# Nikon 24-70 F2.8 VR ?? or third party lens??



## vipgraphx (Dec 12, 2017)

Long time no post but hope everyone is having a great Holliday season thus far!

I have been in the market for a new lens for my D750. I have been going back and forth from Sigma, Tamron and Nikon.

Theses are some lenses I have been considering for purchase

Sigma
24-35 F2 Art
35 F1.4 Art

Tamron 
24-70 F2.8 G
35 F1.8 
15-30 F2.8

Nikon
24-120 F4
24-70 2.8 VR

So let me just give a quick overview of my situation. I have currently own the nikon - 50mm 1.8G and a yongnuo 35mm F2.  The yongnuo was a purchase that I made to see if I liked the 35mm focal length with the FF D750 and I actually love it and its what stays on my camera 90% of the time. However the downside of this lens is that the focus is a little loud and sometimes will focus hunt for quite a while and I will have to turn on the camera and off to fix it. This is a huge problem for me as it makes me miss my shots or make people have to wait for a while until I can resolve the problem, plus it is a bit soft but hey for under $100 its really not bad.

One of my concerns with the third party lenses is from all the research I have seen and read watched it seems to me like Sigma and tamron both need to be fine tuned for focus issues and need to be calibrated straight out of the box. Now this may not be difficult to for some but from the videos I watched its not something that I really want to do when buying a lens and quite frankly I don't seem to understand how to or what to do to calibrate them with those docks that both Sigma and tamron sell. The other things is resale value and future proof with those said brands.

I have tried to narrow down what it is that I really want out of this next lens purchase and I think I would like to have some wide angel and a bit of telephoto thus thinking about the 24-70 VR. I also consider the 24-120 F4 for focal length. My kids play sports and I know this is not your typical sports lens, in day light and snaps it should be ok. I do like to take pictures in low light and this is where the VR would hopefully compensate for the slower glass but for $1000 more I can get a used 24-70 VR.... that is faster and I am sure produces much better images.

Well I am planning a trip to disneyland very soon and as much as I would be cool with taking the yongnuo 35 F2 and nikon 55 f1.8 what I don't want is to be in that situation of swiping out lenses because the yongnuo is having focus issues. At a place like disneyland you just don't have the time to be messing around when taking family photos. However the 24-70VR is big and heavy and is it a lens to walk around with all day in the park? Would the 24-120 be better? When going on rides there is no way I will leave me camera gear off to the side and will bring it on board with me and so little worried that having a big lens may make things difficult but ,.....

At the end of the day because all these lenses are pricy I want to make sure I get the best lens first 

I have considered the non VR version of the nikon 24-70 but I kind of feel since this is not an upgrade and rather a new purchase I would be better off with the newer VR version ( i also love to shoot low light and natural lighting)

any words of wisdom and advise would really help me out here folks. 

Thanks in advance.


----------



## tirediron (Dec 12, 2017)

My suggestions would be the Nikon 24-70 NON-VR; IMO, VR in a lens like this is (1) just something else to potentially go wrong; (2) totally unnecessary due to the short focal length; and (3) more sales gimmick than anything else.  The non-VR is a stellar piece of glass and a LOT cheaper.


----------



## Braineack (Dec 12, 2017)

vipgraphx said:


> Sigma and tamron both need to be fine tuned for focus issues and need to be calibrated straight out of the box.



This has not been my experience whatsoever...  I do hear the new Sigmas may be a little loose from the factory since they've started using these usb bases to micro-adjust.  Now they pass the fine-tuning over to the buyer and I've heard many copies come pretty off out-of-the-box.

any one of those lenses will be a big upgrade from your current line up.   The Tamron is a bit smaller and lighter -- the extended barrel helps.  Heck even the 24-120 f/4 is smaller than the Nikon 24-70.

you'd probably love that 24-35 F2 Art, but it's not small by any means.

you may be interested in older Nikon designs, like the 24-85s or even the 28-105mm -- honestly, if I didn't already have my 24-70 I might have picked that for my walkabout lens.  they are cheap even in excellent shape and I may pick one up soon for my next trip for a little extra reach, damn good IQ, with a lot less risk carrying all the $$$$ and bonus: can do macro.


reach with the 28-105:

28mm:



UVA Rotunda by Braineack, on Flickr

105mm:



UVA Rotunda by Braineack, on Flickr


----------



## vipgraphx (Dec 12, 2017)

Thanks for the fast reply’s. One thing that is important to me is that  most all my next lens purchases are quality and fast glass, just because I (with a little embarrassment) am one of those guys that gets buyers remorse and feel like I should have got the better one, if you can understand.  I hate it about me and my wife always says why can’t you just be happy. 

