youie wrote:
I’m caught in the same situation, the 24-70mm 2.8S is a better lens, but my copy of the 24-120 is really good.
I actually have put it for sale on kijiji a couple of times, got really good prices for it but in both occasions at the last minute I pull myself out of the deal.
Every time I look at the photos that I took with the 24-120, I realize that it makes no sense letting it go, in my case it’s not a $1000 less or more that will make much difference at the end of the day.
Yeah it's a tough call. It's a solid sharp lens, but most shots I look at I think I could have had a more interesting shot with another lens.
urbanwild wrote:
Yeah it's a tough call. It's a solid sharp lens, but most shots I look at I think I could have had a more interesting shot with another lens.
You've already convinced yourself, no need for us to sway you. In fact, that would do a disservice, only you know what you want and need.
urbanwild wrote:
Yeah it's a tough call. It's a solid sharp lens, but most shots I look at I think I could have had a more interesting shot with another lens.
Like the 28mm 1.4E..., the 40mm f/2.0 really looks good also, and right now it's $100 off , very, very tempting.
youie wrote:
Like the 28mm 1.4E..., the 40mm f/2.0 really looks good also, and right now it's $100 off , very, very tempting.
Yes absolutely! The 28mm f1.4E was the first lens that came to mind actually
The 40mm f2 is a keeper for around town. It's not perfect and I'll use other lenses for pure portrait work, but I'm really happy with it for the price point. I thought about picking up the voigtlander 40mm f1.2 but I think I'll just keep using the 40mm f2 for now. I love its size and the IQ is good enough that I'm going to sell the 35mm f1.8S.
RoamingScott wrote:
You've already convinced yourself, no need for us to sway you. In fact, that would do a disservice, only you know what you want and need.
Fair enough. I so far haven't regretted parting with the lenses I've previously sold, so I should trust that. That aside, you've indirectly given me the nudge to sell it without saying so Scott. The 24-120 was all about travel and street photography for me. But now after buying the 35 apo after your effective marketing campaign, I see I can have great IQ in a nice small form factor and it's more enjoyable than a zoom for this type of slower photography genre. So now I'll travel with smaller primes and portrait lenses instead and likely not worry about going north of 85mm for most travel situations.
The 24-120 is a great lens. Nice and sharp. I'll miss having one lens for such a great range but on the other hand I'll hopefully use my 2.8 zooms more (including the 70-200 which barely comes out but always gives me a smile with the end product).
urbanwild wrote:
Fair enough. I so far haven't regretted parting with the lenses I've previously sold, so I should trust that. That aside, you've indirectly given me the nudge to sell it without saying so Scott. The 24-120 was all about travel and street photography for me. But now after buying the 35 apo after your effective marketing campaign, I see I can have great IQ in a nice small form factor and it's more enjoyable than a zoom for this type of slower photography genre. So now I'll travel with smaller primes and portrait lenses instead and likely not worry about going north of 85mm for most travel situations.
The 24-120 is a great lens. Nice and sharp. I'll miss having one lens for such a great range but on the other hand I'll hopefully use my 2.8 zooms more (including the 70-200 which barely comes out but always gives me a smile with the end product)....Show more →
For me, sometimes a lens I'd "only" get 800-900 for on the used market is worth just keeping tucked in the cabinet for the times I really need it, especially if it's a proven winner in terms of sharpness through the range.
And to your earlier comment that you had a number of photos you thought would have been more "interesting" with another lens, I found it interesting to think about that, and found almost none of mine I felt the same about...however, I usually have mine doing landscape duty, or portrait work where I want more than a razor's worth of DOF, so any 2.8>4.0 differences are uselessly moot here. There were plenty of examples where I was very glad to have the 70-120 range in my pocket!
I would completely agree that the 35 APO is a "better" choice for a general travel lens if one doesn't require the focal range of the 24-120, assuming good weather.
RoamingScott wrote:
For me, sometimes a lens I'd "only" get 800-900 for on the used market is worth just keeping tucked in the cabinet for the times I really need it, especially if it's a proven winner in terms of sharpness through the range.
And to your earlier comment that you had a number of photos you thought would have been more "interesting" with another lens, I found it interesting to think about that, and found almost none of mine I felt the same about...however, I usually have mine doing landscape duty, or portrait work where I want more than a razor's worth of DOF, so any 2.8>4.0 differences are uselessly moot here. There were plenty of examples where I was very glad to have the 70-120 range in my pocket!
