24-70mm F2.8 vs 24-120 F4

[s1221ljc]

Thks. Everyone for ur comments. I've be reading some of the reviews on the 24-120mm and thought it maybe a good options to consider. I'll probably rent one and do a comparison.

You are going against the tide here. But nothing like seeing it, "tasting" it for yourself. All lens have their good & bad, strengths & weakensses, & all involve compromises, which you found out for yourself, like why you are not happy with the 24-70 you have, which is indeed a great lens. To me the best tools are only the ones that suit the masters purpose.

Just a riddle, if the 'trinity' lens are the ultimate, the best there is that is on everyone wish list, the holy grail of photographers, why then I find so many being offered for sale in the B&S? There is like a never ending stream of sell offers. Answer this & you have the answer to your own question Maybe you should ask the question why people sell off their 24-70, or even the 70-200 for that matter. Funny thing is I see some recommending these to those totally new to photography, with limited means, who just want a cheap & simple upgrade from what they have etc. If you have unlimited funds, have both

 

[kriegsketten]

You are going against the tide here. Nothing like seeing it, "tasting" it for yourself. All lens have their good & bad, strengths & weakensses, & all involve compromises, which you find out for yourself, like why you are not happy with the 24-70 you have which is indeed a great lens. To me the best tools are only the ones that suit the masters purpose.

Just a riddle, if the 'trinity' lens are the ultimate, the best there is that is on everyone wish list, the holy grail of photographers, why then I find so many being offered for sale by their owners time & again in the B&S, like there is a never ending stream of offers to sell? Answer this & you have the answer to your own question Maybe you should ask the question why people sell off their 24-70, or even the 70-200 for that matter. Funny thing is I see some recommending these to those totally new to photography, with limited means, just want a cheap & simple upgrade from what they have etc. If you have unlimited funds, get both

Simply because maybe it's just not their "cup of tea"/ prefer f/1.4 primes for more "bokeh-juices" / not the FL they want / too heavy to carry for long periods of time / need funds to get by / need funds to try other lenses / simply don't know how to use (no VR - image always blurry, trust me on this one as most of us are spoilt by VR that we tend to forget the focal length rule), or discovered by CFC that the lens was sneakily "imported" into the humble abode and "now it's got to go or I go"... We have a million reasons, and I don't think it's simply because the lenses are lousy (yes, they are not perfect and not everyone's favourite). But f/2.8 is f/2.8, and VR II is VR II, there are no two ways about it. If 24-70 has VRII, I'll bet it would cost just as much as 70-200VRII... the number of aspherical and ED elements inside this baby!!!

If I have unlimited funds, I'd just get the 24-70 + 70-200 VRII.... not 24-120mm!.... hahahah :bsmilie: Different tastes and different preferences.

 

[NineEleven]

Depends on what you usually shoot. My 24-70 is often sitting in the drybox now as I usually use primes & a super zoom for holidays like the 28-300. I do find that 70 max is quite handicapped for holidays while the good ISO quality of D700 helps to compensate for the loss if you use the F4. I'll switch to primes for low lights & evenings.

 

[kriegsketten]

Having shot events before, I'd think 24-70 is the more needed FL besides 70-200... While large aperture primes are the "fastest" lenses out there, they lack versatility in terms of adjustable FL (as you don't alway have the luxury of space to move back and forth, plus precious moments will be lost and you'll loose that all important shot). Of course, this is debatable to many as mid range primes may be able to fill this gap if you know you won't find lack space for framing.

Of course if one doesn't shoot event often (which is quite frequently indoors where f/2.8 matters a lot) then 24-70 may not be the zoom he/she is looking for. Again, individual preferences / wants / necessities dictate the lens choices.

For travel, I doubt I'd carry the 24-70 either... Most likely the lighter weight primes or otherwise - maybe 28/70-300mm.

 

[small pig]

In fact, I am very happy with 24-70 bokeh. It my walk about and portraits lens. Perhaps getting 80-200mm 2.8 for Tele usage.

