Please don't shoot me, how does this compare with 24-70 2.8 as a general walk around lense. I am investing in a 750, don't know which lens to buy?
357721
Depends on what you shoot. If you don't need the additional speed of the 2.8, the 24-120 has a greater range. But it much heavier. I'm guessing you are looking at the Tamron.
357722
I own both...in terms of image quality, there's no comparison - the 24-70 is in another league. It's a full stop faster (brighter viewfinder, better depth of field control, faster focusing, etc) and it gives you that "pop" you get from the best professional grade lenses. On the down-side, the 24-70 is a much narrower zoom range, so you might find yourself needing to carry two lenses whereas just the 24-120 would cover you otherwise. It's a personal thing I guess, but if I could only have one or the other, I'd take the 24-70 without a moment's thought.
357723
I spent many months comparing 28-300 and this 24-120 before I settle with this. I was looking for a walk around lenses for travel and family picture because I don't want my f2.8 lenses to take all the fun out of the trip as they are heavy and big. To my surprise, this 24-120 replaced my 24-70 f2.8 except for shooting sports as the AF is not as snappy as the 24-70 f2.8 and I need to shoot more frames to cherry pick the ones that are in focus. Other than sports, my copy of 24-120 f4 has taken over the job of 24-70 f2.8. I used it at weddings and senior pictures...... I am very happy with it. I got it in "brand new white box" for about half the price and that's even a greater deal. I spent many months comparing 28-300 and this 24-120 before I settle with this. I was looking for a walk around lenses for travel and family picture because I don't want my f2.8 lenses to take all the fun out of the trip as they are heavy and big. To my surprise, this 24-120 replaced my 24-70 f2.8 except for shooting sports as the AF is not as snappy as the 24-70 f2.8 and I need to shoot more frames to cherry pick the ones that are in focus. Other than sports, my copy of 24-120 f4 has taken over the job of 24-70 f2.8. I used it at weddings and senior pictures...... I am very happy with it.... » Read More I spent many months comparing 28-300 and this 24-120 before I settle with this. I was looking for a walk around lenses for travel and family picture because I don't want my f2.8 lenses to take all the fun out of the trip as they are heavy and big. To my surprise, this 24-120 replaced my 24-70 f2.8 except for shooting sports as the AF is not as snappy as the 24-70 f2.8 and I need to shoot more frames to cherry pick the ones that are in focus. Other than sports, my copy of 24-120 f4 has taken over the job of 24-70 f2.8. I used it at weddings and senior pictures...... I am very happy with it. I got it in "brand new white box" for about half the price and that's even a greater deal. « Show Less
357724
To answer your question I think this is an excellent Lens and it would work really good as a general/every day walk around lens.
357725
To my understanding it is usually believed that 2470 is a better version than this one in the same focal length range. But there are other things to consider. How important is it for you to have the extra versatility, that is, the focal length of 70 to 120? How much do you care about the lost of aperture range? (And that depends on what you plan to shoot most often.) How important is the price difference to you? And weight differs, too. Actually, I envy the newest 750 model so much! lol. It certainly deserves good lenses.
357726
I find that 70mm is not enough reach for me. The 24-120mm has Vibration Reduction, which is very effective in reducing blur, especially for movies. The 24-120mm is my favorite all-purpose lens, and it stays on my camera 99% of the time. My other favorite lens is the 70-200mm F2.8 VRII. If I were interested in the 24-70mm range, I'd look at Tamron's offering that has image stabilization.
357727
The difference is sometimes you will have to stand a little closer to your subject and it is one stop faster!
357728
It's the only lens I use for my 800. With occasional hiccups trying to focus through car window glass. It's sharp enough for my varied uses. I was sold on the lens by tests performed and published on the blog Photography Life and you'll also find info on the 24-70, but the 2.8 will give you a softer background.
