24-120 f/4 as Dx portrait lens

<p>To cut a long story short. I shoot 90% portraiture in a studio or controlled lighting using a D300. After the untimely demise of my Tamron 28-75 f/2.8, I am currently using a old Nikon 28-80 f/3.6 - f/5.6. This lens covers the majority of the focal length I tend to use, but moving forward I'm looking to upgrade. The current consideration is the 24-120 f/4 VR combined with a combination of primes. The catch being the price of the lens, the advantage being the focal range. While the 24-70 f/2.8 is a better lens, I would miss the extended range as I often shoot longer than 70mm . I've not been able to find any definitive tests of that lens on Dx, so have to guestimate it's performance in that enviroment. Yes, 24mm is not very wide on Dx, but I prefer working longer than that, and do have other lens options to full in if needed.<br>

Does anyone have any experience with that lens on Dx and would you go that route if you were in my shoes? Another possibility is a 2nd hand 28-105, or the new 24-85 VR, which are both considerably cheaper.</p>

<p>Thx for your feedback.</p>

<p>This site has some info on IQ relating to DX centre and, importantly edges....</p>

<p>http://www.lenstip.com/283.4-Lens_review-Nikon_Nikkor_AF-S_24-120_mm_f_4G_ED_VR_Image_resolution.html</p>

<p>It's a lens I've never used, but am still looking at if the price drops a little.</p>

 

<p>Why not just replace the lens you had (assuming you were happy with it)?</p>

<p>Wayne,</p>

<p>Are you seeking justification to buy the 24-120 or are you looking for an optimal set up? My first reaction was, that's an expensive solution which does not quite seem to satisfy your needs....<br /> Why not go for a 50mm 1.4 Sigma and a 85 1.8 AFS Nikkor?</p>

<p>The OP wants to shoot longer than 70mm and feels it's time for an upgrade, so I think the 24-85mm VR or the 24-120mm f4 are good choices.</p>

<p>The older 24-120mm 3.5/5,6 is much cheaper than it's replacement, but there have been some pretty iffy reviews of it.</p>

<p>EDIT</p>

<blockquote>

<p> <br>

The current consideration is the 24-120 f/4 VR combined with a combination of primes</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>That would seem to be a bit too much of over-kill, financially a least!</p>

<p><em>"</em><em>While the 24-70 f/2.8 is a better lens, I would miss the extended range"</em> A one lens solution may not be the right solution if IQ is important to you. I have not used the Tamron 24-70mm nor am I much of an advocate for 3rd partly lenses but I doubt the 24-120mm would be an upgrade. </p>

<p>My suggestion... replace the lens and get a 2nd one to cover the longer end you seem to want.</p>

<p>So, what focal ranges are you often using in your studios, if 70mm is too short? Are you even going as low as 50mm? Lenses built for wide angle such as the 24-120mm have some elements (i.e. the aspheric elements) that help its wide angle, but make it less attractive for dedicated telephoto work. The other question is aperture. Also, what apertures do you shoot at, because you're throwing out dedicated f/2.8 lenses and variable aperture f/5.6 lenses in the same sentence? If I were looking for a short studio telephoto right now, I'd be taking a close look at the Sigma 50-150mm f/2.8 OS. It's about the same price as the 24-120mm, about $1,000 out the door, but I'd put the performance of a dedicated telephoto lens up against a large-range midrange zoom any day of the week, and twice on Sunday. It's also f/2.8 throughout the zoom range.</p>

<p>So, what focal ranges are you often using in your studios, if 70mm is too short? Are you even going as low as 50mm? Lenses built for wide angle such as the 24-120mm have some elements (i.e. the aspheric elements) that help its wide angle, but make it less attractive for dedicated telephoto work. The other question is aperture. Also, what apertures do you shoot at, because you're throwing out dedicated f/2.8 lenses and variable aperture f/5.6 lenses in the same sentence? If I were looking for a short studio telephoto right now, I'd be taking a close look at the Sigma 50-150mm f/2.8 OS. It's about the same price as the 24-120mm, about $1,000 out the door, but I'd put the performance of a dedicated telephoto lens up against a large-range midrange zoom any day of the week, and twice on Sunday. It's also f/2.8 throughout the zoom range.</p>

<p>I have the 24-120 f/4 VR, but I have not (yet) used it on DX. While my first impressions with the lens are certainly favourable, I would not really see it as a portrait lens much - the OoF handling isn't as smooth as I'd like for that, but most of all, I do not especially like how it renders skin colours; it's too contrasty and satured (and yes, I can tame that down in PP, but simply saying there are lenses that are nicer for it). VR does not really come into play, with studio controlled lights either. And it's still quite large, heavy, and indeed not cheap. So all in all, it is a really nice lens, but it does not seem the logical choice to me.</p>

<p>I'd follow Elliot's line of thinking: the Tamron 28-75 still exists, costs a lot less, and it's f/2.8 instead. Try to find a nice Sigma 50-150 f/2.8 or Tokina 50-135 f/2.8 to cover that extended range, and I think you'd have a much nicer setup for your needs.</p>

<p>The 24-120/4 is not at its strongest towards the long end though not bad, it's just not as good as e.g. the 70-200/2.8's. I see it more as a lens for travel and outdoor event photography. In the studio I tend to use 24-70, 45 PC-E and 105/2 DC a lot (on FX). I don't necessarily recommend the 105 DC for DX use; its rendering is better suited for FX. The 105 VR may come into question as an extension of the 24-70 for DX use as it is sharper in the center than (FX) corners. The 85/1.8 or f/1.4 AF-S would be excellent choices if the FL is sufficient for you. The 24-70 is excellent stopped down to apertures typically used in the studio also on DX cameras such as the D7000. At 24mm it's less excellent on DX especially towards longer focal lengths and the corners, but in the studio or when using controlled lighting you might not need to shoot at longer distances. BTW I found the 17-55 DX to be excellent for lit portraiture, but you specify a need for longer focal lengths. I guess I prefer to shoot at closer proximity to the subject.</p>

