Sell the 28-70mm f/2.8 for 24-120 f/4.0 ?

[erwin_hartanto]

<p>Dear Readers,<br>

As a wedding photographer, shall I sell my old nikkor 28-70mm f/2.8 in exchange to purchase the nikkor 24-120mm f/4.0 VR2 ?<br>

I have read many reviews and the sharpness comparable to 24-70mm f/2.8. <br>

I know the 24-120mm lost 1 f stop, however the VR2 seemed can compensate for the f-stop lost.<br>

Thank you,<br>

-erwin</p>

[ricd]

<p>Hi Erwin,<br>

VR2 can compensate for camera shake at lower shutter speed not f/stop. When you need a wider f/stop than f/4 VRx will not help. For sharpness not available at its wide open f/stop most lens need to be stopped down a tad. As an example f/2.8 becomes f/4 whereas, a f/4 lens becomes a f/5.6. True, some f/4 lens are wonderful at wide open most are not.</p>

<p>Myself, I would keep with a fast lens. That is why I sold my zooms went with fast primes. My slowest prime is f/2.0, that is one f/stop faster than f/2.8, two stops faster than f/4. If my math is correct f/4 brings in 1/2 half the light of f2.8, and 1/4 the light of f/2.0.</p>

<p>You did not mention whether you are shooting FX or DX. That would make a difference recommending a lens.</p>

<p>More folks will jump in offering suggestions. Enjoy the wealth of information provided you.<br>

Cordially,<br>

RicD</p>

[erwin_hartanto]

<p>Hi Ric,<br>

Thank's for the advise. I am shooting on FX format.</p>

[daverhaas]

<p>Shooting on an FX body - you will gain - on both the short and long end. </p>

<p>VR does allow you to gain 1-2 stops of exposure by allowing you to use a slower shutter speed. So - if you were shooting at 1/30 of a second at f2.8 - you might be able to go down to 1/15 of a second at f4.0 with no camera shake. But the trade off is that at 1/15 - you become more exposed to subject movement than at 1/30. </p>

<p>Personally - I haven't shot with the VR2 version of the 24-120 - I did have the VR 1 version - which undoubtedly is one of the 10 worst Nikon lenses ever. I too have read the reviews - but don't have the 1,110 or 1,200 it's going to cost to try the VR2 version. </p>

<p>The other thing to consider is that the 28-70 f2.8 is selling for between $700 and $900 on fleabay - at least it was a couple of months ago. And if you go the trade in route - they'll probably give you 60% of retail on trade - so you're going to have make up some cash there. </p>

<p>Unless you've got bookings in hand to pay for it - I'd stick with the 28-70. Or unless you're really seeing a gap in your lens coverage (ie you don't have the 70-200 f2.8) <br>

Dave</p>

 

[erwin_hartanto]

<p>Hi David,<br>

I do have 70-200mm VR. I think I am gonna cancel my plan of selling the 28-70mm. The "movement" factor that you just mentioned is the one that I forgot to consider :).<br>

Thank's for the advise.</p>

 

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>The 24-120/4 is not even close to the 24- 70's image quality. If you want to get a new lens, the latter would be the one to get for Nikon FX. And no, the VR doesn't compensate for subject movement which is normally the problem at weddings with this focal length range, not camera shake.</p>

[erwin_hartanto]

<p>Hi Ilkka,</p>

<p>Thank's for the advise. Yes, you are right about the movement. I am cancelling my plan to sell my old 28-70mm lens.<br /> However for the image quality test, I saw this link and seemed the result is quite good compare to 24-70mm f/2.8:<br /> <a href="http://mansurovs.com/nikon-24-120mm-vr-review/4">http://mansurovs.com/nikon-24-120mm-vr-review/4</a></p>