 

[s1221ljc]

Oh TS, if you trying out the 24-120, take some handheld shots under low light in evening at say 1/30 sec, f4 in colorful settings, e.g. Orchard Road Xmas decor. I did & was very surprised at the results. Try that too with the 24-70 if you can. As to IQ, pros & cons, can check Mansurov comparison between the 2 which I concur from using both in actual tests, various photoshoots. Have fun

 

[s1221ljc]

Having shot events before, I'd think 24-70 is the more needed FL besides 70-200... While large aperture primes are the "fastest" lenses out there, they lack versatility in terms of adjustable FL (as you don't alway have the luxury of space to move back and forth, plus precious moments will be lost and you'll loose that all important shot). Of course, this is debatable to many as mid range primes may be able to fill this gap if you know you won't find lack space for framing.

Of course if one doesn't shoot event often (which is quite frequently indoors where f/2.8 matters a lot) then 24-70 may not be the zoom he/she is looking for. Again, individual preferences / wants / necessities dictate the lens choices.

For travel, I doubt I'd carry the 24-70 either... Most likely the lighter weight primes or otherwise - maybe 28/70-300mm.

Fully agree on this. The 24-70 is the ideal focal range for indoors, like model photoshoot in hotel room But I found that under continuous light, even the f2.8 is inadequate, frequently resulting in handshakes or compromises in ISO. If flash, then most settings would not be at f2.8 so its redundant. Also, 70mm cannot get close ups of face or good head & shoulder shots. One other very troubling thing about using f2.8 (for me at least) is the very shallow DOF. Can end up getting a person's eye in sharp focus but the nose & rest quite blur. So I find I use f4 most of the time. My ideal for indoors, events & all, is actually 2 bodies & 2 prime lens

Outdoors, f2.8 dont make much difference unless one's priority is bokeh. And the 70mm is rather limiting for travel, even for portraits.

For weddings, indoors or outdoors, the 24-70 is indispensible, almost.

Its always a tussle in choice becos the 24-70 IQ & built is just so very good.

 

[kriegsketten]

Fully agree on this. The 24-70 is the ideal focal range for indoors, like model photoshoot in hotel room But I found that under continuous light, even the f2.8 is inadequate, frequently resulting in handshakes or compromises in ISO. If flash, then most settings would not be at f2.8 so its redundant. Also, 70mm cannot get close ups of face or good head & shoulder shots. One other very troubling thing about using f2.8 (for me at least) is the very shallow DOF. Can end up getting a person's eye in sharp focus but the nose & rest quite blur. So I find I use f4 most of the time. My ideal for indoors, events & all, is actually 2 bodies & 2 prime lens

Outdoors, f2.8 dont make much difference unless one's priority is bokeh. And the 70mm is rather limiting for travel, even for portraits.

For weddings, indoors or outdoors, the 24-70 is almost indispensible.

Its always a tussle in choice becos the 24-70 IQ & built is just so very good.

You're right when you mentioned with VR, you can use 1/30s - I did that with my 70-200VRII with considerable ease. VRII can really handle hand shakes well. The only way 24-70 can tackle that situation is boosting up the ISO to 3200 and slightly above (also following the 1/focal length rule)... that means using a good ISO body DSLR, etc D7K, D700, D3, D3s is essential. Again, this is the con of 24-70 if you're on a ISO-handicapped body. Whereas 24-120/4 wins in this scenario.

As for bokeh, I'm sure f/2.8 beats f/4 anytime. However, as you've mentioned - it depends on what you're shooting. I'm not sure if I ever mentioned any portraiture shoot (particularly single person), but strictly event shoots. Event shoots generally requires coverage of 2 person to a medium sized group (4-7), where you do not need to go too close and your f/2.8 would work really well in this scenario. I think for portraiture, it is still possible - particularly if you're after FULL body shoots. However for portraiture, I'd rather use a f/1.2 to f/1.4 prime (of course you can still stop down in order to capitalise on the DOF) and where you have the luxury of your subject waiting for you to click that shutter... For events, very likely your subjects will move freely and beyond your control unless you're shooting maybe a prize presentation ceremony with a handshake where the subjects would pose for you, but seldom you'd shoot just one person during such instances. Even so, it would seldom be just a head/bust shots. During such shoots (events), f/2.8 tends to slightly blurr out background of your subjects a lot better than f/4 I would think. With f/2.8, the further you stand away, the thicker the DOF, hence for group / 2-person (full body shots), the f/2.8 of this lens would work well.

