Hi, Lara. Thanks for your response. I was thinking more about indoors (with flash) for this lens. I have the 24-70 f/2.8 but it's a brick. A solid gold brick, but a brick nonetheless.
By the way, thanks for your contribution to the civil rights thread over in weddings. I bailed from that one long ago. I'm probably a lot older than you, so will offer you this "wisdom" from a geezer: Never wrestle with a pig. You can't win, it annoys the pig, and you just get dirty. Peace and love, Sister.
John :
Natural selection is responsible for every living thing that exists.
D3s, D500, D5300, and way more glass than the wife knows about.
0
Options
Matthew SavilleRegistered Users, Retired ModPosts: 3,352Major grins
Hi, Lara. Thanks for your response. I was thinking more about indoors (with flash) for this lens. I have the 24-70 f/2.8 but it's a brick. A solid gold brick, but a brick nonetheless.
By the way, thanks for your contribution to the civil rights thread over in weddings. I bailed from that one long ago. I'm probably a lot older than you, so will offer you this "wisdom" from a geezer: Never wrestle with a pig. You can't win, it annoys the pig, and you just get dirty. Peace and love, Sister.
I have the 24-70 2.8 Nikon as well, but I'm dying to give the new 24-120 a spin... I'm just waiting for my local shop to get one in...
Why? I've got DOF to spare, shutter speed to spare, and ISO to spare *most* of the time, and *most* of the time I wish I had more than 70mm. It's a simple equation really. 24-120 would be great in decent light, and yeah I'd use the 24-70 when the light got super yucky...
Or, heck, that's what primes are for right?
I'm also a huge fan of a dual-camera setup; I'd love to have a 24-120 on one hip and a 85 1.4 on the other. That'd really make my day look beautiful...
yeah I tend to use higher iso rather than drag the shutter a touch for ambient indoor (flash) shots.
I also use primes because of how stupidly heavy the 24-70mm 2.8 and 70-200mm 2.8's are. They are so heavy that I need to shoot at higher shutters as I can't keep them still enough!
And john, I know what you mean re: the other thread.
Hi, Lara. Thanks for your response. I was thinking more about indoors (with flash) for this lens. I have the 24-70 f/2.8 but it's a brick. A solid gold brick, but a brick nonetheless.
By the way, thanks for your contribution to the civil rights thread over in weddings. I bailed from that one long ago. I'm probably a lot older than you, so will offer you this "wisdom" from a geezer: Never wrestle with a pig. You can't win, it annoys the pig, and you just get dirty. Peace and love, Sister.
I don't shoot Nikon so I can't help you with that one, but I would rather use a solid gold brick than poor quality feather.
It can also be lots of fun to wrestle the little piggy and get all muddy. The trick is to understand the fun is in the process and that winning ain't gona happen.
I have the 24-70 2.8 Nikon as well, but I'm dying to give the new 24-120 a spin... I'm just waiting for my local shop to get one in...
Why? I've got DOF to spare, shutter speed to spare, and ISO to spare *most* of the time, and *most* of the time I wish I had more than 70mm. It's a simple equation really. 24-120 would be great in decent light, and yeah I'd use the 24-70 when the light got super yucky...
Or, heck, that's what primes are for right?
I'm also a huge fan of a dual-camera setup; I'd love to have a 24-120 on one hip and a 85 1.4 on the other. That'd really make my day look beautiful...
=Matt=
=Matt=
That would be a good setup. I'd say the weakest part of the 24-120mm f/4 is it's 85-105mm range.
I have been rocking the 24-120mm f/4 for awhile now. If you really need large aperture lens, nothing will beat a good prime. If you need super shallow DoF, get a prime or longer lens. If you want a fast and reliable auto focus in a very good all around zoom that will give you pretty good color rendering, the 24-120 f/4 is your ticket.
0
Options
Matthew SavilleRegistered Users, Retired ModPosts: 3,352Major grins
That would be a good setup. I'd say the weakest part of the 24-120mm f/4 is it's 85-105mm range.
I have been rocking the 24-120mm f/4 for awhile now. If you really need large aperture lens, nothing will beat a good prime. If you need super shallow DoF, get a prime or longer lens. If you want a fast and reliable auto focus in a very good all around zoom that will give you pretty good color rendering, the 24-120 f/4 is your ticket.
Yep, honestly if you really need aperture in a mid-range zoom with as much reach as possible, just get a D800 to use with the 24-70 2.8, and configure DX crop mode to be easy-access on one of the customizable buttons.
Or, if you just need aperture beyond 70mm but you don't wanna lug around / pay for the 70-200, ...then the 105 f/2 or 135 f/2 (or the Sigma 150 f/2.8 OS) ...all make great alternatives. (And Nikon should probably be making a new f/2 tele prime soon, I hope!)
