I am seriously considering a switch from Canon to Nikon. I have concluded the D800 is the right body for me. I have pretty much settled on the Sigma 120-300 f/2.8 for my telephoto zoom. Where I am struggling is with the standard zoom; the 24 or 28 to 105 or 120 type of lens. It seems that Nikon and third party providers are very weak in this area. I presently use the Canon 24-105L f/4.0 and am quite happy with it.
The problem I am having is that many lenses are for DX sensors. Reviews of the remaining lenses leave one thinking that no matter what you buy, it is going to have horrible barrel and/or pincushion distortion, heavy vignetting, heavy CA, terrible bokeh and be soft around the edges except at 50.157mm focal length. The lenses also have surprisingly poor build quality. Lastly, the lens have been known to kill unsuspecting kittens.
OK, I made the last one up, but you get my drift and my dilemma. I know there is no such thing as a perfect lens but are they really all that bad? The best of the bad seem to be Nikon's 24-70 2.8, 24-85 2.8-4.0 and 24-120 4.0, as well as the Sigma 24-70 2.8.
I checked Nikon, Sigma, Tamron and Tokina. Have I missed a lens I should really be taking a look at? Please don't suggest primes. I am looking for a good walk-about lens that gives me flexibility and shot-getting speed when on vacation. I also want a lens that will let me take those spontaneous shots at family events. Given that my family doesn't like having their picture taken, me moving back and forth or changing lenses again and again would be a very bad thing!
So if you aren't a prime shooter in the standard zoom range, what do YOU use? Do you wish you had gone with something else (if so, what)?
This one issue is the biggest thing holding up a decision to make the switch, so any insight you can provide would be greatly appreciated.
Oh my... If you are serious and objective about your inquiry I am sure many people here would love to help you, but coming to the Nikon forum and starting to bash all Nikon lenses in such an insulting and nonobjective way is really rude... I love Canon and its lenses are top of the notch but Nikon lenses are not far behind, in fact many of them are better than Canon's. Each has advantages and disadvantages but calling Nikon professional zooms as having horrible build quality, Bokeh, IQ , Heavy CA, vignetting, etc... without any evidence is just absurd...
You are the same type of person who would turn against Canon cameras as soon as you get the D800
Nikkor 24-70/2.8 The King.. pricey but a real world class performer
Nikkor 24-120/4 VRII A great lens, especially for the $$$ Super versatility! (I've owned it)
Nikkor 24-85/3.5-4.5 VRII Another great lens, and a real value (I own it)
Sigma 24-70/2.8 HSM A real winner in my eyes, again especially for the $$$ (I own it)
jmcfadden and hijazist, you are obviously WAY too sensitive and protective of the God of Nikon! "Insulting"? Really? I'm not talking about your mother you know! Nonobjective? Really? I went to the most reputable review sites I could find, so if anything I guess they are not objective. You are also terrible at reading between the lines. Yes, I am a Canon shooter who is planning to switch to Nikon, so for nothing better to do, I came to the Nikon site to troll. Really?!!!
You clearly missed my point. I know nothing about Nikon lenses, so I went out to numerous supposedly reputable sites; lenstip, dxomark, photozone to name but a few. It was like they were carving turkey. I didn't just pull all of the undesirable characteristics out of thin air. This is how they were describing the lenses. When they rip the lens and then give it a 2.5 or 3.0 out of 5.0, I consider that bad. One last point, given that I described the focal length I was looking for both generically ('standard zoom' and 'walk-about lens') and specifically ('the 24 or 28 to 105 or 120 type of lens'), I fail to see how the 70-200 fits that description.
MacDaddy1962, thanks for the post. The lenses you list are pretty much what I had narrowed my list down to (add the 24-86 2.8-4 to the mix) and have been pouring over reviews. I sense that reviewers feel like they have to be the Simon Cowell of lens critiques or they're not doing a good job. Since I'm making a substantial investment to make a switch, I am trying to get it right, but am struggling to understand what is a good lens, relatively speaking (to the Canon 24-105 4.0, which is my only reference point).
