Nikon D810 With 24 120mm Lens

Nivedita wrote:

I am a current Pentax Grand-one user. Though I like the photographic camera, the lack of zoom lenses (I really need 70-200mm) and less than satisfactory AF, I am thinking of switching from Pentax or at least add together a Nikon arrangement. Since I am familiar with the 36MP sensor, I am thinking of getting the Nikon D810. I meet some deep discounts for Nikon D810 with 24-120mm lens combo and interested in making the movement. Nonetheless, I am non certain whether information technology is a skilful combo. The other option is Canon 5D Marking 4, but is expensive.

I will exist using this camera for a lot of effect and portraits type shooting (hence looking for 70-200 F2.8 VR II). Though Pentax has some really nice prime lenses, the zoom lenses are not peachy. I am reading mixed reviews about Pentax seventy-200 F2.eight

I am thinking that the replacement for D810 might be around the corner, just that is true for all manufactures (something amend volition come upward afterwards – always). But with a mature production similar D810, I am hoping to become more than value.

Your comments and suggestions are greatly appreciated.

-Nivedita

re 24-120 f/4 VR I would say information technology depends on price. You tin find used ones in the $500-$600 range so annihilation more than than that for the bodily lens cost might not be a corking bargain. I bought the d750 with 24-120 for $2299, whihc makes the lens $300 at that time (the same bundle is now $2499). At $300 information technology’s a steal.

I was contemplating upgrading the 24-120 VR with the Nikon 24-lxx 2.8 (non-VR) and did some tests. I rented a 24-70 and shot 27 different compositions outdoors, mimicing shots I might actually shoot. I shot both wide open, equally that is how I would use them nearly of the time if I owned them. I chose which pic I would rather keep for each composition. Surprisingly, I establish that the 24-120 shots I would rather keep on 20 of the compostions, while the 24-seventy only vii of the compositions. Basically the 24-70 won all the close up flower shots and the 24-120 won everything else. The number one difference was contrast and color, which I constitute more than desirable with the 24-120. Contrast was markedly different. If they were both shot at f/five.half dozen perhaps the results would exist different.

So for an all-rounder I prefer the 24-120. And it indeed has performed well in real world utilise. The versatility of being able to go out to 120 is very helpful. Also the VR is very helpful if you occasionally exercise video. Hither are some examples of the 24-120 from 2 unlike hikes which shows the best thing virtually this lens, that information technology’south pretty much ready for anything and delivers great results.:

wide angle hike 1

wide bending hike ane

Surprise demand for zoom rattlesnake eaten by kingsnake hike 1

Surprise need for zoom hike one

Wide hike 2

wide hike ii

surprise zoom hike 2

surprise demand for zoom hike 2

Thanks, Mike

P.South. If it is a case of buying either the 24-120 in kit course or the 24-seventy, what you salvage on the 24-120 would become a heck of a long fashion to paying for the splendid lxx-200 two.8 VR Ii

The Nikon 24-120 is a good lens: I’ve got i, and information technology’s underrated in my view. However for the same coin – in fact rather less – you tin go the Tamron 24-70. This gives you another stop (f/two.8) and it is likewise significantly sharper.

True, information technology doesn’t go to 120, but the 24-120 loses sharpness at the acme end of the range, especially at the edge. If you don’t need 120 all the time, with 36 Mpixel yous can afford to crop a scrap with a sharp lens!

— hide signature —

Simon

Simon Garrett wrote:

The Nikon 24-120 is a good lens: I’ve got one, and it’s underrated in my view. However for the same money – in fact rather less – you can become the Tamron 24-70. This gives you another stop (f/ii.8) and information technology is also significantly sharper.

True, it doesn’t get to 120, merely the 24-120 loses sharpness at the height end of the range, particularly at the edge. If y’all don’t need 120 all the time, with 36 Mpixel yous can afford to crop a bit with a sharp lens!

FYI photography life shows the 24-120 f/iv VR to be sharper than the tamron 24-70 at 24mm and 70mm at f/4 (run into links below).

Also the Tamron 24-70 f/2.eight costs $1300 new while the 24-120 f/4 can be institute from $300-$700 new when purchased in a kit.

https://photographylife.com/reviews/nikon-24-120mm-f4g-vr/four

https://photographylife.com/reviews/tamron-24-70mm-f2-eight/iv

nice pics. where were you?

