24-85 vs 24-120


ecurbw

New Member
Jan 27, 2011
153
0
0
#1
Hi all. Now I'm thinking of selling my dx stuff n getting a d600. Wonder if can advise me the pros n cons of each lens stated above...
 

lenslust

New Member
Apr 22, 2012
1,211
2
0
#3
Which 24-120?

The f/4 or the 3.5-5.6?
 

Anders

New Member
Dec 27, 2012
387
0
0
Singapore
#6
Hi all. Now I'm thinking of selling my dx stuff n getting a d600. Wonder if can advise me the pros n cons of each lens stated above...
same same but the spots is making me in a dilemma :(

but i don't like both the 24-85 and 24-120 (personal pref)
 

Oct 14, 2003
103
0
0
Visit site
#7
I had a look at both physically. If you go with 24-120, you may as well stretch it a bit and go for the 24-70 2.8 or 28-70 2.8.

I went for the 24-85 and use the balance to buy prime lenses.
 

ecurbw

New Member
Jan 27, 2011
153
0
0
#9
Thanks guys for the feedback!
 

avsquare

Senior Member
Jan 26, 2012
3,306
0
0
#11
Because the 70-200 f/4 is really way better than the other 2 f/4. :bsmilie:
 

Omega23

New Member
Mar 12, 2009
1,074
0
0
#12
i tried the 24-85VR.. very good lens but not worth the price i would rather get the cheaper and faster tamron 28-75 f2.8. The 24-120 F4 VR got lots of mix reviews.. some pro say until damed good some said is a sh1t lens. I am using FX but all primes only.. 24mm, 50mm, 85mm and the only zoom FX lens is 70-200VR2.

If u on budget and want to cover all range get the non VR 24-85 AFS and a 70-300VR and another prime like 28mm F1.8 or the super sharp sigma 35mm f1.4 for low light shooting.
 

bomby929

Senior Member
Feb 18, 2008
595
0
16
#13
I am no pro but 24-120mm f4 is my go to video lens. For photo it's sharp and the range it covers is pretty good, my only problem with it is the distortion. But if u do not always use its widest and longest end, it's good enough.

But end of the day prime is still something I prefer for photo.
 

s1221ljc

New Member
May 7, 2006
821
1
0
#14
Truth is reviewers & reviews are but subjective. Reviewers have their own personal preferences, bias, agendas, idiosyncracies etc. For some, the trinity lens are like holy grails, the be all & end all, nothing else is ever good enough. Others are just obsessed with technical details, specs & assessments.

My own experience with the 24-120mm is close to the review here

Nikon 24-120mm VR Review

Have compared it side by side with the 24-70 f2.8, primes like the 85mm f1.8g, 135mm f2 DC & taken thousands of photos with it on many travels. Am completely satisfied with it, notwithstanding inevitable but acceptable tradeoffs & putting bragging rights & ego aside. For me, the extra reach & VR are quite indispensible for what I take with it as a all-in-one lens. Best is to try the lens out personally to see if it suits one's needs & expectations.

The 24-85 is also reviewed here

Nikon 24-85mm VR Review
 

Last edited:
Apr 2, 2006
2,308
1
0
CCK
#15
s1221ljc said:
Truth is reviewers & reviews are but subjective. Reviewers have their own personal preferences, bias, agendas, idiosyncracies etc. For some, the trinity lens are like holy grails, the be all & end all, nothing else is ever good enough. Others are just obsessed with technical details, specs & assessments.

My own experience with the 24-120mm is close to the review here

Nikon 24-120mm VR Review

Have compared it side by side with the 24-70 f2.8, primes like the 85mm f1.8g, 135mm f2 DC & taken thousands of photos with it on many travels. Am completely satisfied with it, notwithstanding inevitable but acceptable tradeoffs & putting bragging rights & ego aside. For me, the extra reach & VR are quite indispensible for what I take with it as a all-in-one lens. Best is to try the lens out personally to see if it suits one's needs & expectations.

The 24-85 is also reviewed here

Nikon 24-85mm VR Review
That's what I like to hear.

I was using prime lens only, many of which are old manual focus legends and they are motor than up to the task. But at -15C changing lens was a decidedly difficult thing to do and I ended up using my Ai 28mm f/2 almost exclusively. Nothing wrong with that, except for the fact that I switched off my medium tele side of my brain during the trip.

So I was deciding between absolute quality (24-70) and the size/price compromise, smallest and cheapest (24-85) and in between but best range (24-120). All latest versions.

Right now I'm leaning on 24-120. Body D800.
 

Apr 2, 2006
2,308
1
0
CCK
#16
diediealsomustdive said:
That's what I like to hear.

I was using prime lens only, many of which are old manual focus legends and they are motor than up to the task. But at -15C changing lens was a decidedly difficult thing to do and I ended up using my Ai 28mm f/2 almost exclusively. Nothing wrong with that, except for the fact that I switched off my medium tele side of my brain during the trip.

So I was deciding between absolute quality (24-70) and the size/price compromise, smallest and cheapest (24-85) and in between but best range (24-120). All latest versions.

Right now I'm leaning on 24-120. Body D800.
More than up to the task. The peril of iPad speller.
 

Ansel

Senior Member
Apr 30, 2003
2,207
0
0
Land Downunder
Visit site
#19
So I was deciding between absolute quality (24-70) and the size/price compromise, smallest and cheapest (24-85) and in between but best range (24-120). All latest versions.

Right now I'm leaning on 24-120. Body D800.
I'm in exactly the same dilemma. Been using the old 24-120 VR and had that lens on my D700 almost 90% of the time due to the range. I know the quality of the lens is nothing to shout about, but the focal range just makes it the most convenient lens to bring out to any event that you dont know what to expect. And I have shot 90%+ of my images on this lens even though I almost always had a 105 micro/portrait lens, a 20mm prime and 50mm prime in the bag at the same time. Just too lazy to change lens.
 

Top Bottom