Replacing my AF-Nikkor 35mm f/2 D with ???

I will be giving the above lens to my daughter along with my old D700 (It's good to be a daughter), so I will be replacing the 35, but with what? She would be using it as a general purpose lens as a mom of 5.

I like the 35mm format, I use this lens as a sometimes carry about lens, if I am shooting grandchildren, or sometimes street.

I also have the 24-70/2.8 and the 16-35/4--both Nikons. Although there is some redundancy, the 35 is a MUCH smaller package, and there are circumstances when that, for me, is a real advantage. I also have a vintage Nikkor 50/2 H, that I rarely use, but will never part with.

So, I am looking at 3 f1.8G Nikkors:

1) Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 35mm f/1.8G ED

2) Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 28mm f/1.8G

3) Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24mm f/1.8G ED

 

Again, most, but not all, usage will be of human subjects, possibly pets, and quick pull-up-the-camera and shoot type shots, There may be urban shots, shop fronts, people watching, etc. It will not be used for landscapes.

All three are within budget. I will add that when I shoot with my 16-35 I find the 24mm focal length is commonly where I land; and with the 24-70, I am frequently shooting at 35ish. The reviews of the three lenses somewhat favor the 24 and the 35 over the 28, but it is close. I recognize that I would not go wrong with any and that all three are bigger than my current 35.

 

There is another option: keep my 35 and get her the Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 50mm f/1.8G Lens. There's a real price advantage to this choice, but would it be the most practical? Would I be sacrificing IQ with this choice?

 

Insight? advice? what would you get? and thanks

keep my 35 and get her the Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 50mm f/1.8G Lens

IMO, A win for both of you! I have the 50 1.8 G and find it to be very good. You keep an old friend, and for her potential usage a 50 a good choice.

In my experience, the 35/1.8G is much better than the 35/2D. It's sharper out to the corners, has less coma, and has better colors to boot. The only reason to prefer the old f/2 model, besides its having an aperture ring if that floats your boat, is because it's even smaller and lighter than the f/1.8.

 

I also owned the 28/1.8G, which I thought was a fine lens, although it has more field curvature than the 35/1.8G.

 

In my opinion, 35mm is a better "family" focal length (when you're in close with the enemy...er, kids) than 50mm.

In my opinion, 35mm is a better "family" focal length (when you're in close with the enemy...er, kids) than 50mm.

 

I'm on record as not being a big fan of the 35mm FL, but there are times where it has its uses and you've cited one of them.

 

At our family Thanksgiving dinner yesterday, I was using my D3s with one of my favorite all around lenses-the 24-85 f/3.5-4.5 VR(I started out the day with an SB-800 on the camera, but the abysmal light quality and long recycle times under what should have been ideal bounce conditions made me dig out my Metz 76 MZ-5, and I got great results the rest of the day with no perceptible recycle times-but that's another discussion). In any case, in looking at my photos from the day, I was surprised at how many fell in the 30-40mm range. I could have probably stuck a 35mm on the camera and been fine for 80% of the shots I took, while a 50mm would have been too tight for many of them.

 

That's not the first time I've had that reaction.

 

Note though that I conveniently avoided my least favorite focal length-28mm-and my results show that I don't seem to "think" at that FL. I do have a 28mm f/2.8 AI-s, but I think that's the only 28mm prime I've ever owned. I've shot a fair bit with 18-xx kit lens on crop sensor cameras, which of course are "about" 28mm eq., but I never found it quite wide enough when I wanted and too wide for general use.

Edited November 24, 2018 by ben_hutcherson

If you like the 35mm focal length, the f1.8 AF-S should be a good choice. I have the Sigma 35mm/f1.4 Art. That is an excellent lens and is the only non-Nikkor F-mount lens I own. However, it is quite heavy and more expensive (but not as expensive as the Nikon 35mm/f1.4 AF-S).

There is another option: keep my 35 and get her the Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 50mm f/1.8G Lens. There's a real price advantage to this choice, but would it be the most practical? Would I be sacrificing IQ with this choice?

I second what Sandy said. Quite certain the 35/2 isn't optically as good as the 35/1.8 particularly wide open or close to wide open - but you seem to not have had an issue with that so far.

 

Is your daughter going to be happy with a prime lens rather than a mid-range zoom (like the 24-85)?

Is your daughter going to be happy with a prime lens rather than a mid-range zoom (like the 24-85)?