357729
To my understanding it is usually believed that 2470 is a better version than this one in the same focal length range.But there are other things to consider. How important is it for you to have the extra versatility, that is, the focal length of 70 to 120? How much do you care about the lost of aperture range? (And that depends on what you plan to shoot most often.) How important is the price difference to you? And weight differs, too.Actually, I envy the newest 750 model so much! lol. It certainly deserves good lenses.
357730
lighter, that extra focal length would help plenty for a general walkaround lens. with a 750's low light performance, you wouldn't feel like you're missing out on the extra stops of light that the 24-70 provides. plus the 24-120mm is alot more bang for your buck. Honestly you only need the 24-70 if you're looking to shoot professionally, and need the blazing performance. otherwise the 24-120 is lighter, more versatile, and plenty of lens for the price.
357731
I have never used a 24-70, but have seen good images made by it. For me, 70mm is too short a tele. I have a 24-85 which is not bad, also a 24-120 VR f/3.5-5.6 which is much better then the 24-120 f/4 I purchased.
357732
I think the 24-120 is considerably more usable, and the f2.8 is not really necessary for low light with the D750 sensor. The f2.8 offers shorter Depth of Field, if that's the important thing to you. I have a 24-85mm f2.8-4D (I don't like the G version) that I use for this range on my D800E, mostly. It's a lot smaller and lighter than the 24-120 f4, with similar optical performance. It lacks the 24-120 VR.The 24-70 is by far the largest and heaviest of the lenses I've mentioned, a negative for me.
357733
I love the range of this lens. I travel a lot and bring it with me all the time using it with a D800. I rarely use my bag and most often the camera and lens sit on the flood of my car. Haven't had any issues with build quality. I have several prime lenses for quality but the 24-120 is good enough for memories and small (13x19) prints. Haven't tried a 24x36 print from it. It's a good performer but not as good as the 24-70. If you are looking for a travel/walkabout lens it is great. If you are looking to sell your work or print larger prints get the 24-70.
1247240
hum... what do you mean, by a "base" lens? I consider myself a "advanced" amateur haha... i also have a D7000, and i use this lens mostly for street-photography and some portraits. This lens are definitely for open space when you use it in a crop sensor (which is the case), if you need a lens for indoor, i would go for some sigma or even tamron 17-50mm f2.8 which is more expensive. I even have a nikkor 35mm f1.8 which is not wide enough for small indoor places, but it is also one great lens.Talking about the image quality it is amazing. It's always nice to have one prime lens. You will never regret. hum... what do you mean, by a "base" lens? I consider myself a "advanced" amateur haha... i also have a D7000, and i use this lens mostly for street-photography and some portraits. This lens are definitely for open space when you use it in a crop sensor (which is the case), if you need a lens for indoor, i would go for some sigma or even tamron 17-50mm f2.8 which is more expensive. I even have a nikkor 35mm f1.8 which is not wide enough for small indoor places, but it is also one great lens.Talking about the image quality it is amazing. It's always nice to have one... » Read More hum... what do you mean, by a "base" lens? I consider myself a "advanced" amateur haha... i also have a D7000, and i use this lens mostly for street-photography and some portraits. This lens are definitely for open space when you use it in a crop sensor (which is the case), if you need a lens for indoor, i would go for some sigma or even tamron 17-50mm f2.8 which is more expensive. I even have a nikkor 35mm f1.8 which is not wide enough for small indoor places, but it is also one great lens.Talking about the image quality it is amazing. It's always nice to have one prime lens. You will never regret. « Show Less
1163548
Uff... to much i will said... this are one of the finest cheapers lenses that you will find, the one thing that you must have in mind is that this is a f1.8 so that allows to get a lot more light meanwhile the 18-55 is a 3.5 and that my friend on the DLSR world is a big diference.
