Now that Nikon D 750 is back on the market, I am going to buy another one. They are selling the 24-120 F4 at $600 discount if purchased along with the D 750. I already have the 28-70 F2.8 and 70-200 F2.8 For a third lens, is $600 savings worth it despite being only F4 - or should I pass on the 24-120 F4 deal and save for another 28 - 70 F2.8 lens?
Wedding shooters Nikon 24 - 120 F4?
- Thread starter mrpbnm
- Start date
I have both the 24-70 and the 24-120 and have to say that the 24-120 comes in very handy. It has VR which the other one doesn't and it's IQ is very close the the 24-70 2.8. And with today's high iso quality with the D750, I'm not so certain the one stop difference means that much anymore.
Again, just my opinion and other are allowed to disagree.
Again, just my opinion and other are allowed to disagree.
Thanks guys. I was hoping to get more than 2 replies, but you said what I was hoping you would. After all $600 off is nothing to sneeze at. Still, I'll wait until the weekend to make the purchase. If anyone has more input, please don't hesitate to share. @rocketman122 any thoughts? I should have tagged you before, but I didn't want to discourage others from answering too.
Thanks,
mrpbnm
Thanks,
mrpbnm
photogramps
Senior Member
I have the 24-120 f4 and agree with Marcel that it's very close to the IQ of the 24-70 f2.8.
I don't do weddings but with the dynamic range and low-light capability of the D750 I can't think of a single reason why it wouldn't be a great match to expand your range
I don't do weddings but with the dynamic range and low-light capability of the D750 I can't think of a single reason why it wouldn't be a great match to expand your range
Thanks @photogramps. I found a photographer to train under this weekend. I asked him about this and he recommended that I get the 18-35 F3.5 to 5.6. The wide end is a half stop faster than the F4, I can switch to my 24 - 70 when it starts getting near F4 and I saved some money! It's a "cheap lens", but Ken Rockwell says it is better than or equal to the similar but faster lenses - as far as image quality...
Last edited:
The very same bloke who says everyone should shoot in jpeg low quality?? Please, please, please, do yourself a favour and look elsewhere for more accurate opinions!!
Oh gawd no! Not another Ken Rockwell fan!
Well, I was mainly listening to my new mentor. He has one of the larger studios in my area and he uses the 18 - 35 F3.5 - 5.6 for weddings.
Now, if the lens is sharp, it shouldn't go soft just because KR recognized that fact. I think his equipment reviews may be more reliable than one might infer from his infamous opinion about JPEG low quality.
Last edited:
Yes but you're still are going to be switching (body or lens it's still switching) while action happens. The huge advantage of the 24-120 is the range PLUS the IQ. To me, the 18-24 range is not going to be used much for wedding pictures. but the 70-120 would be a lot more useful.
But I guess you are here asking for opinions and this is just mine.
I don't have the 24-70 to compare it to, but the 24-120 is sharp enough for me. I got the 24-85 as part of the kit, but 85 was too short for me, so I upgraded to the 240-120. I'd say that unless you have the need to make lots of large prints, or do a lot of cropping, the 24-120 will serve you well.
As for f/2.8 v f/4.... modern cameras are so much better with higher ISOs these days that it's a moot point IMHO.
As for f/2.8 v f/4.... modern cameras are so much better with higher ISOs these days that it's a moot point IMHO.
rocketman122
Senior Member
WHats up @mrpbnm
its a convenient range to use for sure. I dont have experience with it. its a nice discount from the regular price too. I have mixed feelings about this range.
1- from what the lenses show, its optically not possible to creative a range over 3x that has really outstanding IQ. no lens made as of today, over 3x the focal length has ever been a fabulous performer. notice todays pro offerings are at times not even hitting 2x. imn sure its a good performer, but im biased towards 2.8 zooms. this is just me though. I dont look for convenience. I want the best in IQ and I want the 2.8 ability. the reason pro's use f/2.8 is not because of the extra stop of light though...
2-I myself would not shoot with these all in one lenses. this is me though. again, no experience but Im not certain the 24-120 is on the level the 28-70 2.8 AFS is.