For any future replies, please be assured that I am not a troll (or ogre or any other mythical creature ) and keep the pitchforks and torches in the storage shed. I'm just a potential Nikon newby trying to find my way around.
For me the 24-120/4 is the best value for money. It's comparable with the 24-105/4 (I owned one for several years).
Its weakness is at the long end when it gets softer (not soft) and at the wide end for distortion and vignetting (which is a non-issue for me as it is automatically corrected in LightRoom).
Owned the 24-70, it's better but weight and price are much higher and I didn't need the 2.8. Sold it when I had the 24-120 simultaneously with the 24-70 for about 6 months. In my opinion the Nikon one is (much?) better than the Canon (old version) counterpart (owned that one too)
Tried the 24-70/2.8-4.0 and didn't liked it. The one I tried was slow and soft.
Owned the 24-85 (non VR) for some time (before the 24-120) and it was not a bad lens (and pretty cheap). The new 24-85VR seems to be a nice lens from what I read and saw, but I have no experience with it.
The 28-105 is a pretty good value for many as well (yes, tried that one too for a year or so).
No experience with third party lenses in this range.
IMHO (and experience ) the Nikon lenses in this range are better than their Canon counterparts.
If you talk about 'the best of the bad' you can expect people to think you're a troll and not taking you serious.
I don't care what the reviews say, the 24-70 DEF doesn't fall into "the best of the bad".....more like, best of the best.....it's a 2.8 zoom for pete's sake....it's not a 1.4 prime....at 2.8 a 1.4 prime will cut like a razor....a 24-70 2.8 zoom may not be AS sharp, but still it's a stellar performer....i've seen reviews that say the tamron 17-50 is just as sharp as the 17-55...sure, it may be, but sharpness isn't all a lens is about....focus speed, focus accuracy, contrast, build quality, lake of C/A.....there's a lot that goes into it....and sharpness isn't the end all, be all of factors....as far as this category of Nikon glass being better or worse than the same class of Canon glass...it's tough to say......i'd say they're pretty close...
Chris Dees, thanks for the reply. The 24-120 would be nice as it would pair up with the new Sigma 120-300 nicely from a range perspective. I also like its reach, weight, price and that its CA is apparently lower than the Nikon 24-70 2.8. I just wish its optical quality was better than the reviews describe it. I suspect having a standard zoom that stops at 70mm would have me cropping a fair number of pictures, given my shooting style.
I can see your point about 'the best of the bad'. It was probably frustration at what I was finding in all the reviews. It just seems that if you aren't talking the 14-24 or 70-200, pretty much every lens has a terrible flaw(s). As I am planning to buy the D800, a FF camera, it eliminated a lot of lenses from consideration (as they were DX) and many of the remaining ones are described as soft around the edges, 'but not a real issue if shooting with an APS-C sensor' (I'm paraphrasing). With the 24-120, do you find yourself conciously stopping down to manage softness (rather than doing so for artistic expression)?
I would be very interested in hearing from people who have used both the 24-120 and the new 24-85VR.
I went for the 24-120 f/4 VR after much debate. I really like my Canon 24-105 and thought I'd give the 24-120 a try. Both VR and the range were important to me. I nearly went for the Tammie 24-70 F/2.8 VC but in the end the range of the Nikon won over the speed of the Tammie. The IQ of the 24-120 is quite nice - comparable to my Canon 24-105.
I have the 24-120 on a D800. I do not make money from my gear but I do appreciate it's qualities.
I have used a friend's 24-70 and I have compared it to my 24-120. The 24-120 is a great lens. It is not as robust (read:heavy as in metal) as the 24-70. The 24-70 is, in my eyes, superior, but not that much. I would rather have the 24-120, have more range and less heft. To me, the reason to get the 24-70 over the 24-120 is if you truly need 2.8 over f4. I couldn't justify the price jump for one stop, not at least for what I shoot.
Yes, the 24-120 vignettes a bit but the corners are good to very good wide open. Stop it to 5.6 and you are game. Do not drink the multi-forum cool aid. It is a very nice lens. I shot a wedding for a cousin of mine and while it would have been awesome to have the 24-70 for the 2.8 under those shooting, dark conditions, I never hesitated to shoot the 24-120 wide open. It's good.
barrel distortion and vignettes are easily fixed in lightroom.
