Upload & Sell: Off
Hey Nikon Shooters,
I'm looking for the opinions of those who have used or own both the Nikon 24-120 f/4 and the 28-300 f/3.5-5.6.
I recently purchased the 24-120 f/4 and I do like the lens as a walk around lens. It is pretty sharp, I can get excellent photos with PP and it performs fairly well. I'm just a bit conflicted wondering if I should have went with the 28-300 for the added reach (I have wanted the added reach on several occasions while out).
My dilemma is I read conflicting views between both lenses. Some reviews says their about the same performance as related to sharpness, color, bokeh and contrast. Then I read reviews that the 24-120 is much better than the 28-300, then I read the 24-120 is not that great of a lens (but I think it is fairly good).
The lens will be used as a walk around vacation lens (zoos, cityscapes, amusement parks, international travel), sometimes I will use it for events where I can use flash and for family gatherings during the summer which will be in house and outside.
With the $300 rebate it brings the 24-120 to the price point that many people believed the lens should have been priced at originally. With the rebate on the 28-300 I can save another $100 over the 24-120.
For my studio, event and wedding work I only use primes so I have the Sigma 35 1.4, Nikon 50 1.4D, Nikon 85 1.8G and occasionally I use the 80-200 2.8 AF-D (Push-Pull). BTW, I shoot with D3S and D800.
So with more of you having experience with both of these lenses can you make a recommendation for me if I should keep the 24-120 or go with the 28-300 and enjoy the additional reach and not give up much more.
Much appreciation in advance for your help.