*another* lens advice thread...

ridetwistyroads

So, tell me. Heh.

I was considering this lens, 24-85mm G to supplement my LACKING collection. I currently have a prime 50mm lens, super clear but fully manual and not terrible versitile. I also have a super cheap 70-300mm, not clear or fast or IF(!), but, I only payed about 60 bucks, so I can't complain. It doens't look *that* bad. :rofl

Anyways, I had some high marks come my way about that 24-85mm, so I was gonna do that. I'm tooling around in b+h and come accross this, a 24-120mm g with VR, so, what's the catch? Pay a bit more, get the same speed at close range, ADD focal length, and ADD vr? Why wouldn't I do this? Do I loose sharpness the more variable a lenses focal length is?

What's the catch? :scratch I'm learning here, but this seems like a better lens all around. I however am unwilling to compromise quality. If the 24-85 is sharper, then I'd choose it.

Thanks for the advice all! :thumb

Harryb

I've never used the 24-85 so I can't say much about it. I do have the 24-120VR lens and I'm very happy with it. It does better at the long end than the wide end but the overall pic quality has been good. The focusing is extremely fast and accurate. The VR works wonders, I've handheld at speeds of slower than 1/10 of a second with good results.

Its an excellent walk around lens, IMHO. They are some who hate the lens and they are others who love it. If you want professional quality glass the 24-120 isn't it.

ridetwistyroads

Harryb wrote:

I've never used the 24-85 so I can't say much about it. I do have the 24-120VR lens and I'm very happy with it. It does better at the long end than the wide end but the overall pic quality has been good. The focusing is extremely fast and accurate. The VR works wonders, I've handheld at speeds of slower than 1/10 of a second with good results.

Its an excellent walk around lens, IMHO. They are some who hate the lens and they are others who love it. If you want professional quality glass the 24-120 isn't it.

Thanks for the feedback, Harry. And the vote of confidence in the lens, and specificlly the VR function. It sounds like it's better then I think it is, and have high expectations of my gear.

If the 24-120 isn't pro qual glass, would you mind throwing a couple lens suggestions at me? Something with simular walk around range. Open to anything, I'm window shopping right now, and next week will be pulling the trigger. So, I'm open to anything, I want to know as much as possible before I slap down the green stuff.

Thanks again.

Harryb

ridetwistyroads wrote:

Thanks for the feedback, Harry. And the vote of confidence in the lens, and specificlly the VR function. It sounds like it's better then I think it is, and have high expectations of my gear.

If the 24-120 isn't pro qual glass, would you mind throwing a couple lens suggestions at me? Something with simular walk around range. Open to anything, I'm window shopping right now, and next week will be pulling the trigger. So, I'm open to anything, I want to know as much as possible before I slap down the green stuff.

Thanks again.

If you want pro quality and have the deep pockets there are two outstanding lenses.

The 28-70/2.8 for around $1300-1400 and the 17-55/2.8 for around $1350. You get more range with the 28-70 and less range but a wider angle with the 17-55. Which one is a better fit would depend on your shooting style.

You can see reviews of the 17-55 and the 24-120 here http://bythom.com/nikon.htm

Personally of the 3 I feel that the 24-120 at 1/3 of the price of the other two is a better buy. That's a consumer with a limited budget choice. If $ is not that major of an issue for you I would say that the 17-55 is the best glass of the three.

ridetwistyroads

Thank you again, Harry. I would tend to agree with you, with there being such a large differences in price. I went and played with the 24-120 tonight and it felt nice, I believe that will be my choice.

Thanks again,
Chris

Andy

Harryb wrote:

If you want pro quality and have the deep pockets there are two outstanding lenses.

The 28-70/2.8 for around $1300-1400 and the 17-55/2.8 for around $1350. You get more range with the 28-70 and less range but a wider angle with the 17-55. Which one is a better fit would depend on your shooting style.

You can see reviews of the 17-55 and the 24-120 here http://bythom.com/nikon.htm

Personally of the 3 I feel that the 24-120 at 1/3 of the price of the other two is a better buy. That's a consumer with a limited budget choice. If $ is not that major of an issue for you I would say that the 17-55 is the best glass of the three.

damn harry, i may just switch to nikon!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Harryb

andy wrote:

damn harry, i may just switch to nikon!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Sorry too late. We won't have you. The Canonites are stuck with you. :smack

ridetwistyroads

Mucho Appreciato
Thanks all. :


My 24-85mm came in the mail today, shots to be posted in the next few days.
I'm spending the weekend with an old photography friend, so I gotta start cleaning space up on my laptop! Gonna be alot of shots to process.