 

First, thanks to all for the excellent input. One of the main criteria in the choice is I do not want to have a burdensome lens, physically or weight-wise. If I want to go bigger I can use the 16-35 or the 24-70--and I do carry those around. But the smaller size of the 35/2 is a real advantage "sometimes."

 

My daughter has a good eye for composition, but has never had an slr, so the step up to a D700 will be a big one for her. There will be a learning curve for her, and to add to that curve the presence of a zoom, could add to the level of complexity. And I think that in the learning phase having a fixed focus lens, while not as flexible as a zoom, will make one think more about what you're shooting because of the constraint of a fixed focus, if that makes sense. She'll have to zoom with her feet, and will learn things about photography more quickly than with the luxury of a zoom. She will learn the limits of a 50 or a 35, and better appreciate what a zoom or other focal lengths can do. Tough love of a sort.

 

A 1.4 is just not needed, not with the dynamic range of my d810, and the depth of field of the 1.8 vs the 1.4 is fine for me.

 

Interesting comment about the 28 being either too wide or too narrow. A jack of all trades, but master of none? Totally personal I know, but that comment hit home.

 

So, whittling things down....a 50/1.8 for her @ <$180 or give her the 35/2 and a new 35 or 24 for me at $600-$750 ish. All are in budget.

More comments on the 24, which in reviews seems to have been heaven sent? But will it be too wide and be more of a specialty lens, making me miss the 35 format?

When I was post processing the shots I got on Thanksgiving, I noticed when I was cropping in, faces had a sort of mottled appearance, like a lot of noise (ISO 640). I have never noticed that with my 16-35 or my 24-70, or really any of my other lenses--the nikkor H 50/2, an 85/1.8 55/3.5 Ai, and 70-200 VRii---and that would drive me to gifting the 35, but...decisions decisions.

This is with the 35/2, me in front, glasses, jeans, dark blue shirt.

 

So, whittling things down....a 50/1.8 for her @ <$180 or give her the 35/2 and a new 35 or 24 for me at $600-$750 ish. All are in budget.

More comments on the 24, which in reviews seems to have been heaven sent? But will it be too wide and be more of a specialty lens, making me miss the 35 format?

 

You can pick up a used (exc. condition) 35mm f/1.8G ED for about $350, which makes the price difference between your two options much smaller. But then, you can also buy a used (exc. condition) 50mm f/1.8D for about $75. :)

 

I think 24mm is too wide for people photography much of the time. When shooting people, the way to use a 24mm is to step back and let the lens take in a large expanse of the surroundings—but this only works if the surroundings are interesting or beautiful. If you are really focusing on the people, 35mm or 50mm makes more sense to me. I would not try to fill the frame with faces at 24mm, as the faces at the edges will not be flattered. ;)

 

But it seems to me you already have the tools at your disposal (16-35mm, 24-70mm) to know which prime focal length you want. It's just a matter of deciding.

But it seems to me you already have the tools at your disposal (16-35mm, 24-70mm) to know which prime focal length you want. It's just a matter of deciding.

 

yeah, it's that "deciding" thing. :) Your input on the 24 being generally too wide for people shots (generally speaking) without making the nose look a mile long was appreciated.

I like the 35 format, so, maybe, why reinvent the wheel?

Although I seem to land on around 24 using my 16-35, it is mostly done with landscapes, while my 24-70 is more general purpose and def a people lens, and I often land on 35 with that one.

 

Regarding Shun's mention of the Sigma Art---I looked at that one, and it remains tempting. I did see a review that questioned the weather sealing on it though, as his copy allowed moisture to get in and fog it. He reported that Sigma failed to honor the warranty stating user abuse. I carry these lenses on the back of my motorcycle and they get in all kinds of weather. That report scared me a bit, still I realize that is one copy of the lens and one reviewer. That said, weather resistance is a matter of high concern to me.

 

Again thanks to all of y'all for the excellent advice

Edited November 25, 2018 by John Di Leo

Your input on the 24 being generally too wide for people shots (generally speaking) without making the nose look a mile long was appreciated.

Jeanloup Sieff - the reason I will always have / use a 24!

For a 1 lens system on a D700, 35 or 50.

IMHO, 28 would be too wide for a 1-lens kit.

I used a 50 on my dad camera and my 1st slr for years, and it worked fine. I just adapted to it.

But as has been said, indoors, the 50 might run out of room, with your back literally to the wall. That is when the wider 35 would come in.

