24-120 vrII or 28-300 vr

Trying to decide on a walk around lens for D800

any opinions on these 2? Is the 24-120 image quality that much better than the 28-300?

I have used both - and multiple versions of 24-120 in my prior life. I interpret your post to contain two questions: (1) which lens has "better image quality"; (2) which is a "better walk around lens".

 

Many here will say the 24-120 provides "better image quality" and it's probably true within the 24-120mm range. Select this lens if that is the most important reason for you, and you can actually see the difference between an image captured in that range between these two lenses under the same condition. Have to say I don't because I don't examine images under a magnifying glass. Select 18-300mm if you want the flexibility of capturing wider and further scenes more precisely as you walk around with no specific purpose in mind and you want to carry only one lens. There is not much if any visible difference between image quality. 18-300 cannot compare to a heavy-gigantic-and-expensive wildlife lens at 300mm (such as the 300mm lens or the 200-400mm lens or 80-400mm lens), but 24-120 does not go there and the more expensive wildlife lenses are not walk-around-friendly. I do like the 80-400mm lens a lot - a little "walk around" perhaps but you need something else to fill in the range below 80mm. And this is not your question.

Edited September 9, 2017 by Mary Doo

I have both and have used them extensively. I believe the 24-120 does produce a better image than the 28-300, and prefer it for walking around. The 28-300 is certainly adequate, and not much heavier / larger, but I find it more useful as a Car lens -- it does offer greater reach and flexibility. Neither is particularly useful for smaller or more elusive wildlife. As mentioned, specialist long lenses come into play for that. To me the 80-400 is point of entry for wildlife. Much depends on your planned venues and usage. Good luck with your decision!

I would go 24-120, because of the wider 24 end.

For me, this would be an easy decision that I could make based on the spec sheet alone-I'd go with the 24-120 over the 28-300. For my photography for walk around purposes, I find the extra 4mm on the wide end SIGNIFICANTLY more usable than the extra 180mm on the long end.

 

In fact, when I was shopping for a walk-around to pair with my D800(and newer film cameras) my choices were between the 24-85 and 24-120. I ended up with the 24-85 for its lighter weight(admittedly a funny consideration for someone who regularly uses an F2, F4, and D2x) and the fact that I don't use the 85-120 range that much(I tend to grab primes for longer lenses, although use an older push-pull 70-210 when I want to go light and an 80-200 2.8 when I need a fast zoom and don't mind the weight).

 

My own "walk around" photography tends toward wide angle. I find that 24mm(full frame/film) just crosses over into the "extreme" wide angle category. It's not as dramatic as a 20mm or wider, but is a decent enough compromise FL. 28mm is a focal length for which I don't have a lot of use.

I find the 24-120 to be an excellent general purpose lens. You are giving up quality at one end or the other on the 18-300. Do you want a wideangle or a telephoto? You can have both obviously but it's a compromise. It can be pretty fair at 18 or at 300 but it won't be all that good at either. My solution is the 24-120 or a 28-75 and a separate 300.

 

Rick H.

The question I'd ask is: Why use a D800 and throw away its resolution by fitting a compromised lens to it?

 

Any lens with a >10:1 zoom range is going to sacrifice IQ and distortion for convenience. So, was the D800 designed as a "convenience" camera? I'd say definitely not, and advise to fit the best quality lens(es) you can afford or carry.

 

If you want a "do everything, carry anywhere" camera, then there are plenty of superzoom compacts or DX DSLRs to choose from, but IQ and convenience are pretty much mutually exclusive.

Edited September 10, 2017 by rodeo_joe|1

Some confusion in this thread: the OP is asking about the 28-300, which is an FX lens. The 18-300 is a DX lens, quite unsuitable for use on the D800 unless you want to restrict yourself to DX crop mode and some 15MP.