Making a perfect lens with no aberrations while being sharp across the frame costs a lot of money. Lens design is a compromise as prices have to be, in the end, affordable. If not we'd all shoot Leica and Zeiss glass. Don't drink the cool aid, really.
And yes, good for you that you cleared your intentions but I would have taken you for trolling after reading your first post. I see that is not the case.
Edit: FWIW, sharpest lens I have used in my D800 is the 85 f1.8. Cuts like a razor.
Edit 2: I have just bought a 16-35. Sharp, sharp lens. at 16 it distorts like a distillery barrel but it is easily fixable. Great WA that takes filters
wanting a perfect lens & a jack of all trades lens does not compute. Either compromise or buy more than one lens. The 24-70 is an awesome lens, albeit a bit boring. With full frame you'll probably find a 70-200 is more useful, better still a 85mm prime.
akclimber, thanks for the update. Do you find that you conciously do anything to manage IQ issues with the lens? Do you always stop down to 4.5, 5.0 or 5.6 when you want to shoot as wide open as you can? Do you tend to not go beyond 110 or 115mm to avoid being fully extended or below 30 or 35mm for the same sort of reason? That kind of thing. Or do you just accept that some pictures will be great and some will be good when user error doesn't factor in? Basically, do you ever find yourself thinking about the lens when shooting or just about the shot?
Guari, thanks for a great post. It is most helpful. Re trolling, I wish had the time to do it. Not that I would do it; just wish I had the spare time! I don't know where people get the time to do that (nor how they derive satisfaction from it). I just let the frustration get the best of me and may not have chosen the best words. I know people can respond harshly to 'criticisms' on religion, politics, sports teams and camera gear. I'll try to pick my words better next time!
I have a 24-70 f2.8, 105mm f2.8 Macro, and 70-200 f2.8 VR2. I can shoot any of these at wide open aperture on my D800 and still get very sharp images. The only complain about the new nano coating is that it works too well. Shooting directly into the sun, the images still retain contrast and no flare. That can be a bad thing if you want to be artistic once in a while. I also the Canon version of the 24-70 f2.8 and I think Nikon has it in this category but not by much. Both are very very good.
EverLearning wrote:
akclimber, thanks for the update. Do you find that you conciously do anything to manage IQ issues with the lens? Do you always stop down to 4.5, 5.0 or 5.6 when you want to shoot as wide open as you can? Do you tend to not go beyond 110 or 115mm to avoid being fully extended or below 30 or 35mm for the same sort of reason? That kind of thing. Or do you just accept that some pictures will be great and some will be good when user error doesn't factor in? Basically, do you ever find yourself thinking about the lens when shooting or just about the shot?
Guari, thanks for a great post. It is most helpful. Re trolling, I wish had the time to do it. Not that I would do it; just wish I had the spare time! I don't know where people get the time to do that (nor how they derive satisfaction from it). I just let the frustration get the best of me and may not have chosen the best words. I know people can respond harshly to 'criticisms' on religion, politics, sports teams and camera gear. I'll try to pick my words better next time!...Show more →
At this point, I just shoot at whatever aperture or focal length is called for and don't worry about the lens. Generally, I find I pretty much stop down all the time with all my lenses (except the Zeiss 21 f/2.8) if I want the best IQ but even at f/4 if you want to try and isolate the subject some or need more light, the 24-120 isn't bad.
And I agree that the 85 f/1.8 G is a terrific lens - it was my first D800e lens. Very impressive price/performance ration.
EverLearning wrote:
Chris Dees, thanks for the reply. The 24-120 would be nice as it would pair up with the new Sigma 120-300 nicely from a range perspective. I also like its reach, weight, price and that its CA is apparently lower than the Nikon 24-70 2.8. I just wish its optical quality was better than the reviews describe it. I suspect having a standard zoom that stops at 70mm would have me cropping a fair number of pictures, given my shooting style.