 

Few points of reference

• On my m4/3 kit, I have a 12-60 GP lens, but my low light prime is a 17/1.8 wide. My logic was, if it was low light, it would likely be indoors, where it is cramped, and thus a wide would be a better choice than a normal.
   
  
• My L35AF P&S has a 35mm fixed lens.
  
• The standard 2-lens kit of the film era was 35+85 or 35+105.
  

So given the choice, I would go with a 35 wide as a single lens setup.

But think HARD about what to follow that up with, an 85 or a zoom.

 

Personally, I don't think she will loose much by going to a short GP zoom. Unfortunately, Nikon does not make an updated AF-S version of the old 35-105. To me, the 35-105/135 or 28-105 range would be great for a basic FF consumer lens. But just as Nikon has only a couple GOOD DX lenses, Nikon does not have a decent consumer FX lens selection. All the good short AF GP zooms are old/discontinued lenses; 28-85 AF, 28-105 AF-D, 28-200 AF-G, 35-105 AF-D. I have the manual 35-105 on my F2 and the 28-85 AF on my F4.

Don't forget the Tamron 35mm 1.8 VC; admittedly VC doesn't help with moving targets, but with situations like the lovely group shot above, VC permits pretty slow hand holding.

 

VC would allow quite a large degree of shutter dragging to make ambient + flash balancing easier/more flexible.

Mike beat me to it just above, the Tamron 35/1.8 VC is an excellent lens. I don't have the Sigma Art 35/1.4 any more to compare, but I could not get the Sigma to nail AF accuracy on the D800 I had at the time, even after attempting to tune the AF with the dock. The Sigma was exceptional when it did hit focus, which actually was most of the time.

 

Although the Tamron is bigger than the Nikon 35/2 the OP has, it does feel nicely balanced on a D810. The Sigma feels more front heavy in use. I also had a Nikon 35/1.4AFS that came with a camera deal, but I did not find that lens to be truly outstanding (sample variation?). So, the Tamron wound up being the fast 35 keeper lens for me. I do like the 35 FL for people photos, as does the OP, and often go out with just the 35 on a single body.

 

Also, just wanted to put in a vote for the 50/1.8G as being worth the few extra $s over the D version.

I'd keep the 35 you love and get her a 50, especially since you already have a 50 you love. IMHO the 50 is a great learning lens and excellent for portrait work as well, also for kid shots. It took me years to really appreciate the 50 focal length as more than a reportage length lens. I've tried 24 thinking I'd really enjoy its features, but it just didn't work for me. To me 28 is pretty close to 35 in many instances, especially if I need to crop. I do keep a 28 on hand though when I need a slightly wider perspective.

Unfortunately, Nikon does not make an updated AF-S version of the old 35-105. To me, the 35-105/135 or 28-105 range would be great for a basic FF consumer lens.

 

Who needs AF-S when you have a D700? The 35-105mm f/3.5-4.5D will work fine with that body. I agree that it's a very handy lens for non-critical use on an FX body. I have a very good copy that I'm considering offloading in favor of something a bit faster, like the 35-70/2.8D.

Wow this has gotten to be an esoteric and almost existential discussion of 35 and 50 and their respective contributions to photography--and it's great! Obviously input from people who has tripped a shutter many many times. It shows! Ha, but it is interesting to read. I agree with SCL that as I get older I am more appreciative of a 50, yet I agree with Gary about the utility of the 35's extra "width" when shooting in smaller quarters. And Sandy comes in with the practical mature advice.

All very appreciated. I want whatever I give her to be small, light weight and easy. If she picks it up as a hobby, she can shop for her zoom, or secondary prime. It could be that by having a prime, it would stoke her desire for more, and that would be a good thing. The 50 1.8G, that's the one in question, has the best price point (and I want to buy new), but, truth be told, I was kinda looking forward to something new for me in addition to gifting her. ;)

I need to look at the Tamron---how is its weather sealing compared to the sigma and the Nikon?

Wow this has gotten to be an esoteric and almost existential discussion of 35 and 50 and their respective contributions to photography-

 

This is another reason I stick with Photo.net through thick and thin.

 

Of course the 35mm f/2 is a good normal lens for an APS-C format camera.

On an FX body it can still be good since it's really nicely rectilinear most of the time.

However for FX, I personally think that a 50mm is, as it has been for a longtime, an excellent lens for capturing things on the fly.