Well, if I don't pick up the 24-120, I was thinking of using the 24-70 on the D700 and my 85 f/1.4 on the D300, so it'd be like a 125. Hello foot-zoom.
John :
Natural selection is responsible for every living thing that exists.
D3s, D500, D5300, and way more glass than the wife knows about.
0
Options
Matthew SavilleRegistered Users, Retired ModPosts: 3,352Major grins
Well, if I don't pick up the 24-120, I was thinking of using the 24-70 on the D700 and my 85 f/1.4 on the D300, so it'd be like a 125. Hello foot-zoom.
I shot a lot with the 85 1.4 on a D300, and honestly while it's pretty awesome, it feels like it lets me down kinda often compared to the D700. As far as focusing and sharpness / image quality, that is. Unless you're shooting at ISO 100-200 and have the lens perfectly calibrated, I prefer to shoot on full-frame.
I shot a lot with the 85 1.4 on a D300, and honestly while it's pretty awesome, it feels like it lets me down kinda often compared to the D700. As far as focusing and sharpness / image quality, that is. Unless you're shooting at ISO 100-200 and have the lens perfectly calibrated, I prefer to shoot on full-frame.
=Matt=
Advice noted. Do you think that speaks more to the comparison between the D300 and D700 or to the combination of the lens and D300? I only have one D700, so can't carry both lenses mounted on D700s.
John :
Natural selection is responsible for every living thing that exists.
D3s, D500, D5300, and way more glass than the wife knows about.
John, is the reason you are looking at the 24-120 because the 24-70 is a beast to carry around or is it the focal length you are interested in?
The reason I ask is, although I don't do weddings and never will, I am really enjoying the 35-70mm 2.8 I recently purchased for doing families and groups. It's much smaller than the 24-70 while still a solid pro build and I can't find much wrong with the images it produces on the D-700. Only issue with it is lens flare when shooting into bright light. Gotta use the hood! Haven't used it on a crop sensor.
Pristine copies can be found in the 300 - 350.00 price range. Just a thought.
0
Options
Matthew SavilleRegistered Users, Retired ModPosts: 3,352Major grins
Advice noted. Do you think that speaks more to the comparison between the D300 and D700 or to the combination of the lens and D300? I only have one D700, so can't carry both lenses mounted on D700s.
After letting my D300 gather dust for almost a year since getting the D700, I've recently begun to start shooting again with both cameras side by side, using various different flagship and third-party lenses...
With the two 2.8's I regularly use, the 24-70 and 70-200 mk2, the D300 can hold it's own as long as it has the right AF fine tuning plugged in. And it always seems like the D300 needs a little bit more attention to AF fine tuning than the D700, but maybe I just got lucky with my copy of the D700.
When switching to f/1.4 primes, I do find that the D300 isn't as nail-it-every-time accurate as the D700 is. But again, if you pay close attention to the AF calibration; you can get just as good results.
All in all, I can't exactly discourage it, just encourage caution and a technical mastery of on-location focus calibration adjustments...
Thanks Matt. I've set up calibration tests for all my lens/body combos (I think) and have been amazed that I haven't had to tweak anything. Kinda irritated me, cause I wanted to feel like all that micro-focusing stuff was there for a reason.
John :
Natural selection is responsible for every living thing that exists.
D3s, D500, D5300, and way more glass than the wife knows about.
0
Options
Matthew SavilleRegistered Users, Retired ModPosts: 3,352Major grins
Thanks Matt. I've set up calibration tests for all my lens/body combos (I think) and have been amazed that I haven't had to tweak anything. Kinda irritated me, cause I wanted to feel like all that micro-focusing stuff was there for a reason.
Oh trust me, it is... You may get lucky for now, but sooner or later it'll come in handy, I promise!
Comments
w. www.laraluz.com
s. about.me/laraluz
By the way, thanks for your contribution to the civil rights thread over in weddings. I bailed from that one long ago. I'm probably a lot older than you, so will offer you this "wisdom" from a geezer: Never wrestle with a pig. You can't win, it annoys the pig, and you just get dirty. Peace and love, Sister.
Natural selection is responsible for every living thing that exists.
D3s, D500, D5300, and way more glass than the wife knows about.
I have the 24-70 2.8 Nikon as well, but I'm dying to give the new 24-120 a spin... I'm just waiting for my local shop to get one in...
Why? I've got DOF to spare, shutter speed to spare, and ISO to spare *most* of the time, and *most* of the time I wish I had more than 70mm. It's a simple equation really. 24-120 would be great in decent light, and yeah I'd use the 24-70 when the light got super yucky...
