24-85VR vs 24-120VR and D800 vs D7100

[Franglais]

Equipment-buying-frenzy time again. I thought I was clear for this year:

D800 + 24-85VR + 70-300VR for big jobs close to home
D7100 + 18-140VR + 10-24 for anything risky (holidays) and anything requiring a wide range of focal lengths without changing lenses

The photo-shooting season opened this week with two events and I discovered two flaws in my plans:

1. The D7100 makes nice images. But they are just lacking something compared with the D800
2. The 24-85 is just not quite long enough for some things (nude shoot yesterday). I know, I can crop but I don't like to

I have a wedding at the end of the month. I'm thinking about getting a 24-120VR f4 to use rather than the 24-85VR.

Anybody want to talk me out of it? I hate spending money..

[volks]

Nice to finally see some activity here.
Charles, most of us hate spending money,but for selfish reasons you should get the 24-120 f4 just so we can find out what you think.
Also, could you try to be a bit more specific regarding the d7100 lacking compared to the d800.

[Franglais]

AGH. Wrong answer. But after thinking about it I've gone for the 24-120.

D800 vs the D7100 is like this -

- you're eating toast with butter and marmalade
- for the last slice you discover you're almost out of butter and marmalade
- you spread it out really thinly on the toast just the same
- you eat it and it's nice but there's not the same luxurious feeling as with the fully laden ones

That's the feeling I get with the D7100. I look at the pictures I did last week and they are really good. But I regret not using the D800. I've tried to improve them in Lightroom but there just isn't the same gutsy feeling that FX gives you straight out of the box

[armando_m]

I've been tempted by that lens many times, for the same reason than you, the 85, often lacks a bit of reach

let us know how you like it

[volks]

Charles, looking forward to your thoughts on your new lens.
Regarding the difference between dx and fx, I have read many comments like yours, and they are all a bit vague, so the only real way to find out what others are trying to say as well is to shoot fx for oneself I guess.

[Franglais]

I think its the only way. The difference is subtle and not always obvious. But after a while you get a feeling for it.

I have at least three serious opportunities to get used to the lens before the wedding at the end of the month. I'll keep you informed.

[Franglais]

I just did some testing of my new 24-120VR f4 against a couple of lenses that I already have, to get an idea of its characteristics before really using it

I set the camera up on a tripod, set 100 ISO, turned off the VR on all the lenses and did the same subjet at widest aperture, f5.6 and f8 at focal lengths 24mm, 50mm, 85mm and 120mm. I developed the JPG's at best quality then compared the results on-screen at 100% magnification, looking at the sharpness in the center and in the corners

On D800 against 24-85VR

The 24-85VR looks good because it is really sharp in the center much of the time. The 24-120VR is never really sharp anwhere.

However the 24-120 beats the 24-85 all the time in the corners and at wide apertures. It also beats at all over at 24mm and 85mm - not by a lot. I'm still very satisfied with the 24-85.

The 24-120VR's weakest points seem to be 50mm (pity) and 120mm, but its still quite usable.


On D800 against 70-300VR (at 120mm)

The 24-120 beats the 70-300 at full aperture but after that the 70-300 is better

On D7100 against 18-140VR

The 24-120VR is better at 24mm but at all other focal lengths the 18-140VR is better center and corners almost all the time

Conclusions

I think that the 24-120VR is optimised to give good (rather than excellent) performance on the D800 both in the center and at the edges of the frame at all focal lengths and apertures.

I prefer this approach - the lens will never give me any bad surprises and I can concentrate on the subject. Someone who is really after sharp results in bright light and who is not too concerned about the corners would prefer the 24-85.

I can't see any point in putting the 24-120VR on the D7100 when the 18-140VR costs half as much and is optimised for the smaller sensor.

The 24-120VR not a very exciting lens because it's never really really sharp. It's a good workhorse for the D800 for general use where I have to change focal lengths all the time. If I want something really sharp for a specific event - well I have primes plus a nice tripod..

[Greg McCary]

If it were me the 70-300mmVR would be on the short list. I though of it as a wedding portrait must have lens? I have it and love it.

[Franglais]

I was very surprised when the 24-120 beat it at full aperture, but I guess that's the difference between a consumer lens and a highly-corrected pro lens. I think that Nikon would rather you put the 70-200 f4 on the D800.

I went to a church garden fete yesterday and the 24-120 did a beautiful job. I suspect that the slight lack of sharpness doesn't matter when you're dealing with people, warts and all..

[Greg McCary]

Charles I will check into the 24-120mm. When I am dealing with the D800 and it's massive image quality the slower lenses work very well. Also the AF system, that I finally understand more, is bar none about as good as it gets.
Nikon is certainly still king of the hill with bodies and lenses.

I was very surprised when the 24-120 beat it at full aperture, but I guess that's the difference between a consumer lens and a highly-corrected pro lens. I think that Nikon would rather you put the 70-200 f4 on the D800.