1784428
I use my 24-70 for just about everthing, it is a great lens. I have done portraits, events, weddings and my own stuff while on vacations. Your only other real alternatives are primes. (85mm, 50mm and the 70-200mm) The pics come out of the 24-70 really sharp, the bokeh is great and the contrast is really eye opening if you have metered your shots correctly... Hope this helps..Phil
1716982
I use it ad my walk around lens with my 6d too. It isn't as sharp as the canon 24-70 or as sharp ad tamrons 24-70 but it is sharper then sigmas 24-70. That being said, for the price it is a seriously amazing lens. It is very sharp, just not weather sealed.
824633
I find the 28 to 70 lens to be a really great lens, sharp, easy to use, fast focus but a bit heavy when used for an event such as weddings. I would recommend looking at 24 - 70mm lens by sigma.
824632
Hello scott I just bought it , 'cause i can`t afford the 24-70 too. The lense has an excellente construction, and it really sharp. The only thing I can tell you, is that is a HEAVY sense, I don't know if the 24-70 is lighter, but if you are gonna use it for several hours, have this in mind. I hope I could halp you, sorry my english.
135635
If you want versatility, I'd definitely go with the 18-270 lens. I absolutely love mine. I'd also look at the 16-300 Tamron as well. It's a couple hundred dollars more, but I feel well worth the investment.
933395
the biggest advantage is obviously the ability to go wide during weddings etc without missing shots or having to switch lenses. The 24mm is crisp throughout vs the softer edges in the older lens. I've also heard of some quality issues on the older lenses as well. The 35-70 won't auto focus with all cameras, depending on what you carry. Hope this helps.
1939651
For one thing you don't have the full range as the 28/300... Which is an all around lens. I would say the 70/200 being 2.8 captures great shots that you are planning for in that range, Unlike the other where the shots might be wide angle to zoom changing frequently.
328902
I was faced with this exact problem and chose the 700. Here are my reasons. The 700 has a longer lens but the 800 has a wider lens. For my shooting purposes, longer is definitely more useful. You should think about what kind of shots you're likely to shoot and decide based on that. The 800 has a newer sensor and higher ISO capabilities. The higher ISO enables you to shoot in dark light so if you often shoot at night, that might be something to think about. I doubt the newer sensor is worth the $80. It's not like the 700 had a terrible sensor.
597333
Agreed with Tech Guy. 24mm on a crop (effectively 40mm) is just not wide enough for a general walk-around lens.That said, I do wish that Canon would have made the 15-85 a constant aperture lens like the 24-105 f/4L.
501123
Congrats on the nice lens! I have the 17-85. It's better than my 18-55, but I would love to get the 17-55 someday. Heck, I'd like to get a lot of different lenses someday! But being completely new to dslr, I think what I have now will suffice until I get going.
532282
I have both on a nex-6 looking to move to a a6000 but both lenses are great. The 24mm much sharper when blown up but color contrast wise the 16-70 is good enough. the 24mm obviously has a super bright aperture but the telephoto is much versatile .
2173346
The best review of these two lenses in on Ken Rockwell's website. I currently have the Canon35 1.4 and the 35 2.0 non-is. I also had the 35 2.0 IS but sold it and then got the non-IS on eBay. Why? The IS is great but big and I was looking to put together a lighter combo than the 5DMK3 and 1.4. I have a 6D that fits the bill and thought the new 35 IS would work well as an everyday combo to carry around. The image quality is very good but it is big. So, I sold it, found a good version of the non-IS, and in combination with the 6D it meets all my needs. Good quality images, smaller lens, less weight.
220609
Hi John,If light is an issue, you would definitely need a lens with f2.8 or less. and with 24-105 you can at best get f4.0 so I believe you will have to choose between quality and range.If you want quality in low light conditions then go for the 24-70 mm. If range is a greater priority then you can go for the 24-105 f/4.0 L IS
1850457
I have also the XF18-55. The XF27 is a little slower than the 18-55 and a little less accurate when tries to find focus (under difficult and not contrasty conditions). But in general i'm happy with this lens, is not for sports but for street photography for example is fine. Also is very sharp and small and with my X-E2 i can take it everywhere.