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

[lex_jenkins]

<p>It'd be an easy choice for me. I can't handhold steadily enough for a lens like the 24-70/2.8 to do me any good, unless Nikon develops in-body stabilization. I wouldn't buy another zoom without image stabilization. I was satisfied with the earlier 24-120/3.5-5.6 VR, so the new 24-120/4 VR would suit me fine. Photographer-induced motion blur would offset any gains from a faster, technically superior lens, at shutter speeds under 1/250th.</p>

[studio460]

<p>Hey, Lex! I'm with you--I wish <em>every</em> lens had VR.</p>

[studio460]

<p><strong><em>What's wrong with the AF Nikkor 24-85mm f/2.8-4.0D?</em></strong></p>

<p>Hey, thanks for everyone's continued comments! I was just cruising B+H's site for additional DX or FX alternatives . . . what about the old-school, AF Nikkor 24-85mm f/2.8-4.0D? It's nearly one-third the price of the 24-70mm at only $600. Seems like a good deal. I get a fast aperture at 24mm, plus I get slightly longer reach at the long end. This lens seems like a great budget-minded option!</p>

[studio460]

<p>I asked:</p>

<blockquote>

<p><strong><em>What's wrong with the AF Nikkor 24-85mm f/2.8-4.0D?</em></strong></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Well, according to some guy named "Ken," it's a dog, and he recommends the 24-85 AF-S version instead. I assume he means the discontinued AF-S 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5G. I might just pick one of these up used since they go for about half the price of the f/2.8-4.0 version.</p>

[studio460]

<p>The Final Decision:</p>

<p>First, thanks for eveyone's comments! All were helpful in arriving at this decision. After much thought, I've decided on the AF-S 24-120mm f/4.0 VR II. The consumer AF-S 18-105mm f/3.5-5.6G VR DX lens, mounted on my D7000, will tide me over until I buy the 24-120mm FX zoom. My primary reasons:</p>

<p>1. Mainly, the extended reach of the 24-120mm f/4.0 zoom, over the 24-70mm f/2.8 zoom--70mm is simply too short for singles for my tastes. I'll rarely shoot arrivals at anything approaching 200mm, so this will eliminate the need to also carry a heavy 70-200mm f/2.8 zoom (which I do already own).</p>

<p>2. Size and weight.</p>

<p>3. The constant-aperture of the 4.0 zoom, over the lesser AF-S 24-85mm f/3.5-5.6mm consumer FX zoom (now, discontinued).</p>

<p>4. VR II.</p>

<p>5. Price ($500 less than the 24-70mm zoom).</p>

<p>The "slow" f/4.0 maximum aperture of the 24-120mm zoom won't be a hinderance. I just shot some portraits Sunday night using an AF-S 85mm f/1.4G. Since these were editorial portraits for publication, I wanted to be sure I had both eyes in focus. So, even though I had a fast lens, I shot the portraits at f/4.0. They came out nice and sharp--both eyes. So, I'll likely shoot all of my arrivals at no less than f/4.0 anyway. I know many professional event photographers (e.g., WireImage, Reuters, AP, etc.) who shoot as high as f/5.6-f/11 at arrivals for red-carpet events, so at f/4.0, I'll still be more open than most.</p>

[tom_mann1]

<p>Good choice, Ralph, and for all the right reasons. Even the earlier 24-120's were actually quite useful and practical lenses, albeit much maligned by pixel-peeping Internet pundits who didn't use them for what they were, and instead, insisted that because they were a bit soft at the edges at 120mm, any self-respecting photographer shouldn't dirty their hands with one. ;-)</p>

<p>Tom M</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>The older 24-85mm AF-S zoom was a f3.5-4.5, not quite constant aperture but quite close. It is not as slow as f5.6 on its long end.</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>Well, to each their own. In indoor people photography, I stay away from small apertures like the plague. Here is an illustration why. It is at night, and there is no other light in the room than the monitor light. At f/7.1, there is effectively no monitor light in the image - it's a bounced flash shot. The other image is at f/1.4, and the monitor light is now significant and reduces the harshness of the lighting by introducing a secondary light source into the picture. The f/1.4 image has much more clean appearance whereas my friend appears "rough" and untidy in the image shot with flash only. Needless to say the appearance of roughness would be far more severe if I had shot with direct flash like you're planning to do. I would not want to post such an image anywhere even to illustrate my point.</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>Here is the f/7.1 image, shot with the D3100+18-105 VR.</p><div></div>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>And this one is at f/1.4.</p><div></div>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p><em>pixel-peeping Internet pundits</em></p>

