D750 walk around zoom

[armand]

I just did a small test shooting with the Fuji X-T1 with the 56mm 1.2 and my old Nikon D90 with the 50 mm 1.8D. I was looking mostly for moving objects with some stationary thrown into the mix.
For the moving I tried both continuous and single-focus, both one shot or multiple at the max speed.
The area was tough; low light, requiring 1.8 at ISO 1600 or more.
I tried the 56 both at 1.2 and 1.8 to level the field.

Focus speed wise the D90 won clearly. Both continuous and single shot. Accuracy on D90 was good when it locked focus, slightly less than X-T1. The X-T1 almost felt like it has significant shutter lag, it might have been the focus release priority though. For single shot the X-T1 was also somehow more accurate.
The D90 would just lock focus and start on shooting (with variable degrees of accuracy) while the the X-T1 was taking its time and sometimes the subject was already gone; when it fired in continuous focus it wasn't always accurate because by the time it fired the subject was gone.


I was less interested in the technical quality but overall as the Fuji exposes more to the right and has really nice colors without much work the pictures from Fuji combination were nicer.


Anyway, I came to the conclusion that no matter how much I try the Fuji (at least the X-T1, maybe will be better for X-T2) cannot compete in focus speed and continuous focus with a modern DSLR, and as I will need this from time to time I am thinking about getting the D750. Better movies, DR and low light performance are bonus. Oh, and I don't like X-Trans, too much headache for unclear benefits.
While I have some ideas about the primes I would get (and I already have a 50 mm 1.8D and the 70-300 4.5-5.6 VR) I am still puzzled about a walkaround zoom.

The 24-120 F4 is appealing because of the range and weather sealing. However it is not that bright and only provides slightly better resolution vs my Fuji 18-55 2.8-4 despite 24 MP vs 16 MP, and the new 16-50 F2.8 might make this much less clear. It is 600$ off currently.
The Sigma 24-105 F4 doesn't look significantly better. The Nikon 24-85 has a great range and it's light but it is not bright and it's not sharper than any of the other options, particularly in the corners.
The 2.8 zooms are heavier than I would like and a little reach limited but if really needed I could get one. Here the Tamron 24-70 seems the best value, I particularly like to VR, but the Nikon version might be better on the other accounts. All in all not one of them looks like a really great lens that is clearly better than the others.
Focus speed is the main driver but I would like an upgrade on more than that.

Any personal experiences with the above?

PS. the D810 could still be an option but the D750 seems to be the better value by far and I like the tilting screen; 36 MP with no AA filter are difficult to ignore though. Most of the other extras the D810 have don't mean much to how I will be shooting. Not really looking at the D7100 as I want the step up in image quality and better lens availability if I'm going to do it.

PPS. the D90 with the 50mm 1.8D is easier to hold than the X-T1 with 56mm 1.2 even as the overall weights feel similar.

[Chairman Bill]

The 24-120 f4 has VR, which is surprisingly good, and does compensate for the relatively slow maximum aperture. I like it, though it is pretty heavy. I've also got the old 24-85 f3.5-4.5 ED, which is very light, and pretty much a budget lens. It is a far better performer than it ever deserves to be at the price, but obviously lacks VR. The newer version is no doubt better in all regards, except maybe weight.

If you're happy with the weight of the lens, I really would recommend the 24-120 f4, but if you don't need the extra reach, nor the VR, check out used copies of the old 24-85.

[BernardLanguillier]

http://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Compare/Side-by-side/Nikon-AF-S-NIKKOR-24-85mm-F35-45G-ED-VR-on-Nikon-D810-versus-AF-S-NIKKOR-24-120mm-f-4G-ED-VR-on-Nikon-D810___971_963_321_963

The 24-85mm VR is a total steal! Smaller, lighter, twice cheaper and excellent optically.

I have been intending to get one for my D750 for time.

Cheers,
Bernard

[Ellis Vener]

I did not expect to be impressed with the 24-120mm f/4G VR on the D750 or the D810 but have ended up being very happy with it. No, it's not an f/2.8 lens  but except for the difference in depth of field compared to a 24-70mm f//2.8G the image quality is very close, especially once you stop down to f/5.6 or f/8. I haven't tried the Sigma 24-105mm Sigma mentioned earlier but Sigma's been hitting it out of the park lately with their A series lenses.