I would completely agree that the 35 APO is a "better" choice for a general travel lens if one doesn't require the focal range of the 24-120, assuming good weather....Show more →
This is the journey I've travelled through as well.....considering keeping the lens aside for a while and see what happens in a few months. It's a valid point, but also a reason why I now have 26 lenses.
It's an interesting journey going through images and asking if other lenses would have sufficed or been better. I was away for almost a month on a trip with the 24-120, 28mm f2.8, 40mm f4, 14-30 f4, 50mm f1.8S and 85mm 1.8S. The trip had everything....street, landscapes, general touristy stuff and portraits of family. I started the trip with the safety of the 24-120 in hand and slowly found myself moving more towards the 28 and 40 for the most part. The 50 and 85 were mainly for a wedding which was golden....and the 14-30 was mainly for inside buildings. Anyway, I took 3000 images with the 24-120 and a third of the images were 70-120. Out of these, only 5-10 shots were ones that I really appreciated the extra range. The others were images I could have taken with the 85mm 1.8S and been as happy or happier....sharper for landscapes, more versatile for portraits. Cropping would have been required, but very few would have been cropped by much. Of interest, I took ~3300 images with the 28mm and 40mm.....more than the 24-120 and most of those were with the 28mm. Looking at the image quality, the 24-120 is better than the cheap plastic 28mm, but yet I am still happy with those 28mm images and found myself feeling more creative with my compositions taken with the little fixed focal length lens vs having the zoom.
So the age-old question.....does the versatility of the zoom actually impede one's creativity? I'm starting to feel so, at least for street photography. Zooms are incredible for landscapes where zooming with your feet has a different effort level, but then a 14-70mm range is usually more than enough. When it isn't, a 100-400 or 70-200 is nice to have.
So this is where I'm at.....the 24-120 is an incredible lens for what it is. There's no gripes worth selling this lens for. It's versatile and an incredible bang for the buck. Yet it's perhaps just getting in the way of where I think I need to go creatively. If only the 28, 35 apo and 40 lenses were weather sealed.
Realizing I'm babbling in an image thread, so adding images taken between 70-120mm on that trip that I debated 85mm vs 24-120mm on. Cheers for your thoughts Scott......all good and helpful.
Portrait at 96mm f4.0 (uncropped)
This shot I wouldn't have got with the 85mm 1.8S and appreciated 120mm f4.0 (slight crop as well)
100mm f9.0 image....really fought the editing process with this one (slight crop)
urbanwild wrote:
This is the journey I've travelled through as well.....considering keeping the lens aside for a while and see what happens in a few months. It's a valid point, but also a reason why I now have 26 lenses.
It's an interesting journey going through images and asking if other lenses would have sufficed or been better. I was away for almost a month on a trip with the 24-120, 28mm f2.8, 40mm f4, 14-30 f4, 50mm f1.8S and 85mm 1.8S. The trip had everything....street, landscapes, general touristy stuff and portraits of family. I started the trip with the safety of the 24-120 in hand and slowly found myself moving more towards the 28 and 40 for the most part. The 50 and 85 were mainly for a wedding which was golden....and the 14-30 was mainly for inside buildings. Anyway, I took 3000 images with the 24-120 and a third of the images were 70-120. Out of these, only 5-10 shots were ones that I really appreciated the extra range. The others were images I could have taken with the 85mm 1.8S and been as happy or happier....sharper for landscapes, more versatile for portraits. Cropping would have been required, but very few would have been cropped by much. Of interest, I took ~3300 images with the 28mm and 40mm.....more than the 24-120 and most of those were with the 28mm. Looking at the image quality, the 24-120 is better than the cheap plastic 28mm, but yet I am still happy with those 28mm images and found myself feeling more creative with my compositions taken with the little fixed focal length lens vs having the zoom.
So the age-old question.....does the versatility of the zoom actually impede one's creativity? I'm starting to feel so, at least for street photography. Zooms are incredible for landscapes where zooming with your feet has a different effort level, but then a 14-70mm range is usually more than enough. When it isn't, a 100-400 or 70-200 is nice to have.