— hibernate signature —

Robert Sommers

saaber1 wrote:

Nivedita wrote:

I am a electric current Pentax K-i user. Though I similar the photographic camera, the lack of zoom lenses (I really need 70-200mm) and less than satisfactory AF, I am thinking of switching from Pentax or at to the lowest degree add together a Nikon organisation. Since I am familiar with the 36MP sensor, I am thinking of getting the Nikon D810. I meet some deep discounts for Nikon D810 with 24-120mm lens philharmonic and interested in making the move. Withal, I am not sure whether it is a practiced combo. The other option is Canon 5D Mark Four, only is expensive.

I will be using this photographic camera for a lot of event and portraits type shooting (hence looking for 70-200 F2.8 VR II). Though Pentax has some actually nice prime lenses, the zoom lenses are not great. I am reading mixed reviews nearly Pentax 70-200 F2.8

I am thinking that the replacement for D810 might be around the corner, simply that is truthful for all articles (something better will come up subsequently – ever). Merely with a mature product similar D810, I am hoping to get more than value.

Your comments and suggestions are greatly appreciated.

-Nivedita

re 24-120 f/4 VR I would say it depends on price. Y’all can find used ones in the $500-$600 range so anything more than that for the bodily lens cost might non be a neat bargain. I bought the d750 with 24-120 for $2299, whihc makes the lens $300 at that fourth dimension (the same bundle is at present $2499). At $300 information technology’s a steal.

I was contemplating upgrading the 24-120 VR with the Nikon 24-seventy 2.eight (not-VR) and did some tests. I rented a 24-70 and shot 27 different compositions outdoors, mimicing shots I might actually shoot. I shot both wide open, as that is how I would use them well-nigh of the time if I owned them. I chose which motion picture I would rather keep for each composition. Surprisingly, I establish that the 24-120 shots I would rather keep on 20 of the compostions, while the 24-70 merely 7 of the compositions. Basically the 24-70 won all the close upward blossom shots and the 24-120 won everything else. The number one difference was contrast and color, which I institute more desirable with the 24-120. Contrast was markedly unlike. If they were both shot at f/v.6 mayhap the results would exist different.

Then for an all-rounder I prefer the 24-120. And it indeed has performed well in existent world use. The versatility of beingness able to go out to 120 is very helpful. Also the VR is very helpful if you lot occasionally do video. Here are some examples of the 24-120 from ii unlike hikes which shows the best matter about this lens, that it’s pretty much ready for anything and delivers nifty results.:

broad angle hike i

broad angle hike 1

Surprise need for zoom rattlesnake eaten by kingsnake hike one

Surprise need for zoom hike 1

Wide hike 2

wide hike 2

surprise zoom hike two

surprise demand for zoom hike 2

Thanks, Mike

P.S. If it is a case of buying either the 24-120 in kit class or the 24-70, what you save on the 24-120 would go a heck of a long style to paying for the excellent 70-200 ii.viii VR II

Thanks. In that location are excellent photographs !!?

-Nivedita

By the fashion, I wouldn’t practice it. The D810 is such an amazing camera that the lenses should be impeccable every bit well. Don’t sacrifice image quality for whatsoever reason. Aim for perfection.

I can get by with the nikkor 24-70mm for 85% of my shots, I often don’t pull the 70-200mm vr out of the bag even on long trips. And it is my sharpest lens. You don’t desire a swiss army knife that does everything pretty well, you want a fine instrument that does things perfectly.

I am going to shoot in Italy adjacent week and I am only taking the D810 and the 24-70.

Get a 24 -70 and await until your demand is absolute. Or that is my stance anyway.

Cañon Blanco sunset

— hide signature —

Robert Sommers

saaber1 wrote:

Simon Garrett wrote:

The Nikon 24-120 is a good lens: I’ve got one, and it’s underrated in my view. Withal for the same money – in fact rather less – you can get the Tamron 24-70. This gives you lot some other cease (f/ii.viii) and it is also significantly sharper.

True, information technology doesn’t become to 120, but the 24-120 loses sharpness at the top terminate of the range, specially at the edge. If y’all don’t need 120 all the time, with 36 Mpixel you can afford to ingather a flake with a sharp lens!

FYI photography life shows the 24-120 f/4 VR to be sharper than the tamron 24-70 at 24mm and 70mm at f/4 (encounter links below).