[armand]

I did hold the D750 with the 24-120 F4 and it did feel a little heavy, but that's what happened when I held my D90 with the 16-85 after months of playing with just the Fuji so I hope it will be just an adjustment of few hours.

Right now the 24-120 is the same price as the 24-85. It has more range, weather resistance, similar sharpness ??, but is heavier (670 vs 465). I recall that Thom Hogan was "happy" with the 24-85 on a D600 and with the 24-120 on both D600 and D800.

The more reviews I read the more confused I get. Some completely deny the 24-120 any optical qualities going as far as saying the 24-85 is better. I wonder if that takes into account the usual double price of the 24-120.

[dwswager]

Unfortunately, considering you want focus speed and low light in a zoom, the 24-70mm f/2.8 is the appropriate choice. 

The 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5G (the AF-D model IS optically inferior) is the cheaper compromise, but you are losing some low light and AF speed.

The 24-120mm f/4 VR kinda sits in the middle.  More of a do all lens.  That is the lens you want when you walk out the door carrying only one lens.  Giving up both AF speed and aperture to the 24-70mm, but gaining tremendous versatility and a smaller lighter package.

All 3 of those lenses have good optical characteristics.  While lab testing will show strengths and weaknesses, in the real world, you are more likely to be hindered by the physical limitations and trade offs than the optical properties.  You must decide how to weight the trade offs based on your own needs and shooting style. 

BTW, the answer to the 5 Billion posts asking should I get the 24-70mm or 24-120 is both!  If you're also packing the 70-200mm f/2.8 you should bring the 24-70mm because the 70-200mm is much better from 70-120mm than the 24-120mm.  You would also carry the 24-70mm if you know you will unlikely need more reach and are going to have moving targets!  When you're only carrying a single lens with potential for numerous shooting opportunities under varying conditions then the 24-120mm makes more sense.

[LesPalenik]

The 24-85mm VR is a total steal! Smaller, lighter, twice cheaper and excellent optically.

That lens is pretty good in its upper focal range. Not so good at the wide end, the sides are very soft and heavily distorted.

 

[Ellis Vener]

The more reviews I read the more confused I get.

Simple solution: Don't believe everything you read on the internet. Look for trends between different reviews and reviewers;  read what else the "reviewer" says about other items; accept that many of these so called reviewers never even put there handson the gear they praise or knock; a lot of them just repeat ( and badly at that) what other people have said;  and some just want to say something "controversial" so they'll get attention.

[kitalight]

The more reviews I read the more confused I get.

Simple solution: Don't believe everything you read on the internet. Look for trends between different reviews and reviewers;  read what else the "reviewer" says about other items; accept that many of these so called reviewers never even put there handson the gear they praise or knock; a lot of them just repeat ( and badly at that) what other people have said;  and some just want to say something "controversial" so they'll get attention.

Well said.......personal experiences, needs, standards and skills, trump others' opinions and their "expertise." I get more out of some lenses than I've been led to expect.

[synn]

I am not the one to recommend Mr. Rockwell's prose usually, but the guy has some decent samples with the 28-300 here: http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/28-300mm.htm

As long as you don't expect it to beat the f/2.8 zooms, it's worth looking at.

[kitalight]

I am not the one to recommend Mr. Rockwell's prose usually, but the guy has some decent samples with the 28-300 here: http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/28-300mm.htm

As long as you don't expect it to beat the f/2.8 zooms, it's worth looking at.

Funny how threads lead from post to post...I often find lenses...actually find them rather than seek them out...and when I discover how much I get out from them I will look for Mr. Rockwell's and others' impressions to see if I just got lucky...and often wonder why and regret a bit that others don't get the same results as I do....

This past month I've decided to move from Canon to Nikon and from DX to FX sensor...I'm getting the D610 and I have two walk-about zooms that seem to work fine on the 35mm sensor...their budget priced but their IQ isn't....the Nikon AF 28-85/3.5-4.5 and Vivitar Series1 manual focus 28-90/2.8-3.5....Most of my lenses are MF so the reports of the 610's less than reliable AF (again, if you can believe OTHERS' opinions) are less relevant to my needs.  