I can see your point about 'the best of the bad'. It was probably frustration at what I was finding in all the reviews. It just seems that if you aren't talking the 14-24 or 70-200, pretty much every lens has a terrible flaw(s). As I am planning to buy the D800, a FF camera, it eliminated a lot of lenses from consideration (as they were DX) and many of the remaining ones are described as soft around the edges, 'but not a real issue if shooting with an APS-C sensor' (I'm paraphrasing). With the 24-120, do you find yourself conciously stopping down to manage softness (rather than doing so for artistic expression)?
I would be very interested in hearing from people who have used both the 24-120 and the new 24-85VR.
The 24-120 has a sharpness edge over the 24-85vr. You will find that the 24-120 is actually sharper at 120 on a d800 thatn the 24-105 at 105 on a 5dII.
As far as the CA the 24-70 is the sharpest lens of all the group The sigma 24-70 HSM is very close to the 24-120 but will leave you the gap of 50mm.
Different question. are you using the 120-300 with a 1.4x tc to achieve 420? .If not You should really consider the 70-200 vr II and 1.4x tc
I own both and If I didnt shoot in the 300-400 range the Nikon 70-200vrII with 1.4tc is faster and superior image quality(barely) and also 4 pounds lighter...Show more →
I have the Nikkor 24-85/3.5-4.5 VRII and would agree that it is a very nice lens on my D600. I was a bit leary at first from things I had read, but decided to try it and have not been sorry one bit!!
Here are just a couple shots taken with this combo. Nothing special, but my help give you an idea.
EverLearning wrote:
Chris Dees, thanks for the reply. The 24-120 would be nice as it would pair up with the new Sigma 120-300 nicely from a range perspective. I also like its reach, weight, price and that its CA is apparently lower than the Nikon 24-70 2.8. I just wish its optical quality was better than the reviews describe it. I suspect having a standard zoom that stops at 70mm would have me cropping a fair number of pictures, given my shooting style.
I can see your point about 'the best of the bad'. It was probably frustration at what I was finding in all the reviews. It just seems that if you aren't talking the 14-24 or 70-200, pretty much every lens has a terrible flaw(s). As I am planning to buy the D800, a FF camera, it eliminated a lot of lenses from consideration (as they were DX) and many of the remaining ones are described as soft around the edges, 'but not a real issue if shooting with an APS-C sensor' (I'm paraphrasing). With the 24-120, do you find yourself conciously stopping down to manage softness (rather than doing so for artistic expression)?
I would be very interested in hearing from people who have used both the 24-120 and the new 24-85VR.
I owned the 14-24 as well. It's really a fantastic lens but what NathanHamler said, no filters and very heat. The front filter is like a fish-eye (only bigger) so I went with the 16-35VR and no complaints.
I still have the 70-200VRII also a terrific lens (IMHO even better than the 14-24 and 24-70), but if the new F4 is as good as Canon's counterpart I'm going to swap it.
I'm using a D800E and use my lenses mostly between F5.6 and F11, but I don't hesitate to use my lenses wide open if necessary.
Completely agree with this post ... can't beat the zoom holy trinity.
glo
------------------
My gawd man stop fretting, there is no peer to these 3 zooms
Airphoto, I plan on using the 120-300 with and without a 1.4x TC. I have the 100-400L right now with the APS-C 18MP 7D. Without getting into a lot of detail, I am disatisfied with the 7D's DR, high (?!) ISO capabilities and weather sealing among other things. Combine that with a rather slow 100-400 (esp. at the long end, where I do tend to shoot a lot), and it was time to consider alternatives; both within Canon and Nikon. I can crop the D800/120-300/1.4x TC to about 15MP to get the same image with better DR, noise and a stop faster. I have been told by several knowledgable people that the remaining pixels on the D800 image will still be better than those from the 7D (besides DR, noise). I need to do more research to see how usable the 2.0x TC would be on the 120-300, but I won't spend too much time researching TCs until the new Sigma 120-300 2.8 "Sport" comes out.
When the time comes, I think I will poke around locally to see if any friends/acquiantances have the Canon 24-70 2.8 and 24-120 4.0 that I might be able to borrow for a few hours.
) the Nikon lenses in this range are better than their Canon counterparts.