 

Personally, I think the 28-300 is all about convenience and compromising on quality - though I have seen some (web-size) images taken with that lens that were quite good. My main problem with the 24-120 is that its quality drops above about 80mm, which brings up the alternative of the lighter and cheaper 24-85, a lens that unfortunately isn't quite up to the (not really that high) standard of the 24-120 in the range where they overlap. I owned the latter and then tried the 24-120 briefly - not worth the additional weight (and certainly not the cost if purchased new).

 

I found the range of the 24-85 to be too narrow for walkaround - one reason why I don't use the higher-quality f/2.8 24-70 (FX) or 17-50 (DX) for that purpose. I found myself shooting at either end of the 24-85 most of the time and quite often wanting for less or more in either case. So for the time being, I am trying the two-camera-two-lens approach: 70-200/4 on one, 16-35/4 on the other. And a 50 in the bag in case I feel the need to fill the gap. Giving up on convenience for sure but a one-lens approach hasn't quite worked out for me. I have to admit though that on occasion I do miss the convenience of having to carry only one camera and one lens - just not quite sure yet which solution to go for.

 

If you want a "do everything, carry anywhere" camera ... DX DSLRs

Giving up a bit of long range, a DX body with the 18-140 makes for a quite decent compromise. Depending on which camera is chosen, cost can be quite comparable to purchasing a 28-300 or 24-120 for use on an FX body.

Voice from another world by analogy (Canon):

 

The 24-120mm range is really convenient for FX format and still capable of being conveniently carried.

For DX, something like a 15-85mm has the same convenience in "walk about".

 

Longer range means you need a strong back, but not necessarily a weak mind.

I have to admit though that on occasion I do miss the convenience of having to carry only one camera and one lens - just not quite sure yet which solution to go for.

 

Exactly.

 

To me the answer to this dilemma is simple: The 28-300mm is great for 'walk around' with its reach from 28mm through 300mm when "image quality" values the opportunity to make an appropriate composition whether the subject is close or far - and when "better pixels" is not the only criteria. But if the extra 24mm is desired, then it's the OP's call.

 

I have no shortage of "pro" lenses. But do I carry my heavy bag everytime I "walk around"? Never.

Edited September 10, 2017 by Mary Doo

I went with the 28-300mm because of the longer end.

I have a D800E, but just don't see it as a "walk around" camera. For that I bought a used D5300. Much more compact and lighter. I use a sigma 17-50mm f2.8 OS, an excellent & fast lens. Another option would be the Nikon 16-85mm. I've looked at the 24-120 f4 VR but in the end came to think I'd be very disappointed with as my "regular" lenses are the Sigma ART f1.4 and Nikons 20mm f1.8G & 105mm f2.8 Micro. I never really considered the 28-300mm. Too many compromises for me.

 

 

Kent in SD

The 300mm end of the 28-300mm AF-S VR is going to be weak on a demanding DSLR such as the D800. If one prefers convenience over image quality, the 28-300 is very convenient, but then the D800 seems to be an overkill.

 

Of course it is totally the OP's decision.

Realise it's not one of your suggested alternatives but the 24-85 G is worth considering. Produces excellent results on my D800E for "general" photography. Use it more than any other lens despite having a few good ones to choose from.

 

Cheers - Martyn

One other note that I forgot to mention -- this is in fact one the reasons why I chose the 28-300mm -- I also like using a Canon 500D close up filter on the 28-300mm. It's not bad up to about 250mm.

Trying to decide on a walk around lens for D800

any opinions on these 2? Is the 24-120 image quality that much better than the 28-300?

"Walk Around"... vague term to me, :

- Is it "walk around in a city doing street photography" then a Big D800 with a Big 28-300 is far to obvious to do candid

- Is it "walk around in a wide landscape" then emphasis on the "wide end" is mostly recommended

- Is it "walk around doing holyday pics" , then D800 might be a bit "overkill" but versatility of the 28-300 sounds useful I think..

etc.

So being just a little bit more specific in what "Walk Around" means to you might help, I guess..