<p>To achieve sharpness is trivial. I never felt that the main problem with lenses like the 24-120 was sharpness, but achieving a clean look to the image.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>ilkka, i actually prefer your d3100/18-105 shot. i see what your saying about less harsh light but its also sharper.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>As I said I would not want to be without my 24-70 but if I could not afford both, the fast primes would be what I would get first. But that may be because the winter in Finland is very dark so since I do not want to only use my camer in the summer, I need the fast glass first. ;-)</p>

</blockquote>

<p>matching your kit to your shooting environment is very much what this thread is about, IMO. it's all about finding a solution that works for you. me personally, i wouldn't get the 24-120/4 for use at pro events, period, but that's just me. i'm not ralph and i dont have the 35/1.4 G or the 85/1.4 (yet). i do think that if money were no object, the 24-70 is the clear choice, but if that extra $500 is out of the question, than get what works for you. illka's shot illustrates the 18-105 with flash is plenty sharp when stopped down on DX, so if that works for you, i wouldn't sweat the rest of the details too much.</p>

 

[eric_arnold]

<p>let's also remember that ralph isnt doing random artistic shots but "events for entertainment-industry oriented clients." this type of shot actually tends not to be available-light, but bounced or off-cam flash indoors and direct flash outside.what's interesting in that situation is, a) there's little advantage to using the $1200 24-120 over the $300 18-105; and b) a two-body solution is indeed a solution, allowing the shooter to handle the bulk of the shoots with the DX zoom and the specialized shots with the fast primes. iMO using 2 bodies in different formats is another reason to consider the 24-70, which becomes a fast-focusing 36-105/2.8 on DX.</p>

 

[eric_arnold]

<blockquote>

<p>D3, 85/1.4G at f/1.4, bounced SB-700 in the same orientation.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>ilkka, did you shoot that flash in manual? if so, what setting?</p>

 

[jose_angel]

<p>FWIW, I have just returned from a one month trip, first two weeks with the 24-120/4, and the two following weeks with the 24-70.<br /> I`m always debating myself with this two lenses, because I like the range and VR on the 24-120, and the image cleanliness, handling and robustness of the 24-70.<br /> My plan was to use the 24-120 all the time, but I switched to the pro zoom looking for cleaner, maybe sharper images. I then missed the longer range and the VR.<br /> I have been having a look to the resulting images; most shot at f8, portraits, full body to closer distances. I can guess a slightly higher overall contrast on the 24-70.<br /> The 24-120 at 70mm looks right, turning softer up to 120. It is good enough to my taste, but certainly not as sharp as the 24-70 at 70mm or as the 70-200VRII.<br /> ---<br /> Image wise, I see the 24-120/4 a good choice for event shooting. At working apertures (f8) and specially with flash, it seems good enough to my taste. Certainly not at the same level of a 24-70 + 70-200 combo, but way more practical and confortable when shooting weddings.</p>

<p>Construction wise, the 24-70 is a better solution for intensive use to my taste. Only the hood is worth the lens, it keeps the tool safe under many awkward situations, making myself more relaxed. One more time I rarely used the cap, even without a protective filter. In the other hand, I had to have that filter permanently attached to the 24-120, to use the cap, to check for the zoom position and even to remove the hood (if attached) everytime I left the camera anywhere.</p>

<p> </p>

[studio460]

<p>Eric said:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>. . . matching your kit to your shooting environment is very much what this thread is about, IMO. it's all about finding a solution that works for you.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes, I totally agree, Eric. Keep in mind that event photography may only be an occassional assignment, and it's not something I necessarily care to specialize in. So, it follows, that it's also not something I care to invest a substantial amount of money in either. In fact, my first "event shoot" actually just served as an introduction to the "real gig," an interior design shoot which occurred two days later in the same space.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>let's also remember that ralph isnt doing random artistic shots but "events for entertainment-industry oriented clients." this type of shot actually tends not to be available-light, but bounced or off-cam flash indoors and direct flash outside . . .</p>

</blockquote>

<p>True. I'm actually doing all of this just so I can <em>get</em> the opportunity to shoot those "random artistic shots" (and, of course, these would all be shot with fast primes).</p>

[studio460]

<p>Jose said:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>FWIW, I have just returned from a one month trip, first two weeks with the 24-120/4, and the two following weeks with the 24-70 . . .</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Thank you for that detailed, and informed report!</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>Eric, I used TTL-BL -1/3 on the D3 because it was quicker to switch to TTL than adjust the required manual setting over so many stops. I was using manual flash on the D3100 because I get a lot of eye blinks when using this camera with TTL preflashes especially if the room is fairly dimly lit and the aperture small. I will try to see what is causing this - I suspect there is a greater delay between the preflashes and the main flash on the D3100 than my own cameras (the D3100+18-105VR belong to my employer).</p>