Therefore I trust we concur that - different lens fill different needs. hehe :bsmilie:

 

[bethpapa74]

i think its not fair in the first place to even compare these lenses ... they differ in FL, aperture, built, optics, quality, price, reviews, color, weight.
Its like comparing a MAC and PC ... never ending stories one.
in the end, you will be back to level 1 ... deep deep into dilemma again.

A fairer comparison will be Nikon 24-70f2.8 vs any 3rd parties one of the identical FL/aperture.

I own a 24-70f2.8 but i desire for 120mm reach ... if i got extra money to burn, i buy both.
I own a 24-120f4 but i desire the low light capability of an 2.8 ... if i got cash, i buy both

 

[kriegsketten]

Of course, it is not fair and YES it would be endless. Even 50/1.8 gets compared with 50/1.4 even though they are of different aperture class but of the same FL range. And that's the interesting part of it. People will always compare apples with oranges simply because they are both STILL fruits! It's (alas) human nature to compare everything with anything under the sun. And to many it's due either to the lack of funds to get both or time to use both evenly. If one gets used very often, and the other sits in the dry cab most of the time (except for a few very important shoots), does that mean the latter is useless and should be gotten rid of? I scratch my head at this question myself... :bsmilie: All subjective to individual beliefs and thinkings. Some will undoubtedly sell a piece away and then buy it back when its really needed for its intended purpose. What gives?!

 

[kriegsketten]

The only way for TS to know which is his prefered lens is to use both very often. If that involves selling your 24-70 and buying the 24-120 (if due to the lack of funds), so be it. You can always sell away the 24-120 and buy back the 24-70 later, if you don't like the former. Not economical no doubt. The other BEST alternative is to borrow or rent the 24-120...

 

[bethpapa74]

rent both for each a week ... i am sure TS will know left and right which lens is right for him

 

[kriegsketten]

rent both for each a week ... i am sure TS will know left and right which lens is right for him

TS already has the 24-70.

 

[Jeremy1]

Maybe you should asked yourself why do you intend to replace your 2470 by 24120 ? :embrass:

That should answer your own question.........

 

[Kit]

Fully agree on this. The 24-70 is the ideal focal range for indoors, like model photoshoot in hotel room But I found that under continuous light, even the f2.8 is inadequate, frequently resulting in handshakes or compromises in ISO. If flash, then most settings would not be at f2.8 so its redundant. Also, 70mm cannot get close ups of face or good head & shoulder shots. One other very troubling thing about using f2.8 (for me at least) is the very shallow DOF. Can end up getting a person's eye in sharp focus but the nose & rest quite blur. So I find I use f4 most of the time. My ideal for indoors, events & all, is actually 2 bodies & 2 prime lens

Outdoors, f2.8 dont make much difference unless one's priority is bokeh. And the 70mm is rather limiting for travel, even for portraits.

For weddings, indoors or outdoors, the 24-70 is indispensible, almost.

Its always a tussle in choice becos the 24-70 IQ & built is just so very good.

f/2.8 not fast enough for you........

f/2.8 not enough DOF for you........

talk about irony........

 

[007]

Hi, these are my opinion:

1) Again, this is the debate between f2.8 and f4. All the discussion actually based on pros and cons of 2.8 and 4.0.

2) DOF generated by 2.8 will be shallow. I read somewhere that the sweet spot for 2.8 is actually 1-2 stops from 2.8 which are 3.5 and 4.0. DOF of 2.8 is so thin that personally I do not think many will just use 2.8. (I might be wrong, need 2nd opinion). As for 4.0, if not wrong, can be used at 4.0 without much problem of the sweet spot mainly because 4.0's form factor is much more easier than 2.8 (size of the lens).