With that said I know that sometimes we just need to have a light walk around lens that is not so expensive and need to understand that not every picture has to be a portrait quality shot.   One reason I thought about just getting a don’t a6300 with kit lens for these types of occasions 


Sent from my iPhone using ThePhotoForum.com mobile app


----------



## Braineack (Dec 12, 2017)

I had an a6000 for travel, but I sold it because that was the only time I was using it.

fast glass is cool, but I don't find it very necessary -- just depends what you're going for.  when I travel, I'm typically at f/5.6 or f/8.


----------



## vipgraphx (Dec 12, 2017)

Yeah trying to really figure out what  the “right” lens for the job.  

I will want to get some other lenses in the future some more primes like the 85 or the newer nikon 105 1.4

I thought that if I did the 24-70 I would probably be good with that and not need anything else in my bag.  

If I do go with the nikon 24-120 f4, then for sure I will be looking to add in the 85 or 105 in the future 


Sent from my iPhone using ThePhotoForum.com mobile app


----------



## Braineack (Dec 12, 2017)

I bet youd be happy with the 24-140.  Your D750 has a enough ISO to make up for any lack of speed.

Nikons 24-70 is nice, it's just so damn pricey.  Which is why I went Tamron.   Sigmas new 24-70 and Tamrons G2 version both look promising.  I like the 24-70, but to me it's just a lens -- nothing really special about it; just good quality images.


----------



## vipgraphx (Dec 12, 2017)

Yeah I see your point. I’ve tried not to impulse buy anymore and give myself time to really decide.  I have found a nikon 24-120 f4 certified refurbished for $550 on amazon. Not a bad price but does make me a little worried what happens to the lens in the first place.  

This newer 24-120 looks promising and for that price should really consider it for the focal length.  I’m sure taking  pictures of my sons soccer games or football games with the longer  reach would really be beneficial.  


Sent from my iPhone using ThePhotoForum.com mobile app


----------



## nerwin (Dec 13, 2017)

I'd suggest watching this video about the 3 24-70 2.8 lenses. It's pretty informative I think.






I've owned the 24-120 f/4 VR and it was a decent lens but I really found it awkward to use because it was a rather chunky lenses, wasn't TOO heavy..nowhere near the 24-70 weight. Because of the size and weight of the lens, it has lens creep so its just something to be cognative about. The VR though was outstanding, great for video work which is where I think it shines. The image quality was fine, but nothing better than the cheap 24-85 VR kit lens...actually...I think the 24-85 VR has a slight edge in sharpness and I didn't see a HUGE difference between 85 and 120mm. At 120mm, I found the lens quite soft, especially wide open but it cleans up okayish when stopped down whereas the 24-85 @ 85mm wide open I found to be plenty sharp.

Now these were my experiences, perhaps my copy wasn't the greatest but they seem to align with a number of other users who owned that lens as well.

Put it this way. The 24-120 f/4 VR sells brand new for $1100. I barely sold mine for $400 used. The lens has terrible value for a reason. It's certainly doesn't perform like $1100 lens should I can tell you that much, especially when the cheaper 24-85 can out do it.

Again, these are my own experiences and opinions. They may differ from other users but I felt like I should share them so you can make a better decision.

I agree with @Braineack 2.8 lenses are not always necessary, are they great to have? Sure. But they aren't required, especially with today's image sensors. Some say f/4 is the new 2.8. Just something to keep in mind. I woulden't limit yourself to 2.8 lenses only.


----------



## Peeb (Dec 13, 2017)

Braineack said:


> I bet youd be happy with the 24-140.  Your D750 has a enough ISO to make up for any lack of speed.
> 
> Nikons 24-70 is nice, it's just so damn pricey.  Which is why I went Tamron.   Sigmas new 24-70 and Tamrons G2 version both look promising. * I like the 24-70, but to me it's just a lens -- nothing really special about it; just good quality images*.


The bold print really resonates with me.  I find this focal length (so similar to the human FOV) to be really challenging because you are shooting in the 'snapshot' focal range.  In other words- a  50mm shot of your family member standing in front of the Disneyworld Magic Kingdom castle at noon is likely going to look like a snapshot whether you use a D5 with fast expensive glass, or an iPhone.

 Avoiding the 'snapshot effect" probably the one argument in favor of faster glass- easier to blow out the background for close-up portraits (tho you lose the interesting background you traveled to see).  I went from the old 28-105 to the more modern 24-85 and didn't notice much difference.  The bought an old F100 film camera that had a 35-105 mounted and that lens is fine too.  The real difference maker for image quality in that focal range is ME.  My favorite images in that focal range are mostly from my f/1.8 nifty fifty prime.  Just a little better than ANY zoom I've tried.

Due to the above observations, I've avoided spending a prohibitive amount on an expensive and heavy fast mid-length zoom.  I (personally) just can't justify the cost and weight simply to go from f/4.5 to f/2.8. 

