AF-S Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8G or AF-S Nikkor 24-120mm f/4.0G VRII lens for events?

<p>I can't believe I've started a, "Which lens should I get?" thread. But, I can't seem to decide. I'm about to garner my first pro client, a PR agency. They produce events for entertainment-industry oriented clients. Every photographer I've ever seen on a red carpet typically has an AF-S Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8G plastered onto his/her primary FX body (and, they all have <em>two</em> FX bodies!). But, lately, I've been seeing more and more of the slower, 24-120mm f/4.0 lens as well. I own zero short FX zooms, since I prefer fast primes instead for all of my personal work--but now, duty calls.</p>

<p>Most of the event shooting will be with an on-board SB-800 flash, so speed isn't essential, but I was hoping to expose for the ambient whenever practical to lend as much texture to boring event photos as possible. Since I own a D3s, I suppose I could live with a higher ISO without a problem, and get the 24-120mm f/4.0, instead of the industry-standard 24-70mm f/2.8G. Also, most event shooters don't shoot wide-open (even though I would like to in order to better isolate my subjects), since they often have to shoot groups, so the f/4.0 maximum aperture isn't as much as a handicap as it may appear. Plus, I love VR!</p>

<p>Thoughts?</p>

<p>Ralph,</p>

<p>Are you saying that you only have one camera body or only one FX camera body?</p>

<p>If you like shooting primes, why not shoot 35/85 and offer a different style of photography to the PR agency. I assume that's why they hired you in the first place?</p>

<p>If it has to be the 24-70mm f/2.8 or 24-120mm f/4, I'd have to go with the 24-70mm I own this lens and it's phenomenal. For shooting events, I wouldn't trade it for any other zoom in Nikon's line-up.</p>

<p>RS</p>

I owned both for two months at the same time and I think the 24-70 (which I have used for 3+ years) gives clearer

images and does so consistently. The 24-120/4 is very convenient but I did not like the image quality it produced

asmuch as that of the f/2.8 zooms and primes.

<p>Thank you for your quick replies, Richard, Ilkka! Surprising--I thought most would favor the 24-120mm f/4.0 for its lighter weight and bulk (and price!), given that with a D3s, a one-stop hit shouldn't be that big of a deal.</p>

<p>Richard--I only have one FX body, the Nikon D3s. I also own a D7000, but I wasn't considering working it as a second body. The D3s' images are far superior in low light, plus, the even greater issue is that I only own one SB-800, and my SB-600s can't accept a high-voltage input from my Quantum Turbos (and no one's gonna hang around for a shot while my SB-600 recycles on just 'AA' batteries).</p>

<p>this is a silly question. a 24-70 at f/4 will produce better images than a 24-120 @f/4, and in general, is more suited for events.</p>

<p>Richard said:</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>If you like shooting primes, why not shoot 35/85 and offer a different style of photography to the PR agency. I assume that's why they hired you in the first place?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Actually, it's interesting that you say that. I would like to try shooting an event that way. I just need to pick up a second SB-800, and I'll be good to go.</p>

<p>Eric said:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>this is a silly question. a 24-70 at f/4 will produce better images than a 24-120 @f/4, and in general, is more suited for events.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Why is it silly? Don't both lenses have their merits? Although I've never used or researched either lens (never had the need, nor the interest), I had no idea the 24-120mm was "bad." And why do you say the 24-70mm is generally more suited for events, if shot at equivalent apertures? (I'll likely only be shooting at f/4.0-f/5.6.)</p>

<blockquote>

<p>a 24-70 at f/4 will produce better images than a 24-120 @f/4, and in general, is more suited for events.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The 24-70 will produce slightly better images, but we're talking event photography, not fine art. I find the 24-120 very convenient, allowing better candids because of the reach. It's also lighter and has VR, making it quite a good choice for events.</p>

<p>Eric said:</p>

 

 

<blockquote>

<p>this is a silly question.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Well, I did some some quick checking. The 24-70mm apparently is commonly agreed upon to be a vastly superior lens in both IQ and build quality. Have to re-think this now.</p>

 

<p>Charles said:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The 24-70 will produce slightly better images, but we're talking event photography, not fine art. </p>

</blockquote>

<p>Thanks for your comments. That's kinda what I was thinking, too.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>I find the 24-120 very convenient, allowing better candids because of the reach. It's also lighter and has VR, making it quite a good choice for events.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes, again, I also thought these seemed to be good arguments in favor of the 24-120mm f/4.0.</p>