3) The 24-120 has VR whereby 2.8 doesn't. But I factor in that 2.8 lens is heavier than 4.0. So, 2.8 will tend to create more tendency for handshake than 4.0 and 4.0 has VR which can offset the effect.

4) Therefore I run down to the image quality because most of the Nikon camera has great ISO control on the image including just recently launched D7000. I have preference that the 2.8 lens is fast lens compare to 4.0 lens, brighter and clearer.

So, i think it comes to the following for deciding factors:
a) Budget
b) Weight/ handshake/VR
c) Image quality
d) Built

Any user that has used 24-70 and 24-120 can comment? The part which I can't figure out is how is the form factor of 4.0 different from 2.8. Of course, from the price we can roughly know. I do understand that most likely 2.8 is the limit due to the expensive cost to manufacture 1.8 zoom lens.

 

[daredevil123]

Fully agree on this. The 24-70 is the ideal focal range for indoors, like model photoshoot in hotel room But I found that under continuous light, even the f2.8 is inadequate, frequently resulting in handshakes or compromises in ISO. If flash, then most settings would not be at f2.8 so its redundant. Also, 70mm cannot get close ups of face or good head & shoulder shots. One other very troubling thing about using f2.8 (for me at least) is the very shallow DOF. Can end up getting a person's eye in sharp focus but the nose & rest quite blur. So I find I use f4 most of the time. My ideal for indoors, events & all, is actually 2 bodies & 2 prime lens

Outdoors, f2.8 dont make much difference unless one's priority is bokeh. And the 70mm is rather limiting for travel, even for portraits.

For weddings, indoors or outdoors, the 24-70 is indispensible, almost.

Its always a tussle in choice becos the 24-70 IQ & built is just so very good.

In the end the tool is just a tool.

You need to know how to use it. You are your own limiting factor, not the lens.

BTW Hotel room shooters seldom use 24-70 afaik. Most of them use fast primes.

Just my 2 cents.

 

[daredevil123]

Hi, these are my opinion:

1) Again, this is the debate between f2.8 and f4. All the discussion actually based on pros and cons of 2.8 and 4.0.

2) DOF generated by 2.8 will be shallow. I read somewhere that the sweet spot for 2.8 is actually 1-2 stops from 2.8 which are 3.5 and 4.0. DOF of 2.8 is so thin that personally I do not think many will just use 2.8. (I might be wrong, need 2nd opinion). As for 4.0, if not wrong, can be used at 4.0 without much problem of the sweet spot mainly because 4.0's form factor is much more easier than 2.8 (size of the lens).

3) The 24-120 has VR whereby 2.8 doesn't. But I factor in that 2.8 lens is heavier than 4.0. So, 2.8 will tend to create more tendency for handshake than 4.0 and 4.0 has VR which can offset the effect.

4) Therefore I run down to the image quality because most of the Nikon camera has great ISO control on the image including just recently launched D7000. I have preference that the 2.8 lens is fast lens compare to 4.0 lens, brighter and clearer.

So, i think it comes to the following for deciding factors:
a) Budget
b) Weight/ handshake/VR
c) Image quality
d) Built

Any user that has used 24-70 and 24-120 can comment? The part which I can't figure out is how is the form factor of 4.0 different from 2.8. Of course, from the price we can roughly know. I do understand that most likely 2.8 is the limit due to the expensive cost to manufacture 1.8 zoom lens.

DOF of 2.8 is not all that thin at normal subject distance when shooting people (around 3-5m).

 

[Kit]

Yes DOF is dependent on focal length, aperture and distance.

 

[kriegsketten]

Yup, that's why some togs love to use telephotos to shoot portrait outdoors.... the DOF can cover the entire subject while blurring the entire background (provided the latter is FAR enough).

And agree that it's just a tool... it depends on how one uses it, in what conditions, etc, etc. However, at times we don't have time to think when we shoot... the larger the aperture helps solve some of those issues. Not good for large group shots however which we need more DOF using the smaller aperture...