My suggestion (for you and me both!) is renting one to see if you perceive a noticeable jump in image quality.  In fact, I've just talked myself into considering doing just that for the holiday to see if my family pics benefit enough to justify the trade offs!

PS @Braineack  - when are we gonna get a review of that D800?

PSS- @Braineack  -  your flicker banner image of the cat is epic.  Really cool!


----------



## nerwin (Dec 13, 2017)

Peeb said:


> Braineack said:
> 
> 
> > I bet youd be happy with the 24-140.  Your D750 has a enough ISO to make up for any lack of speed.
> ...



I've been thinking about picking up a used 24-85 VR as they are quite affordable now and quite a decent lens. I think of these kind of lenses as "utility" lenses because there are circumstances when it's just not possible to change lenses. I love my 20 1.8G and 50 1.8G (though still debating between 35 and 50 can't decide which is my absolute favorite) but having the flexibility of 24mm-85mm range is incredibly handy for those moments when it's not ideal to change lenses.


----------



## Peeb (Dec 13, 2017)

nerwin said:


> Peeb said:
> 
> 
> > Braineack said:
> ...


I picked up a non-VR 24-85 on ebay for a really great price and there have been only a very few times I've missed the VR.  A very lightweight and unobtrusive lens to carry about for a trip!


----------



## nerwin (Dec 13, 2017)

Peeb said:


> nerwin said:
> 
> 
> > Peeb said:
> ...



Yep. The 24-85 lenses pair quite well with the D6xx too. Perfect size and weight.


----------



## Braineack (Dec 13, 2017)

Peeb said:


> PS @Braineack - when are we gonna get a review of that D800?
> 
> PSS- @Braineack - your flicker banner image of the cat is epic. Really cool!



 -  I can post one.

and thank you, it's one of my favorite cat pics -- but I get so sad when I look at pictures of all my past friends


----------



## ac12 (Dec 13, 2017)

I am inclined to go with the 24-120, and is the lens that I would get with a D750.

BUT, think about the total weight of the D750 + 24-120.  Then think about how you will feel *after a week or two of carrying it around*.  It is for this reason that I like the idea of a lighter "walk about" lens for long trips, where the weight at the end of 2 weeks becomes significant.  And the weight will feel even heavier, if you go to hot and humid DisneyWorld/Epcot in FL vs, Disneyland in CA.

Also do you expect your wife to shoot some of the pix?
If so, will the D750 + 24-120 be too heavy for her?


----------



## Braineack (Dec 13, 2017)

I'm used to traveling with my D610, 24-70, and 70-200 in a bag so....

with that said, the a6000 was a very nice reprieve.


----------



## ac12 (Dec 13, 2017)

Braineack said:


> I'm used to traveling with my D610, 24-70, and 70-200 in a bag so....
> 
> with that said, the a6000 was a very nice reprieve.



Ah but B, I am pretty sure you are much younger than me, and can carry the extra weight.
I could do that in college, but those days are long behind me.  Now weight is a consideration.
I would love to be able to carry a FX body + both f/2.8 lenses, but my back has other ideas.
Getting old sucks.


----------



## Braineack (Dec 13, 2017)

oh, I totally agree getting old is the freaking worst.


----------



## nerwin (Dec 13, 2017)

Tell me about it, I turn 27 next week.


----------



## ac12 (Dec 13, 2017)

nerwin said:


> Tell me about it, I turn 27 next week.



Youngster.
You can be the porter to carry my gear.


----------



## tirediron (Dec 13, 2017)

nerwin said:


> Tell me about it, I turn 27 next week.


I've got socks older n' that!


----------



## nerwin (Dec 13, 2017)

tirediron said:


> nerwin said:
> 
> 
> > Tell me about it, I turn 27 next week.
> ...



How does your socks last that long? Mine only last for months lol.


----------



## JonA_CT (Dec 13, 2017)

nerwin said:


> tirediron said:
> 
> 
> > nerwin said:
> ...



Socks made 30 years ago were of higher quality. 

(I’m guessing...I turned 31 today, haha)


----------



## nerwin (Dec 13, 2017)

JonA_CT said:


> nerwin said:
> 
> 
> > tirediron said:
> ...



Oh yeah, Kevlar socks. Very comfortable and bulletproof! Or cat proof.


----------



## Destin (Dec 13, 2017)

FWIW I have the Tamron 24-70 G2 and I can't say enough good things about it. Absolutely love it.


----------



## Derrel (Dec 13, 2017)

I like the 24-85mm lens length; Nikon has made more than one version in that zoom range. The 28-105 braineack speaks of is surprisingly GOOD on 24-MP Nikon full-frame: we shipped a 28-105 across the USA a few years ago,and I shot it on the 24-MP D3x and was happy with the image quality and focus speed.

