At the moment I think it's a bargain, I bought the 24-70G first as there was no 24-120VR F4 if I could do it again I'd go 24-120 every time. It is the best FX wakaround I've ever owned and I did have a 5D/24-105L.
With the discount right now, it's a good buy... yeah, it pricey, but it's worth it... I had the older 24-120 a while, and loved the range, but it was soft all around. Just not a great lens.
Just received mine from B&H 2 days ago. With this new iteration, I think they nailed it. When walking around, I always found the 24-70 too cumbersome and range limited.
I am considering selling my 24-70, and my 70-200 VR-I, and picking up the new Sigma 120-300/2.8 (been saving up!)
Danner wrote:
The 24-85 VR is pretty much comparable, optically speaking, to the 24-120 at 1/3 the cost. So the 85-120 range is rather costly. That's why I can't wrap my brain around the 24-120, even at the rebated price.
I believe the 24-120 has better corner performance stopped down, although, no I haven't tried the 24-85. It's also a constant f4.
Only tried one copy of the Tamron 24-70, but mine went back because autofocus was not accurate (very hit and miss). My copy had poor corners at 24mm even at f8.
Like others, I used to shoot with Canon 24-105 and think the two lenses are equivalent except for the additional reach on 24-120. I always marvel at how well it does on AF in low light interior events. Some shots are very dark, but almost always in focus when I work on them.
For me, this is the ultimate walk around lens. I use it on D300 and D700 and decide if I will want more reach or need more wide angle that day. I usually have another lens with me too, but 24-120 f4 is always in the bag.
I have a 24-70 and was thinking about picking up this lens for some PR jobs, I now would carry the 24-70 and a 105 also-it would lighten my load and save me from changing lenses. I usually shoot at f5 with a flash so I am not sure how much of a difference I would see among the lenses. But it's tempting now with the rebate,which expires soon.
I have the 16-85, but no DX body currently... and haven't had a real chance to shoot with the 24-120 too much yet. I do love the 16-85, which is why I also bought the 24-120. I hope the 24-120 on the DX is as good as or better than the 16-85 on DX
Chestnut wrote:
I have the 16-85, but no DX body currently... and haven't had a real chance to shoot with the 24-120 too much yet. I do love the 16-85, which is why I also bought the 24-120. I hope the 24-120 on the DX is as good as or better than the 16-85 on DX
My impression is that the 24-120 on FX is just as good or better than the 16-85 on DX. Same effective FLs and a good walk-about one lens solution. Neither is perfect. Both are very good.