 

I think that a short wide to short tele zoom lens is actually easier for a newbie.

Interesting comment about the 28 being either too wide or too narrow. A jack of all trades, but master of none? Totally personal I know, but that comment hit home.

 

Interestingly enough, I was having a conversation with a colleague today who has been a hobbyist photographer longer than I've been alive. He's not married to any one system-he was a Nikon user in his early years, was using Pentax DSLRs when I first started there in 2010, and now is exclusively a Sony user who has just about worn out his original A7R that he bought new(and has also been trying to talk me into buying a Z7 so that he can borrow it and play with it :) ) .

 

In any case, he basically uses two lenses these days-a 24-70 f/4 zoom, and a 28mm prime. In our conversation today, he described 28mm as his "canonical" focal length. He was telling me that when he first started in photography, a 28mm lens was his second purchase after his initial body+50mm kit purchase.

 

The "jack of all trades, master of none" description of 28mm is a pretty good descriptor of my feelings toward the focal length, while to him it is a "goldilocks" FL where a 24mm is just too wide and a 35mm is too narrow.

 

In any case, when I shoot with a wide angle, I live for the exaggerated perspective that they make possible, and I find that a 28mm just gives me a whole lot of normal perspective. On the other hand, 24mm is at the edge of where I can really start seeing that. Consequently, I've often said that when shopping for a general purpose zoom, I'd gladly give up 100mm or more on the long end just to get those extra 4mm on the short end. I have a DX 18-200mm, and even though I have given it an honest try as a "do everything" lens(even though it has its detractors, it's at least passable in my experience on something like a D200 or D300) but I'd gladly use something like a 16-180mm in its place.

 

I won't dispute, though, that a 24mm(FX) lens is in general a terrible lens for photographs involving people. From a distance that will give a reasonable perspective, a single person or even a small group of people look tiny in the frame, while a attempting to fill the frame with them will tend to give a not-so-flattering view. I'd even argue that it can be a dangerous FL for groups, as it flattens and stretches the edges and it can leave people at the sides looking a bit wider than they actually are. I would go so far as to say that for a group photo, it's better to do everything possible to fit everyone in at 28mm than to try going wider, although I know that might not always be possible.

 

In any case, that's even FURTHER off topic relative to the OP.

Ben I went through the same experience with my 18-140.

I really missed the extra couple mm on the wide end, to give me what I could do with a 24 on a film camera. In fact I was looking at the 16-85/2.8-4 as an alternative.

 

So when I went to micro 4/3, I chose a 12-60 lens, so that I could get my 24mm equivalent on the wide end.

28 being either too wide or too narrow. A jack of all trades, but master of none?

"goldilocks" FL where a 24mm is just too wide and a 35mm is too narrow.

I was in the first boat for a long time but for some applications found 28mm to be indeed the sweet spot (street photography, for one; of which I do very little of nowadays). I would not want a mid-range zoom with a 28mm end though - one reason I hesitate to acquire the Tamron E-mount 28-75/2.8 and would rather go for the Sony 24-105/4 instead.

Belatedly (sorry, John): are you sure a mother of five is going to have her best experience trying to trail children round with a moderate speed slightly wide-angle prime? Bearing in mind that the D700 is pretty good at lowish ISO (both in sensor and AF). Unless she's actually asked, I suspect she'd rather have a zoom, and one that the offspring can afford to replace with pocket money.

 

When I had my D700, my 28-200 f/3.5-5.6G sat on it as a body cap - it was possibly the first F-mount lens I bought. I had bigger, better, faster glass, but for a "I'm not sure what I want, but I want the camera to be light and fit in a small toploader" lens, it's not bad. Modern software can largely fix the remaining chromatic aberration, but honestly on a D700 it does "f/8 and be there" remarkably well - it only looks like a cheap lens once you stick it on a D800, and it's still f/3.5 if you find yourself wanting 28mm in the dark.

 

If you want even lighter, there's its little brother, the 28-80 f/3.3-5.6G. I still have mine, partly because it's worth nothing and weighs nothing, partly because it's still not terrible for shooting video, and partly because the AF system is comically fast when attached to an F5, and good for scaring people. (It's probably no faster than, say, a 200 f/2, but you don't see the important bits of a 200 f/2 moving while its in focus.) It's plastic, it won't take much of a whack (although I'm sure my 28-200 has had a thump or two - a lens hood, reversed or otherwise, is an effective bumper) and the front element of the 28-80 is a cast aspheric soft plastic, so you probably want a UV filter - but it also doesn't have much weight to it that would make it break; I'd be much less surprised if mine survived a drop to the floor than if my 200 f/2 survived the same. Peer in the corners on a D8x0 body and it's mush, but the low resolution sensor of a D700 with a strong AA filter over the top hides wonders, and neither of these zooms is anything like as soft as the older equivalents.