<p>The 70-200/4 is coming out soon (November or December) and it might fit your needs, perhaps paired with the 24-70. For studio / controlled light portraiture you're probably shooting mostly stopped way down anyway.</p>

<p>I have had the 24-120mm/f4 AF-S VR shortly after it was introduced in 2010. It is a 5x zoom so that there is some optical compromises, but overall it is an excellent lens, on FX and DX alike.</p>

<p>Clearly 24mm is not very wide on DX. If that issue does not bother you as the OP's main concern seems to be on the long end, the 24-120 should work well for you. For portraits, extreme sharpness is not critical. However, you need to keep in mind that this is an f4 lens; it is not going to give you the shallow depth of field from the like of f1.8 or even f2.8, etc. There are people who prefer those extreme shallow depth of field for portraits; I am not one of them, but for those people, this is probably not the right lens.</p>

<p>The 24-120mm/f4 AF-S VR can also focus to quite close, but from a close distance, it is not that sharp and its difference from dedicated macro lenses is very obvious.</p>

<p>I second the suggestion for a Sigma 50-150mm f/2.8. I have no qualms at all on using third party lenses. I've used the original Sigma 50-150 for portraits (now have the new optical stabilized version) and it's worked very well on my D300s. I usually work with 70mm, equivalent to the long standing pro portrait length of 105mm.</p>

<p>On a D300 I think the 24-120 f/4 would work quite well. I have this lens and use it on FX (D700, D800), and I used it on my D300s before I traded that camera in. On DX, the lens is outstanding. On FX the distortion throughout the focal range is quite pronounced and ugly (but easily correctable in Photoshop). On your D300 I think it will work very well since you are only using the center of the frame. Aside from it's weight (it's 1.6 pounds...almost as heavy as the pro-level 24-70, which is 2 pounds), it also works well as a walking around lens on FX for travel if you ever go with an FX camera. Also, if you are shooting above f/5.6 in the studio, you won't notice much difference between the 24-120 and the 24-70.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I'd follow Elliot's line of thinking: the Tamron 28-75 still exists, costs a lot less, and it's f/2.8 instead. Try to find a nice Sigma 50-150 f/2.8 or Tokina 50-135 f/2.8 to cover that extended range, and I think you'd have a much nicer setup for your needs.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>i have the tamron 28-75 and the sigma 50-150 II (non-OS version). some thoughts: the tamron is a genuine sleeper of a lens. it's easy to overlook, and not much to look at, but you end up circling back to it. one thing that's nice about it, besides its very good to excellent optics, decent bokeh, and low price, is its close-focusing performance, which i believe approaches 1:3. the biggest knock on it is AF speed in low light, which wouldnt be a problem in a studio environment. if you dont need the wide end, it's great for DX portraits. but you already know that. the 50-150 is also a sleeper IMO. i've compared it to the 70-200VR II and it's hard to discern the difference on DX. the nikon is perhaps sharper at 2.8, but not by much if at all. for what you want to do--studio portraits--that's an excellent 1-2 combination. the nikon 24-120/4 is $1300. that's a lot to pay for a lens which makes more sense as a travel/casual-use FX superzoom and loses a stop of aperture. you could replace the 28-75 and pick up a used 50-150 non-OS (version II is a bit better at the long end) for a lot less. the sigmas go for as little as $375 used on auction sites. at that price, you could also pick up a (used) nikon 85/1.8 or a tamron 90mm and get three lenses highly appropriate for your work for the price of one only somewhat-appropriate lens.</p>

<p>I never liked the 24-120/4, but I was looking at it from a walk-around and landscape angle. For studio portraiture, where apertures are more likely to be in the f5.6-f11 range, AF for focusing and corners don't need to be excellent it could work fairly well. Still, I think it's a bit overpriced considering that the 24-70 is just a few hundred more. But if you need the range and it works for you it might be worth it.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>For studio portraiture, where apertures are more likely to be in the f5.6-f11 range, AF for focusing and corners don't need to be excellent it could work fairly well.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>maybe. but you can always stop down a 2.8 lens; you can't <em>stop up</em> an f/4 or vari-aperture lens to 2.8. btw, the 50-150 is excellent at 5.6.</p>

<p>Thx for the feedback guys. Eric's suggestion does have merit, but the other issue is will Nikon release a suitable upgrade for the D300, or do I bite the bullet and go Fx? In the meantime I'll try borrow or hire a 24-120 for a shoot and see. My thinking is a 35 and 85 f/1.8 would handle alot of studio duty, but sometimes zooms are just more expedient.</p>

<p>Most people believe that Nikon will announce some D300s follow-on soon, but when that will be is the question. FX is a great option, and the D600 is a big step up from any DX camera except for the focus system and FPS. I personally like the body size and focus system of the D300s/D700/D800 much better. With all of these options available and if you are considering FX, it's best to take a step back and decide on a system (DX or FX) prior to dropping cash on lenses.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>maybe. but you can always stop down a 2.8 lens; you can't <em>stop up</em> an f/4 or vari-aperture lens to 2.8. btw, the 50-150 is excellent at 5.6.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>True and that's what the 85/1.8 or 1.4 or 105/2 is for. Their only faults is that they can't zoom, otherwise excellent for this kind of work.</p>

<p>I feel like an idiot: Just the review I was looking for:</p>

<p>http://slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/1358/cat/13</p>