11 replies to this topic

[akanarya]

Hey friends, I am new to nikon world. My question is;

 

What are the choices for all around zooms for full frame?

 

I want more reach than 70mm,

I do not want weird zooms, like 28-300mm.

So, I narrowed the band to;

 

nikon 24-85,

nikon 24-120

sigma 24-105

 

am I missing another one?

 

I read the reviews, prices,dimensions, weight, filter size etc.

My brain goes for 24-120, because of weight(I dont like heavy ones) and more reach and a bit more magnification.

But my heart says to go for 24-105, I have a feeling that it has a better IQ.

 

What are your oppinions?

Thanks

 

[etphoto]

How fast are those lens? (I'm too lazy to go look it up myself). That would weigh heavily in my decision.

[akanarya]

F4

[etphoto]

In that case, since I am partial to Nikon glass, the 24-120.

[Merco_61]

The choice between the Sigma and the 24-120 is not an easy one. They both vignette about equally on FX unless stopped down to ~6.3. The Nikon controls twist in the usual direction instead of the Canon way. The deciding factor is probably weight and the filter size. Quality filters are a lot more expensive in 82 than in 77 mm, and far less are available unless you use a square system.

[Jerry_]

+1 for Peter's arguments

[deano]

I just bought the Sigma 24-105.

It takes a 82cm filter.  This size filter is expensive.

It is heavy, as heavy as a 105 macro.

But I do like it

I took this photo yesterday with the 24-105.

Attached Thumbnails

• 

[akanarya]

dou you suggest another lens?

[Merco_61]

Going to more than about 3X zoom range usually means greater compromise than below, that is how the 24-70 and the 70-200 can be so much better than zooms with greater range.

Sometimes portability means more than absolute quality, and the vignetting is easily corrected even if you have to use a wider than ideal aperture. Both lenses are good, but the Nikon or Tamron 24-70 are even better. Which one is the better choice is very much up to the photographer, only you know how you like to use filters and if price or weight is more important to you.

For me personally, the deciding factor would be ergonomics as I don't like having to fumble with the controls. That is one of the reasons I avoid third-party lenses as I mostly use primes and change lenses a lot. I hate having to think about witch way to turn the rings on the particular lens I have mounted at the moment.

[TBonz]

I have to agree...It is all about what works best.  I also feel more comfortable sticking with the Nikon lenses as I need to be able to work between bodies and lenses quickly and not have to think about what I'm doing or which lens I have on the camera.  Since I mostly shoot sports, I tend to shoot with two bodies with different lenses on each.  Last night I had the 24-70 on my D600 and the 70-200 on my D4.  Most people don't need to switch quickly in the middle of action, so they change lenses when they need / want a different framing.  I usually have one or more other lenses and a TeleConverter available as well if I do need to change to something other than I start with.

 

I have had the Nikon 24-120 and have the 24-70.  The 24-120 is a great walk around lens in my opinion and, I may eventually purchase one again to throw on a body when I don't feel like hauling gear or when I don't necessarily even plan to take photos, but take a camera along "just in case".  I have the DX 18-135 that I do this with now on my D7000 but I don't intend to keep it when I sell the D7000.

 

In terms of image quality only, your best bet would be to spend LOTS of money on high end prime lenses.  Your next best bet would be to go to the 24-70 and 70-200 combination - probably two of Nikon's best selling high end lenses.  In fact, I don't know of any pro photographer who shoots Nikon who doesn't have both these lenses - pretty much the same for Canon users too!

 

If I'm going out with photography as my goal, then I'm taking the gear I think I need to get the shot I want.  If I'm just walking around and maybe taking some photos, I'll take the lens I think will fit with where I'm going.  If I'm not sure of that, I'll be using the 24-70 and crop in post processing to get the framing I wanted. 

[deano]

I rented the Nikon 24-70 last year for a few days.  Loved it. but it is costly.  The Sigma is my first non-Nikon lens.  I will give it one more week before making my final thoughts on keeping it or not.  As of today, I like it.  I don't need the extra equipment most shooters need for daily work, but I don't want a sub-par piece of equipment either.  The extra $1000 for the Nikon 24-70 is just a bit more than I can handle right now.

 

What are your thoughts on the photo I submitted above?  Particularly the quality of the lens?  This was handheld, walking through the park when I stumbled upon this crane who allowed me to take his photo.

[akanarya]

Thanks Peter & TBonz, I see exactly what you mean. This is why I mostly use primes at my current pentax setup.

However, I have to go for more expensive equipments than mine's when I will switch to nikon.

Therefore, infact I have  two choices; 50/1.4 which is my most favorite ff angle(this costs lesser) and a zoom.

If I select 50mm, I may not be obtain a wide and portrait angle for a while.

And I will definitely need a flash.

Because of that my mind goes to a zoom, which is always handfull for occasions, even if you have high-end primes.

 

24-70mm is absolutely a better choice in terms of IQ. And I use crops heavily at my shoots.

However, I dont find 70mm enough for generel tele applications. The other issue of 24-70 for me,

is that I found it is a too expensive and heavy beast. But I am sure it deserves its fame.

@deano, thanks for sharing the photo.

It is a pretty good picture. It looks like it has a strong bokeh ability.

Too contrasty as my previous sigmas. I frankly dont like too much contrast.

If I would be retouch it, I could decrease contrast and very powerfull vibrant colors a bit.