I went to a church garden fete yesterday and the 24-120 did a beautiful job. I suspect that the slight lack of sharpness doesn't matter when you're dealing with people, warts and all..

[chandran]

The 24-120 is a professional lens with Nikon's signature Nano Crystal Coating which

you can read more about here:

Nikon | Imaging Products | Behind the scenes - The Nano Crystal Coat

Though just a "kit" lens the 24-85 VR is much lighter and compact than the professional 24-120

VR. It is not as optically perfect, but will provide excellent quality images on modern (and older)

Nikon DSLR bodies. From field experience, the 24-70 f/2.8 may be worth the extra money

if you are photographing a lot of weddings. The extra stop of light really helps open up the

ambient light of backgrounds when mixing with flash during a wedding reception.

It seems as though you have already settled on the 24-120 f/4 VR so picking up a 35, 50, or 85

fixed lens will also help you achieve the same effect.

[Franglais]

I noticed on my first shooting last weekend a strange tendency to focus on the eye furthest from the camera rather than the one I thought I was focussing on.

So I fine-tuned the focussing of the D800 with the 24-120. It needed a correction of +20. OK no problem (the 24-85 needed no correction)

But it does mean I will have to redo my comparison. My target was 3-dimensionnal (view from my kitchen window) but it may have affected the results

[Franglais]

Done the comparison again between the 24-120 and the 24-85. Result is about the same. Now I've corrected the focus on the 24-120 the results are very very close (see below - taken from the center at 50mm f8). The only place there is a very visible difference is in the corners at wider apertures (see below - 50mm f4/f4.5)

[Mike Brehaut]

I bought the 24/85 to replace my worn out 24/70 and it does a great job, f/4 compared to f/2.8 but with the quality of today's high ISO it's not a problem.

[srblough]

Can I bump this very interesting and useful thread to ask if anyone has any experience with the 55-300 VR DX lens? I am upgrading from D90 to D7100; B&H has what appears to be a great price on a package with 18-140 and 55-300. My 18-200 will be loaned out from time to time with the D90; it seems 18-140 will be good workhorse lens but I will need something longer as well. The 55-300 is f/4.5-5.6 - not fast but not any slower at comparable focal lengths than the 18-200.
If anyone has any thoughts about the 55-300 DX or alternative suggestions, would be greatly appreciated.

[volks]

Dxomarks rates the 70-300 slightly higher. I had that lens and it was very good, however I wonder sometimes what the Dxo score means in the real world.
Case in point, decided to sell all my lenses, which I did and just settle on a one decent travel lens, namely the 18-140. Played around with it over the weekend and found it no better than my sold 16-85. I also checked many of my photos this weekend and found that many of them were taken at 16 and 17mm. Also found that when reading the 18-140 reviews from B&H and Adorama, that I was not the only one who returned their newly purchased 18-140 lens in favor of the 16-85. Just for what's worth.

[srblough]

Thanks volks - interesting on 16-85 vs. 18-140. Isn't the 70-300 an FX lens? Of course no problem using on 7100 but perhaps that would reduce the reliability of a Dxo score comparison to a DX lens (e.g. the edge performance of FX is irrelevant if it is being used on a DX body).

[volks]

You are welcome. You might want to check out this web site. This gentlemen is well respected by some of the pros here.
Camera, Lens, and Accessory Reviews | byThom Sites | Thom Hogan

The 55-300 might have soft corners, which would go away with the 70-300.

[srblough]

Just the resource I needed, thanks again!

[teddyaditya]

I think Nikon D7100 that's good

[zeds]

24-85VR is very good.

The Nikkor AF-S 24-85 VR is a G-type lens, so it does not offer an aperture ring anymore. Thanks to an AF-S drive (Silent Wave Motor) AF operations are basically silent and quite fast.

The lens features optical stabilization (VR II) which Nikon claims allows for up to 4 stops slower shutter speeds. Actual results will vary depending on the photographer, of course. In our field tests up to three stops longer shutter times were easily possible (given a reasonably steady subject). Unlike higher grade VR lenses, which allow to select between two VR modes, the 24-85 VR features an On/Off-switch for VR operation only.

Specifications
Optical construction 16 elements in 11 groups inc. 1 ED and 3 aspherical elements
Number of aperture blades 7 (rounded)
min. focus distance 0.38 m (max. magnification ratio 1:4.5)
Dimensions 78 x 82 mm
Weight 465 g
Filter size 72 mm, non-rotating
Hood HB-63, petal-shaped, bayonet mount, included
Other features silent-wave AF motor, VR II optical stabilization

[srblough]

Based on advice on the site recommended by Volks, I ended up buying D7100 with the 55-300 and a Sigma 17-50 f/2.8. Heading this week with my wife on a "bucket list" trip to the Serengeti, she'll have my old D90 and 18-200, we'll share the 3 lenses ...

[volks]

Great, let's see some results after the weekend.

[Ravecam11]

You're gonna love it

[Ravecam11]

The d800 has awesome handling