> "Walk Around"... vague term to me

 

Well, yes. I've been known to put my 70-200 f/2.8 on my D810 (without removing the L plate) when randomly wandering around, sometimes with my 14-24 in a bag just in case. And there have been a number of Nikon Wednesday street images shot with single-digit Nikons. If I'm trying to do it vaguely practically I use the Tamron 24-70, which I maintain is better and barely larger than the 24-120, although obviously it's a little less reachy. Unless I'm doing portraits, I tend to find the 70-120mm range isn't all that useful, though - if I want length, I'll go with something substantially bigger (as the actress said to the bishop).

Jay, neither of these lenses are small and truth be told they are both compromises with respect to image quality. The objective lens testing web sites don't show enough difference between the two lenses to convince me that optically one is more transcendent than the other. The now two generations old 800e still makes all my lenses better. One of the benefits is that the extra reach of the 28-300 allows more candid photographs. I prefer the extra reach on the long end over the wider angle on the short end and so I own the 28-300. I have a small 20mm f 2.8 I can easily carry if I need wider. The 28-300 is my one lens solution. Good hunting.

Yes, better definition on what "walk around" means I think.

 

The 28-300mm isn't small. In about 2006'ish I had the Nikon 18-200mm DX lens and that also wasn't that small. YMMV. When I go on holiday with other people or a long weekend for a fun time together, have breakfast outside, dinner outside etc. Then all I want is a kit lens or a smallish prime lens maybe the older AF-D but yes that is not maxing out the potential of the D800. I have a D600 but that is also not maxing it out.

 

I have a carried a D600 with a 70-200mm F4 VR and a 18-35mm and a 50mm I think. Too much stuff for me with 65+ parents along walking around in Hong Kong. I was also crazy enough to have with me a Nikon Fm2n film body as well. At times I just left the 70-200mm at the hotel and just used the Nikon D600 with just the 50 and the 18-35 or just the Fm2n with the 50mm and shot b/w film.

 

The thing for me is that on a fun holiday or a weekend away, or a gentle stroll on a Saturday at home, it's just not fun, while at home on a Saturday I could muscle a D600, 18-35, 50, 70-200/4 and it's only for 2 or 3hrs before heading home again. But esp away to another town or overseas, pulling out that dSLR with the lens and the lens hood is quite big inside a train or inside the plane to take a few snaps thru the window or some casual pictures of family and friends sitting there alongside of you. Or sitting in the cafe and take a few shots of the people and the food you're having. Thru the mall etc. Nikon FX or DX that matter. Maybe a D3000 series could.

 

When the Fuji XT3 comes out, since the XT1 was a 2014 release Jan, and the XT2 was a June 2016, maybe the XT3 is a 2018. I am looking for a preowned XT1 with a 23mm (eff. 35mm) f2 and maybe the wider zoom or the 14/2.8.

 

In specific to your question, the 24-120 would be better from what i understand. I know someone who has this lens on the Canon and not the 24-70mm but he does have a 16-35 2.8 and a 70-200mm 2.8. He also shoots festival markets on the street with a Canon 1DX and now a Canon 5D so yeah ymmv for me ... it's a XT1. I favour lightness.

Edited September 28, 2017 by RaymondC

I think myself included, I have read and read about gear for travel. Maybe our tolerances and expectations change over time. And now we have APC sensor mirrorless, in the past that wasn't an option. Just go with the flow and see where it leads you. At the end of the day if it is frustrating you can always leave the gear in the the hotel or in your boot of your car and use your phone.

 

For me I have always been relatively light one time going with others I thought I could have an opportunity to bring more and shoot more - for me that didn't work out cos different people have different interest on the trip. And frankly walking around in the day time in the city, in the malls, for me the heavy equipment was kinda pointless.

 

It also happened that, when we went for dinner etc .. I left everything in the hotel and went out with my phone, other times it was the Fm2n and the 50, or the D600 and the 50 and maybe the 18-35 (not all the time) and just took the 70-200 out at specific times (head back to hotel to pickup) like HKG Peak visit etc or the waterfront.

 

If you just want a cheaper option of another lens when you want a lighter lens - oh sure just try it out. Esp at home when one is familiar with it, have your own car, have your own home, your own bed etc.