Too the Tamron 24-seventy f/two.8 costs $1300 new while the 24-120 f/iv tin be found from $300-$700 new when purchased in a kit.

Nikon 24-120mm f/4G VR Review

Tamron SP 24-70mm f/2.8 VC Review

Interesting! I know dissimilar tests on different copies of lens can go different results, just I did comparisons of my Tamron 24-70 and my Nikon 24-120, right across the range of discontinuity and focal length, and I compared centre and edge. At f/four the Tamron was every bit sharp or sharper at every focal length, eye and edge. The photozone.de tests evidence the Tamron sharper at those weather condition (though non by much), and then practise the DXOmark tests. There’south also more than CA in the Nikon at the border, and more vignetting – although I don’t worry much nearly either, equally Lightroom (and other software) deal with that pretty well.

However, I’ll not fence that the 24-120 is a good lens. I wonder if Nasim got a bad copy of the Tamron, as the photozone.de tests give higher resolution numbers. Information technology is sometimes said that there is more variation betwixt copies of Tamron lenses (compared to Nikon), though I’ve no experience of that.

Good point nigh the kit toll – I’d overlooked that.

— hide signature —

Simon

Robert Sommers wrote:

nice pics. where were you?

Hike one was Central Or. I’ll paste some other moving-picture show(s) below. Cool area. Volcanic glass lava flow final pics

Hike 2 was Yosemite. That trivial mud puddle is what is left of “Mirror Lake” Information technology’due south mostly all filled in with sediment now.

Border of volcanic drinking glass lava flow

I am besides getting the 70-200mm F2.viii VR Ii and it will be my primary lens for my use. The 24-120mm will be used as a generic walk around lens and if I am non satisfied with it , I will upgrade to Nikon 24-70mm or Tamron. Since I am paying only $675 for the lens (I am purchasing it along with D810), I thought information technology is good price.

-Nivedita

Nivedita wrote:

I am also getting the 70-200mm F2.8 VR II and it will be my primary lens for my use. The 24-120mm will be used as a generic walk around lens and if I am non satisfied with it , I will upgrade to Nikon 24-70mm or Tamron. Since I am paying only $675 for the lens (I am purchasing it along with D810), I thought it is good price.

-Nivedita

That is a great toll for a new lens. I benefit that is really disquisitional correct now is the ability to return something if it is less than it should be. For exsmple if d810 has some result or lens isn’t abrupt.

I recently bought a Nikon 85mm 1.4G for $1600 new. In my testing it was less abrupt than the 24-120. According to DXO and others, the 85 1.4G is the sharpest lens yous tin can go for the d750 short of a Zeiss Otus so I new something was upward. I returned information technology for another re-create of the 85 1.4G which was tack sharp. So my point is that whatever lens can be a dud and don’t hesitate to render it inside the xiv days (or whatever) if information technology is not up to snuff. That’due south one of the benefits of ownership new that is often overlooked I retrieve.

Another oftentimes overlooked benefit is that both the lxx-200 VRII and the 24-120 f/4 VR take 77mm filter sizes. That ways you can buy ane highest stop filter, such as
this
high light transmission, thin, circular polarizer and use information technology for both lenses. Contrast that with the demand to buy several filter sizes where you would probably desire to go low finish due to the need to have so many filters of diverse sizes. Also for any lens you have now or in the time to come you can buy a $eight step up band from the other lenses thread size to 77mm. Saves tons of coin because everything is standardized at 77mm (except lenses bigger than that of course) and ensures you are always using the highest quality filters.

The 24-120 is extremely practiced value at the cost when it is included in some parcel trunk deals.

— hide signature —

Leonard Shepherd
You can buy kit. The rest is mainly down to you.
The more you lot practice, as with a musical instrument, the amend you lot are likely to become.

Are y’all certain you aren’t looking for a problem that isn’t really at that place?

Granted, the D810 has amend AF than the K1, just for full general photography yous aren’t probable to notice a difference. Sports, perhaps, but for portraits I can’t run across whatever advantage at all.

The Pentax 70-200m has decent reviews. And the Pentax WR100 macro is very very good and makes a decent portrait lens.

Unless you shoot sports and really Need better 3D tracking ( where admittedy the Nikon is much better ) and then I see no point in moving.

K1 is capable of scenic quality – particularly in portraiture. Why switch?