Or, heck, that's what primes are for right?
I'm also a huge fan of a dual-camera setup; I'd love to have a 24-120 on one hip and a 85 1.4 on the other. That'd really make my day look beautiful...
=Matt=
=Matt=
My SmugMug Portfolio • My Astro-Landscape Photo Blog • Dgrin Weddings Forum
I also use primes because of how stupidly heavy the 24-70mm 2.8 and 70-200mm 2.8's are. They are so heavy that I need to shoot at higher shutters as I can't keep them still enough!
And john, I know what you mean re: the other thread.
w. www.laraluz.com
s. about.me/laraluz
I don't shoot Nikon so I can't help you with that one, but I would rather use a solid gold brick than poor quality feather.
It can also be lots of fun to wrestle the little piggy and get all muddy. The trick is to understand the fun is in the process and that winning ain't gona happen.
Sam
You can always give the lens a rental to see how you like it.
www.tednghiem.com
The lens reinforced why I shoot primes only.
facebook.com/robertchenphotography
As said above, the best thing to do is rent and put it to work. See if it fits your requirements.
That would be a good setup. I'd say the weakest part of the 24-120mm f/4 is it's 85-105mm range.
I have been rocking the 24-120mm f/4 for awhile now. If you really need large aperture lens, nothing will beat a good prime. If you need super shallow DoF, get a prime or longer lens. If you want a fast and reliable auto focus in a very good all around zoom that will give you pretty good color rendering, the 24-120 f/4 is your ticket.
Yep, honestly if you really need aperture in a mid-range zoom with as much reach as possible, just get a D800 to use with the 24-70 2.8, and configure DX crop mode to be easy-access on one of the customizable buttons.
Or, if you just need aperture beyond 70mm but you don't wanna lug around / pay for the 70-200, ...then the 105 f/2 or 135 f/2 (or the Sigma 150 f/2.8 OS) ...all make great alternatives. (And Nikon should probably be making a new f/2 tele prime soon, I hope!)
=Matt=
My SmugMug Portfolio • My Astro-Landscape Photo Blog • Dgrin Weddings Forum
Natural selection is responsible for every living thing that exists.
D3s, D500, D5300, and way more glass than the wife knows about.
I shot a lot with the 85 1.4 on a D300, and honestly while it's pretty awesome, it feels like it lets me down kinda often compared to the D700. As far as focusing and sharpness / image quality, that is. Unless you're shooting at ISO 100-200 and have the lens perfectly calibrated, I prefer to shoot on full-frame.
=Matt=
My SmugMug Portfolio • My Astro-Landscape Photo Blog • Dgrin Weddings Forum
Natural selection is responsible for every living thing that exists.
D3s, D500, D5300, and way more glass than the wife knows about.
The reason I ask is, although I don't do weddings and never will, I am really enjoying the 35-70mm 2.8 I recently purchased for doing families and groups. It's much smaller than the 24-70 while still a solid pro build and I can't find much wrong with the images it produces on the D-700. Only issue with it is lens flare when shooting into bright light. Gotta use the hood! Haven't used it on a crop sensor.
Pristine copies can be found in the 300 - 350.00 price range. Just a thought.
After letting my D300 gather dust for almost a year since getting the D700, I've recently begun to start shooting again with both cameras side by side, using various different flagship and third-party lenses...
With the two 2.8's I regularly use, the 24-70 and 70-200 mk2, the D300 can hold it's own as long as it has the right AF fine tuning plugged in. And it always seems like the D300 needs a little bit more attention to AF fine tuning than the D700, but maybe I just got lucky with my copy of the D700.
When switching to f/1.4 primes, I do find that the D300 isn't as nail-it-every-time accurate as the D700 is. But again, if you pay close attention to the AF calibration; you can get just as good results.
All in all, I can't exactly discourage it, just encourage caution and a technical mastery of on-location focus calibration adjustments...
=Matt=
My SmugMug Portfolio • My Astro-Landscape Photo Blog • Dgrin Weddings Forum
Yes.
No, seriously, mostly for the range. I love the 24-70 but think the extra reach would be good to have on occasion. I'm really used to the heft.
Natural selection is responsible for every living thing that exists.
D3s, D500, D5300, and way more glass than the wife knows about.
Natural selection is responsible for every living thing that exists.
D3s, D500, D5300, and way more glass than the wife knows about.
Oh trust me, it is... You may get lucky for now, but sooner or later it'll come in handy, I promise!
=Matt=
My SmugMug Portfolio • My Astro-Landscape Photo Blog • Dgrin Weddings Forum