Their smallish widest apertures would have in the past been a deal breaker, but with the high IQ of modern sensors' high ISO possibilities that is no longer an issue for me...though I would more likely use the MF version of the two (or a wider apertured prime) in low-light/at night rather than rely on the Nikkor for AF....that, and ISO's 2500-3200 excellent IQ permits higher shutter speeds as well minimizing my need for VR that these lenses lack...

[NancyP]

I tried the Sigma 24-105mm f/4 in the store and its parking lot, using my own card and my own camera, and to me this is a nice zoom, seems quite sharp, well built, heavy. I don't know how it compares with the Nikon zooms, but I think it is well worth a try-out. I am still dithering about whether I want to get a "normal zoom", and which one.

[heinrichvoelkel]

I bought the Sigma 24-105/4. Very well build, good OIS, sharp and perfect as my "swiss army knife". Give it a try, I like it so far.

[armand]

Just in time: http://www.dslrbodies.com/newsviews/the-latest-nikon-lens-rebat.html

I'm still thinking about the Sigma. While it might be sharper it's also bigger/heavier (almost the same as the 24-70 2.8 with larger filters), less weather sealing, less range, possible compatibility issues down the road.
Right now the 24-120 F4 is 600$ which is cheaper or equal to any of the other choices.

[armand]

The current sale makes it too good to pass so I'll likely get the D750 with the 24-120 F4.  If I don't like I guess I could sell it without loss, although I have yet to sell any of my older photographic equipment.

But there are significant sales on some of the Nikon lenses so I'm looking for some advice.

I will be getting a prime, most likely the 50 1.4G. I do have the 50 1.8D so that makes the 1.8G less desirable while the 1.4G is not that much more expensive or heavier. I really like the idea of 58 1.4G (that focal length was the lens on my first camera, a manual everything film Zenith) but it's too expensive to really justify. Maybe if I was going to get the Df.

Telephoto
The 70-200 F4 has a sale of 400$ which makes it just under 1000$. Thing is I have the 70-300 VR 4.5-5.6 which will give much more reach. Optically is inferior but is it that much of a difference real world? It's not the sharpest on my D90 already but the density on it it's more than the D750. I would likely miss the 200-300 range. The other problem is the size of 70-200. Weight is close enough but it's much longer, I might need a different bag to fit the damn thing.

Wide
Most of the times 24mm is wide enough for me. I do have the Fuji 14 mm and while I use it it's not that often so a wide prime for the Nikon full frame it's not really justified (I was thinking about the 20 1.8G).
A wide zoom might be more used though. There are 2 choices: the 16-35 F4 VR vs 18-35 3.5-4.5. Only the 16-35 is on sale by 260$ bringing it down under just 1000$ (I see a common theme here).
Both seem better at the wide end which is ok for me. I would likely shoot closed down most of the times anyway, particularly at the wide end, so while the 16-35 might be superior wide open overall the sharpness difference might not that much. The 16-35 is significantly heavier but VR is nice to have as I might get away without a tripod for low light.
The question I have is: does the coating on the 16-35 makes a significant difference in real world photographs?

Other thoughts
I might get the 85 1.8G but I already have the Fuji 56 1.2 which is good; it's not on sale anyway so I'm not in rush here. Also my D90 with the 50 1.8D remains a quite nice portrait camera.

[synn]

The difference between the 70-200 f4 and 70-300 is so big, it's not even funny.

Nano coated lenses like the 16-35 have slightly better microcontrast out of the box.

[kers]

personally
I would get the 50 mm1.4 ART from Sigma- so much better! maybe the best lens i have...( i had the 50mm 1.4 G- very soft wide open- and sigma's coating is much better as is the autofocus speed)
I agree with Synn that the f4 70-200 is in a different league- that said the 70-300 is good for its price -the corners are not too good.
( i have the 70-300 as well as the 70-200 2.8 )

[dwswager]

The current sale makes it too good to pass so I'll likely get the D750 with the 24-120 F4.  If I don't like I guess I could sell it without loss, although I have yet to sell any of my older photographic equipment.

