the 24-70, and generally you'd be hard pushed to tell the difference between the two unless you push them to the limit. The Nikon 70-200mm f2.8 is an absolute must tho, i love mine, love it!