So this is where I'm at.....the 24-120 is an incredible lens for what it is. There's no gripes worth selling this lens for. It's versatile and an incredible bang for the buck. Yet it's perhaps just getting in the way of where I think I need to go creatively. If only the 28, 35 apo and 40 lenses were weather sealed.
Realizing I'm babbling in an image thread, so adding images taken between 70-120mm on that trip that I debated 85mm vs 24-120mm on. Cheers for your thoughts Scott......all good and helpful.
I love that portrait, and it's exactly why I pick this lens up for portraits. Fantastic transitions, no hit of gnarliness in the foreground, enough bokeh to draw the eye to the subject, but not so much that everything is blown away, erasing all context.
RoamingScott wrote:
I love that portrait, and it's exactly why I pick this lens up for portraits. Fantastic transitions, no hit of gnarliness in the foreground, enough bokeh to draw the eye to the subject, but not so much that everything is blown away, erasing all context.
80-120mm at f4 on this lens is the money maker
Yeah, my eye is more drawn towards the portraits with some environmental context with or without some softness in the scene with a few blown out shots mixed in when artistically done. The 24-120 lens does provide "clean" images which I would not connect with the 28mm or 40mm SE lenses for example.
Last night I was 95% selling this lens. I compared the IQ again with some other lenses in my albums and now I'm at 85%. Thanks Scott .
I am just wrapping up my trip to Iceland. I thought that the 24-120 f/4 would see the most action, but it was used a little less that the 17-28mm f/2.8. BTW, for those looking for a small ultrawide with a fast aperture and more than adequate contrast, the 17-25 punches well above its price point. Anyway, the 24-120 f4 was magical when it was the right focal length. I am a long way from completing my edits, but here are a few that illustrate its capabilities.
cheers,
bruce
NIKON Z 8NIKKOR Z 24-120mm f/4 S lens47mmf/16.05s100 ISO-1.3 EV
NIKON Z 8NIKKOR Z 24-120mm f/4 S lens24mmf/22.03s64 ISO+0.7 EV
Isn't this supposed to be an image thread rather than a discussion of whether or not one should sell their copy? Those of us who value this lens come here to see images created with it, not someones comparisons. That said, when someone spends time on a thread to look for reasons to sell a lens, they are probably making a mistake and should reconsider. For Any lens I've sold, I never needed someone else's reassurance... I just knew it wasn't working for me and simply sold it, moved on
RoamingScott wrote:
You've already convinced yourself, no need for us to sway you. In fact, that would do a disservice, only you know what you want and need.
Maxxus46 wrote:
Isn't this supposed to be an image thread rather than a discussion of whether or not one should sell their copy? Those of us who value this lens come here to see images created with it, not someones comparisons. That said, when someone spends time on a thread to look for reasons to sell a lens, they are probably making a mistake and should reconsider. For Any lens I've sold, I never needed someone else's reassurance... I just knew it wasn't working for me and simply sold it, moved on
You can look at every other image thread and find comments / discussions. At least I added some images along the way.
Didn’t bother me in the least. Not sure why it would bug someone enough to mention it. There’s still tons of images here. And you post some very fine ones.
urbanwild wrote:
You can look at every other image thread and find comments / discussions. At least I added some images along the way.
newyork wrote:
Didn’t bother me in the least. Not sure why it would bug someone enough to mention it. There’s still tons of images here. And you post some very fine ones.
Thanks Rich. Comments like the above come out here and there on these threads and I agree with them when there's pages of back and forth arguing, but that wasn't the case here. Love your images as always by the way. You have a very clean, natural editing style which I think is timeless.
Appreciate that sir!! Truly. I just hit the 2 year mark.
urbanwild wrote:
Thanks Rich. Comments like the above come out here and there on these threads and I agree with them when there's pages of back and forth arguing, but that wasn't the case here. Love your images as always by the way. You have a very clean, natural editing style which I think is timeless.
It's an Image Thread for one specific lens, not a thread about competing lens choices. If someone wants to compare lenses , that's fine but start a new thread for those interested in that discussion. Some of us would rather avoid the gear talk (GAS) threads. I visited this image post to view images created by this excellent lens, but instead had to sift through gear commentary. How about discussing the photos and how/why they were created? More photography, less gear!
urbanwild wrote:
You can look at every other image thread and find comments / discussions. At least I added some images along the way.
, the 40mm f/2.0 really looks good also, and right now it's $100 off , very, very tempting.
. 