RE: 35mm prime lens: I personally like the older 35mm f/2 AF-D lens...decent, small, nice rendering to the pictures.

Zooms: 24-70mm f/2.8 lenses...ehhhh...BIG, heavy, PITA for a lens that is not long enough at the top end to do much, and you get sharper, crisper, better images with three primes: a 24, a 35,and a 50mm. And then your real, quality lens is the 85/1.8 AF-S G.

Buy lenses that you think might suck on the used market, from a  dealer that offers a money-back return option. RE: the 24-120 VR...and the used price of it...

I think the 24-85 AF-S VR-G might be the lens to buy for the D750: Nikon paired that as a kit for a while with D600 bodies...


----------



## vipgraphx (Feb 20, 2018)

Just wanted to update this thread. 

I ended up purchasing the Nikon 24-70 VR V2 lens. WOW what a beast! It really performed while on vacation in many lighting situations. I look forward to using it more and more. 

Thanks for input!


----------



## shadowlands (Feb 23, 2018)

Congrats. I own the former Nikon 24-70mm and I'm happy with it. Never lets me down. But if it did, I wouldn't have any problems grabbing a Sigma or Tamron to replace it. But it just keeps working.


----------



## ac12 (Mar 13, 2018)

vipgraphx said:


> Just wanted to update this thread.
> 
> I ended up purchasing the Nikon 24-70 VR V2 lens. WOW what a beast! It really performed while on vacation in many lighting situations. I look forward to using it more and more.
> 
> Thanks for input!



So how did it handle?
I my concern is the weight of that lens.


----------



## s_marolf (Mar 23, 2018)

I'm looking for a lens too and am between the Tamron 24-70 f2.8 g2 and the Nikon 24-120 f4 VR. 

I'm leaning towards the Tamron. Aside from price, weight, and extra reach is there a reason to pick the Nikon?


----------



## Braineack (Mar 23, 2018)

They are two completely different lenses.  Depending on your body and purpose, having the reach is better than speed.


----------



## ac12 (Mar 23, 2018)

SM
For me it is the zoom range and extra reach of the 24-120.
I prefer the convenience of shooting without having to change lenses.
If you end up in the 50-100mm range, you have to switch between the 24-70 and 70-200.  It is easier to just use a lens that has that coverage.
I was at a concert, and the 70-200 was just a bit too tight at the short end, but a 24-70 at the long end would be too short for small group/individuals.  So I would have been swapping between lenses all night.  Or use 2 bodies with a lens on each.


----------



## s_marolf (Mar 23, 2018)

Most of my pictures are of my kids. I feel like the tamron 24-70 f2.8 will be sharper under f4 and have better bokeh.

Other than that I like the Nikon 24-120 and all of it's advantages.

Decisions, decisions!


----------



## coastalconn (Mar 25, 2018)

s_marolf said:


> Most of my pictures are of my kids. I feel like the tamron 24-70 f2.8 will be sharper under f4 and have better bokeh.
> 
> Other than that I like the Nikon 24-120 and all of it's advantages.
> 
> Decisions, decisions!


Just saw a deal posted that Beach Camera
via Newegg has the 24-70 G2 for 1199 with a $200 gift card for Newegg. FWIW


----------



## DandL (Mar 25, 2018)

s_marolf said:


> Most of my pictures are of my kids. I feel like the tamron 24-70 f2.8 will be sharper under f4 and have better bokeh.
> 
> Other than that I like the Nikon 24-120 and all of it's advantages.
> 
> Decisions, decisions!



If you haven't already, you might want to research "onion" bokeh before you pull the trigger on that Tamron. The G2 is reportedly better than the G1, but it has not been completely eliminated. A lot of people aren't bothered by it, but it was a deal killer for me.


----------



## greybeard (Jul 21, 2018)

I ordered my D750 with the 24-120 f/4.  I also have a 50mm f1.4, and a 24mm f2.8 and I can tell you that the 24-120 holds up well when compared to those 2 prime lenses.  I know that the pixel peepers don't give the 24-120 much love but, I'm very happy with mine.



Covered bridge 20x30 1.0 by TOM STRAIGHT, on Flickr

D750 w/24-120 @24mm f/8


----------



## ac12 (Jul 21, 2018)

vipgraphx said:


> This newer 24-120 looks promising and for that price should really consider it for the focal length.  I’m sure taking  pictures of my sons soccer games or football games with the longer  reach would really be beneficial.



On a FF camera, you need to be on the sidelines with the 24-120 lens.
If you are on the bleachers, the 24-120 does not have enough reach.  Get a 70-300 (or longer) for shooting from the bleachers.


----------