<p>I actually prefer the wider zoom range of the 24-120mm/f4 AF-S VR. We are talking about shooting mostly indoors, frequently under dim light, hand help and mostly high ISO. There is no way you'll get extremely sharp images anyway.</p>

<p>The image of Ryan I posted to this week's Wednesday thread was captured with the 24-120mm/f4 AF-S VR @ 75mm, f4, 1/50 second and ISO 800 on the D700. I am more than happy enough with the sharpness. If I want absolute sharpness, I'll lock the camera on a tripod, use a smaller aperture at base ISO 200, but I'll miss a lot of these captures.</p>

 

<p>The thing is that if you shoot a lot under very dim light, f2.8 will give you better AF and sometimes that extra stop is useful. A 24-120mm/f2.8 AF-S VR would be ideal; I just don't know how big that lens would be and how much it would cost.</p>

 

 

<CENTER>

<IMG SRC="http://static.photo.net/attachments/bboard/00Z/00ZEN8-392257584.jpg">

</CENTER><div></div>

<p><em>we're talking event photography, not fine art</em></p>

<p>Why should event photographs be any worse than fine art?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Why should event photographs be any worse than fine art?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Event photos usually end up in magazines and on the web, not reproduced as fine art prints. The need for sharpness is just not as demanding.</p>

<p>I don't think it's a silly question. The 24-120 has a longer zoom range, and it has VR - there are going to be situations where some shot you'll want to take will come out better if you were using the 24-120 lens than with the 24-70. Then there are weight and cost differences. I could easily envision a scenario where somebody wanting to shoot an event would choose a 24-120 over a 24-70.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I could easily envision a scenario where somebody wanting to shoot an event would choose a 24-120 over a 24-70.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Absolutely. Count me in as one of those.</p>

<p>I have used 6 different copies of the 24-70mm/f2.8 AF-S but actually don't own one, but I have both the older 28-70mm/f2.8 AF-S and now the 24-120mm/f4 AF-S VR. I frequently bring both lenses and pick the one that is "better" for the situation.</p>

<p><em>"...given that with a D3s, a one-stop hit shouldn't be that big of a deal"</em> Lower ISO still gives better overall IQ than high ISO even with the D3S. If you are shooting often in low light, and it sounds like you are, I think the better choice is rather obvious.</p>

<p>Well, thanks for eveyone's replies, and thanks for posting those examples, Shun. I'll have to shoot the event this evening with my existing primes. It's a fairly low-key event, so I should be fine. However, changing lenses with a single body is certainly going to be slower than shooting with a short zoom. Gonna take four lenses: 24mm f/1.4, 50mm f/1.4, 85mm f/1.4, and a 60mm Micro-Nikkor for product shots.</p>

<p>Now that I've viewed the client's corporate site, I see that the environment is quite stylized, and I will definitely want to expose for the aritificial interior lighting, in addition to flash. So it looks like I'll be leaning toward the 24-70mm f/2.8 for a future purchase. I was hoping, the lighter, slightly stealthier 24-120mm could work, but I probably do need the added speed which the 24-70mm provides. Plus, as Shun mentioned, the faster lens will provide for improved AF acquisition. Thanks again, for everyone's input!</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The 24-70 will produce slightly better images, but we're talking event photography, not fine art.<br>

Event photos usually end up in magazines and on the web, not reproduced as fine art prints. The need for sharpness is just not as demanding.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>i would disagree strongly. the more artistic your photo, the more likely it is to be print-worthy, even if its originally published online or in a publication. OTOH, taking a shot with an inferior lens kind of guarantees it'll never be fine art.</p>

<p>sure, shun's pic illustrates that the sharpness of the 24-120 is acceptable wide open, but f/4 on the 24-70 is one click down and thus even better than 2.8, which is already very good. plus, the 24-120 can't 'stop up' to 2.8. if you look at the background in that shot, the bokeh is kind of 'meh' compared to the unquestionable superiority of the 24-70 in that regard. not trying to start a flame war, but we're comparing a pro lens to a consumer lens here. c'mon now.</p>

<p>so, ralph, is it a question of being able to get away with using lesser glass, or needing to use the best glass available for that application? i own a number of consumer lenses, some of which are pretty decent optically, like the 70-300 VC. but if i'm shooting a paid event, i break out the 24-70/70-200 II combo since i know they can deliver. if i need 300mm, i can always put the 70-200 on a DX body. and, usually, i use two bodies anyway in those situations, so the wider range of the 24-120 is a totally moot point, as is VR (mostly) since you're not shooting non-moving subjects.</p>