 

If you can find one of them, I can't imagine it would be expensive. In fact, KEH currently has good 28-80s under $70, and a good 28-200 for under $280. My 28-200 was silver, which did an okay job of making the D700 (high end when I got it) look cheaper and less worth stealing. When one of the five children pulls the camera off a table, they both have plastic mounts which will break before the camera does, which is a bonus. And it's not the end of the world if they get finger paint on them. To be fair I'm not quite sure how bad the variable aperture 24-120 is, but the f/4 version is huge and expensive in comparison with either of the small zooms, enough so that I got rid of mine - if it's not sitting on the camera, it's not worth having a general-purpose lens.

 

By the same argument, the 50mm f/1.8 AF-D is appreciably smaller and cheaper than the AF-S version. Wide open, it's shooting through vaseline, especially off-centre; by f/5.6 the bokeh is still ugly, but it's extremely sharp. The AF-S is a better lens, certainly at f/1.8, but it's not brilliant, and the AF-D fits in smaller bags.

 

I'm all for small fast primes, and I do think a 50mm f/1.8 (or possibly the pricier 85mm AF-S) is your friend for children-blowing-out-candles shots in the dark, but for a wandering-around lens, there's a reason zooms like this got called "street sweepers". And they work just fine as slightly slow primes (in terms of balance on a D700) if your other hand is holding a kid - though you could probably zoom the 28-80 with the fingers of the hand holding the camera if you're dexterous. Rotating a zoom ring is within the abilities of most photographic novices, and the worst that can happen is that it stays at one length. I'd rather have one on my camera if a child (or pet) suddenly does something funny than have to rummage in a cupboard or run around with the wrong length prime or a bigger zoom. I probably have more photos of my cats with the 28-200 because it was on the camera than I do with my 70-200s or fast primes - they've moved by the time I've got the beautifully sharp photo lined up.

 

YMMV, I'm just wary that those of us with aesthetic aspirations sometimes ignore practicalities for others. I may be projecting. Good luck!

Thanks for the input, Andrew. I do not disagree that a zoom has advantages. They of course do.

 

The 35/2 performed well enough on the d700, however, on the d810 even with moderate cropping I am seeing its limits. Its IQ cannot keep up with the d810.

So, a big factor is that I want to replace it for myself for primarily street, but also some people shots, like you mention...>> children-blowing-out-candles shots<< And I don't think I am ignoring the practicalities for her. A d700 with a 35/2 has proven to me a nice combo.

 

Coincidentally with my wandering eye for a new wide, she, as a daughter can, "talked" me into giving her my d700 which I was going to sell for less than I thought it was worth (to me). I thought giving her the 35/2 and treating myself to something more modern was a win win. But what to get for me? And that was the thrust of my original post.

 

Yes, 5 children. They are now beyond the age of pulling it off a table, and yes, she is busy with them, but it is not chasing them about the house anymore, but more car pool to piano, art, basketball, soccer, etc. And I didn't mention that she is an ER physician. So, simpler is better. Life is busy enough. And she can zoom with her feet.

 

I think the main question could be not whether she should have a zoom, but should I keep the 35 and get her the 50mm 1.8G. I am less enthused about that because I like the small size of the 35 compared to my 16-35 and 24-70, both used pretty often except when I don't want to lug them around and want something smaller and still wide. The lure of the Sigma 35 ART, Nikon 35 1.8G, Tamron 35 and the Nikon 28 has snagged me. And there is my confusion--to me all those lenses have advantages and disadvantages. And they're all good.

I will be in NY in a couple of days though and will visit B&H and test drive them all on my d810 (which I am taking along with the 35/2 solely).

 

And another point should be made. She lives about 5 miles away and we see her often so when she gets adventurous and want to go beyond the 35/2 she can borrow something from my collection---and I have the 85, 20 AI, 55 micro 3.5, and the 16-35, 24-70, and 70-200.