3-if I were to ever buy a lens in this range, I probably would get the sigma 24-105 ART over the nikon, but currently it is not in stock from sites ive seen. its a new technology and from the little ive read is superior to the nikon. every single ART lens released has surpassed any other comparable lens, hands down. this is IF I was ever looking for an all in one.
regarding ken. hell say anything to sell. he wont say anything is bad because a person lost is a potential sale for someone to click using his sponsored links. I dislike his begging and how he shows off his breitling watch and mercedes cars and throws his kids in every picture for guilt so you tip him. I havent gotten to his site in a long time. his reviews are no longer reliable to my eyes. he is no photographer in my eyes. he is an engineer. he pictures have technical correctness in them. but not a gram of art in them. everything is shot stopped down. he once used to be a reliable source. like I said, I no longer frequent his site.
its a convenient range to use for sure. I dont have experience with it. its a nice discount from the regular price too. I have mixed feelings about this range.
1- from what the lenses show, its optically not possible to creative a range over 3x that has really outstanding IQ. no lens made as of today, over 3x the focal length has ever been a fabulous performer. notice todays pro offerings are at times not even hitting 2x. imn sure its a good performer, but im biased towards 2.8 zooms. this is just me though. I dont look for convenience. I want the best in IQ and I want the 2.8 ability. the reason pro's use f/2.8 is not because of the extra stop of light though...
2-I myself would not shoot with these all in one lenses. this is me though. again, no experience but Im not certain the 24-120 is on the level the 28-70 2.8 AFS is.
3-if I were to ever buy a lens in this range, I probably would get the sigma 24-105 ART over the nikon, but currently it is not in stock from sites ive seen. its a new technology and from the little ive read is superior to the nikon. every single ART lens released has surpassed any other comparable lens, hands down. this is IF I was ever looking for an all in one.
regarding ken. hell say anything to sell. he wont say anything is bad because a person lost is a potential sale for someone to click using his sponsored links. I dislike his begging and how he shows off his breitling watch and mercedes cars and throws his kids in every picture for guilt so you tip him. I havent gotten to his site in a long time. his reviews are no longer reliable to my eyes. he is no photographer in my eyes. he is an engineer. he pictures have technical correctness in them. but not a gram of art in them. everything is shot stopped down. he once used to be a reliable source. like I said, I no longer frequent his site.
Last edited:
Well, I already bought the wide lens with the new D750 (both of which went on backorder
). My original post was asking wedding shooters if the 24 -120 F4 was good enough for my second camera body or should I get a second 28 -70 F2.8. Before I got an answer from a wedding shooter, I found someone who is very successful in my area doing weddings who told me I should complete the holy trinity for wedding shooters. His recommendation was to get the 18 - 35 F3.5 - F4.5 (thanks for the correction @hark ) and save some money. Nikon is currently doing lens only discounts, so although I didn't get the bundle discount on the 24 - 120, I still got a $100 discount on the 18 - 35.
I agree that the wide lens will probably not be used much, except for family formals and venue shots: Posed shots - No real action happening, so no problem switching lens or camera.
What's up @rocketman122 thanks for the insight on the lens question and on Ken Rockwell. I'll have to keep that in mind whenever I visit his site.
You mentioned something about the trinity. In addition to the 18-35mm, did you select the 24-120mm or the 28-70mm, too? If you are getting something in the mid-range in addition to the 18-35mm, then that should be fine--especially if you have a telephoto. So which three lenses have you decided upon?
@hark I already have AFS NIKKOR 28-70 F2.8 G ED and AFS NIKKOR VR 70-200 F2.8 G. The 18-35mm F3.5-4.5G will cover the wide end for weddings. I also have a AFS NIKKOR 50 1.8G
Spirit Vision Photography
New member
Love my 24-85 and the 24-120 f/4 glass.
kevy73
Senior Member
I do photograph weddings and truly, I would stick with the holy trinity of 2.8's if possible... if you already have a 28 - 70 and a 70 - 200, I am not sure why you would ever use the 24-120.
My wedding setup for the ceremony is 1 body with 24-70 f2.8 and the other body with my 70-200 f2.8.
My wedding setup for the ceremony is 1 body with 24-70 f2.8 and the other body with my 70-200 f2.8.