<p>in any event, i'm not sure why any event photographer would want to put themselves at a professional disadvantage in a highly-competitive field by choosing a slower, less-sharp lens when the competition is using the best performer in this category. for nikon FX users doing event photography, the 24-70 is a total no-brainer. that's why i said its silly to even think about this too much.</p>

<p>i happen to have a shot of the 24-70/D3s combo taken at f/4. here it is.</p>

<p> </p><div></div>

<p>full image</p><div></div>

<p>tight crop.</p><div></div>

<p>Eric said:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>. . . we're comparing a pro lens to a consumer lens here.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Thanks for sharing your example photos. Yes, I was completely unaware of the 24-120mm lens' more "consumer-ish" status, since I've never before been in the market for a short zoom. On the surface, both <em>appear</em> to be very "pro" looking, and both seem to have "pro" price-points.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>. . . as is VR (mostly) since you're not shooting non-moving subjects.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>True. As much as I would like to have VR capability available to me if needed, I'm not planning to shoot static subjects with this lens. People <em>will</em> be moving.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>. . . so, ralph, is it a question of being able to get away with using lesser glass, or needing to use the best glass available for that application?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It was more a case of trying to "get away" with a lighter lens, with a shorter profile (and saving $500). But I think you're right--the job calls for the 24-70mm f/2.8, for the reasons you, and others, have stated. Thanks again for your comments.</p>

<p>You need to keep in mind that my Ryan image sample was captured with the D700 at ISO 800, 75mm, f4, and hand held at 1/50 sec with VR on. Camera shake is definitely an issue.</p>

<p>Do you notice that his right eye (to our left) is sharper than his left eye? Even at 75mm, f4, depth of field is still shallow from fairly up close. Therefore, I wonder whether you really want to use f2.8 or wider unless you shoot straight from up front. Moreover, and ISO 800 is going to rob you some sharpness. I could have cranked up the ISO; in that case I could have bumped up the shutter speed a bit to further stabilize the camera, or I could use a smaller aperture to increase lens quality and depth of field, but I would have to pay for the higher ISO. All in all, I am quite happy with the exposure I chose, which is always a compromise.</p>

<p>I have printed that image to 8.5x11 and it looks great to me. For these images, my main objective is capture the expression as Ryan was enjoying his honey stick. I know very well that his eyes are not critically sharp, which is perfectly acceptable for this image. The worst part of that image is the chair in the background.</p>

<p>But again, even though you don't shoot at f2.8, having f2.8 around will give you better AF under dim light.</p>

<p>Well, that was my original reasoning, Shun. That I would likely not shoot at anything wider than f/4.0 anyway. We'll see how I feel about it after tonight's shoot. Thanks again for your comments.</p>

<p>personally, i like shun's shot. i think it's a good candid capture. the thing is, there's room for error when you're taking that type of shot, less so with a paid gig.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>my Ryan image sample was captured with the D700 at ISO 800, 75mm, f4, and hand held at 1/50 sec with VR on. Camera shake is definitely an issue.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>hmm, camera shake shouldn't be an issue at 1/50 and 75mm w/ VR on. i think you're right about slightly shallow DoF, but that could also be motion blur at that shutter speed.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I wonder whether you really want to use f2.8 or wider unless you shoot straight from up front.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>IMO the 24-70 is really good wide open; certainly better than tamron 28-75 (which is not a bad FX budget option otherwise, btw). and 2.8 remains the pro standard because it's a critical stop in terms of light-gathering.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The worst part of that image is the chair in the background.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>agreed, but you can also see some slightly jittery bokeh in that bkgrnd. the 24-70 is much better in this regard, but it's also not what i would carry on a casual family outing.</p>

 

<p>I returned from the event a couple of hours ago, and am now doing the edit. I only used two lenses: the 24mm f/1.4 and the 85mm f/1.4. I shot both available light-only, and flash, balanced with ambient. I shot as wide open as f/1.6-f/2.2. For non-time sensitive events, such as this one, a single body, and just these two lenses are fine. Two bodies, both with each lens mounted, would be ideal, but, I would be loathe to drag around two, heavy FX bodies, plus two multi-pound lenses.</p>

<p>If I do decide to go for the short zoom, it may have to be the 24-70mm f/2.8 for its speed, since I did shoot a lot of balanced flash + ambient shots. However, I found that my 85mm often felt too short for some shots, and angling for a shot at a party is often difficult--in this respect, I would've been happier with the 24-120mm for its greater reach. I suppose that's why every photographer I see wears both a 24-70mm, and a 70-200mm. That's a LOT of glass!</p>