But there are significant sales on some of the Nikon lenses so I'm looking for some advice.

I will be getting a prime, most likely the 50 1.4G. I do have the 50 1.8D so that makes the 1.8G less desirable while the 1.4G is not that much more expensive or heavier. I really like the idea of 58 1.4G (that focal length was the lens on my first camera, a manual everything film Zenith) but it's too expensive to really justify. Maybe if I was going to get the Df.

Telephoto
The 70-200 F4 has a sale of 400$ which makes it just under 1000$. Thing is I have the 70-300 VR 4.5-5.6 which will give much more reach. Optically is inferior but is it that much of a difference real world? It's not the sharpest on my D90 already but the density on it it's more than the D750. I would likely miss the 200-300 range. The other problem is the size of 70-200. Weight is close enough but it's much longer, I might need a different bag to fit the damn thing.

Wide
Most of the times 24mm is wide enough for me. I do have the Fuji 14 mm and while I use it it's not that often so a wide prime for the Nikon full frame it's not really justified (I was thinking about the 20 1.8G).
A wide zoom might be more used though. There are 2 choices: the 16-35 F4 VR vs 18-35 3.5-4.5. Only the 16-35 is on sale by 260$ bringing it down under just 1000$ (I see a common theme here).
Both seem better at the wide end which is ok for me. I would likely shoot closed down most of the times anyway, particularly at the wide end, so while the 16-35 might be superior wide open overall the sharpness difference might not that much. The 16-35 is significantly heavier but VR is nice to have as I might get away without a tripod for low light.
The question I have is: does the coating on the 16-35 makes a significant difference in real world photographs?

Other thoughts
I might get the 85 1.8G but I already have the Fuji 56 1.2 which is good; it's not on sale anyway so I'm not in rush here. Also my D90 with the 50 1.8D remains a quite nice portrait camera.

If you have the 50mm f/1.8D then the 1.4G is somewhat superfolous.  Yes it is better, but not that much better and all the 50mm lens focus fast enough.  The 58mm 1.4G is the sweetheart lens, but pricey as you say.

I have the 70-200mm f/2.8 and it is very good.  I also loved the 80-200mm f/2.8 (3rd iteration of this lens with tripod foot) and it was excellent as well.  The f/4 will likely be a significantly better performer than the 70-300mm which itself isn't bad.  The 70-300 is nice for the extra reach and size/weight factor.  I know lots of people that have the f/2.8 and the 70-300mm for different times.  Not sure you would need it with the f/4.

You will likely not see much difference between the 16-35mm f/4 and the 18-35 f/3.5-4.5G if you don't require the VR aspect.  Yes, it is a little more contrasty, but it is bigger, heavier and expensive.  Either are fine lenses.  The 18-35mm is one of the lenses that came out better than expected based on the price point Nikon had for it.

[armand]

Thank you for your thoughts. I'll hit the local store tomorrow and see how inspired I am.


Both the art Sigmas (35 f1.4 and 50 f1.4) are very well seen optically, BUT they are huge. I could maybe justify it for a D810 but it looks a little too big as a walkaround prime on the D750. It is more like an Otus on a budget.

Nikon 50 1.8D -160g
Nikon 50 1.8G - 190g
Nikon 50 1.4G - 280g
Sigma 50 1.4 art - 815g
Zeiss Otus 55 1.4 - 970g

Nikon 24-120 f4 ~ 700g (already front heavy on D750)


As the Fuji has nice lenses and the next body should have even better focus while being lighter I will try to differentiate the FX Nikon a little more if possible, with less overlap (I have on Fuji the 14 2.8, 27 2.8, 35 1.4, 56 1.2, 60 2.4, 18-55 2.8-4, 55-200 3.5-4.8 ).
This could be photography only trips, bad weather, cold (the X-T1 is not easy to operate with gloves), fast moving targets, movies, etc (and I already covered most of my shooting  )

[shadowblade]

I've never had much use for a walk-around zoom - they always seem to be either not wide enough, not long enough,  with too narrow an aperture or with the wrong (even) number of aperture blades when I'm trying to shoot something.

That will probably remain the case until they can make a 16-200 f/2.8 as sharp as Canon's 24-70, and with a nine-bladed aperture.