 

I've found this discussion illuminating, but I still don't have a favorite! One day it's the Tamron, then it's the Nikon 28, then I read the reviews about the IQ of the Sigma, then I think I am overthinking all this, just get the Nikon 35/1.8. 4 very well regarded lenses; probably would not go wrong with any of them, but I find myself paralyzed by the choosing!

so the step up to a D700 will be a big one for her. There will be a learning curve for her, and to add to that curve the presence of a zoom, could add to the level of complexity.

 

The presence of no ability to zoom could also add to the level of complexity. Most people coming from more entry-level cameras (be it P&S, be it DSLRs or mirrorless) are used to the "standard zoom". Being restricted to a single focal length could also be a nuisance if you're not used to that - and that will hurt the learning curve more. So, the advice for the 24-85VR is in my view so far the most sensible one - it's not very large nor very heavy and covers a very useful range of focal lengths.

 

If you really want to go with a prime, frankly recommending between a 28mm, 35mm or 50mm is pretty hard without knowing what kind of images will be captured, and what one finds to feel like "right". Personally the 28mm focal length perspective to me just doesn't work, and both 35 and 50 are my most used focal lengths, where the images from 50mm tend more towards particulars/more intimate scenes. I'm not of the school that claims 35 and 50 are too close, and find it two distinct different focal lengths yielding different images often. But that's the whole issue: that's just me, and my perceptions. Others love 28mm, others may see no use whatsoever for 50mm, etc.etc. It's a personal choice all in all.

Which again makes me lean towards the 24-85VR. Let her find out for herself what works for her and what not. The learning curve in being able to zoom isn't steep, especially not compared to the various AF modes on a D700 ;-)

 

[edit] of course if the new 35 would be for yourself: if you're fine with the weight of a 24-70mm f/2.8, then the weight of the Sigma Art lenses may be less of a factor.... The consensus is that you'll be hard pressed to find something better than that 35 f/1.4 (or at least it performs excellently at what most people want, personally I wouldn't want one, but that's another discussion again)

The 24-85VR is a decent lens, but consequently not ridiculously cheap. I'm slightly inclined to suggest that if you want to hand over the camera and the 35mm prime, the 28-80 is so cheap that you would do your daughter a favour, you may as well provide both; if you want to buy her a better lens the 24-85 is a great price/performance compromise, but as you say she could make her own choice. As for the prime, I like my Coolpix A and its 28mm equivalent lens, partly because I can trigger the shutter quickly, but honestly I could do 90% of the same thing (plus a lot more) with my RX100's zoom. A dSLR with just one lens, and a prime at that, is a limited beast.

 

But honestly, I'd just ask your daughter. She may know she's happy with a prime (especially if she's used to a smartphone), or she may boggle that a prime is even a thing on a "proper camera". You can zoom with your feet, but not on a cliff edge, not if you have a child on your lap, and not as fast as you can turn a zoom ring! Or... you could lend her your 24-70 with the camera, then say you'll provide a replacement lens when you get it back, once she knows what she wants.

 

Incidentally, for basketball and soccer (lighting permitting), there's a lot to be said for the 28-200 on a low MP body (despite the speed), unless you're actually eyeing up a 70-300 or similar. A 35mm prime is not an obvious soccer lens - you can't really zoom with your feet if it involves running onto the field of play.

 

If you want a replacement 35mm, I'd say try the Sigma on your body. From the behaviour I saw, I believe the rear nodal point moves a lot during focus, so my D800 was a mile off even with AF fine tuning in the body, and the dock wasn't a complete solution. It may work much better for you - mine is much better on my D810 and D850 than it was on the D800. There's always live view...

The 24-85VR is a decent lens, but consequently not ridiculously cheap.

 

Every time I think about the cost of that lens, I have to remind myself that when I bought mine, the local camera store basically realized that they had a half dozen sitting in their used cabinet, none were moving, and marked them all down to $150 each.

 

In retrospect, I should have bought two...but at the time I didn't even have an FX digital(I had a D800 on lay-a-way at another store in town) and also wanted to prioritize actually getting the camera.

 

Also, I've sat more than once with a 24-120 f/4 VR in my cart at KEH, but have never actually pulled the trigger on it. I keep going back to the fact that I looked at it side by side with the 24-85, and decided both that it was too heavy for my intended use, didn't personally offer me any useful focal lengths(although I've since come around to appreciating 100/105mm a lot more) and also not worth 2x the cost(which actually would have been more like 4x even for a used example given that I paid about half what the 24-85 usually costs used).