24-120mm f/4

[realdereal]

Any thoughts on the Nikon 24-120mm f/4 lens as a portrait lens?
Only considering because it comes as a kit lens with the D750 and
the difference in price is $700 between the body and kit.

[AlwaysOnAuto]

Given what you've got listed for your D7100, I'd be inclined to get just the body. While I've never used the 24-120, f/4 just doesn't sound like a very fast lens to me. I think I'd like to be shooting portraits with f/2 or wider myself.

Just for reference I shoot a Nikon D7000 w/18-200 DX, but have a couple of manual focus lenses too which I haven't really shot all that much to be truthful. If I weren't retired on a fixed income now I'd be hankerin' to get one of those D750's. From all I've read it's a pretty nice camera.

[Polar01]

AOA the difference between f/2.8 and f/4 is one stop, and "K" the D7100 is a fine great camera in the hands and will do almost anything in the hands of someone that knows how to get what they want, so why do you want the D750? It is not that much of a leap upwards.

Cheers: Allan

[lukaswerth]

I understand you are thinking of buying this lens with the D750, because it comes cheaper than than if you would buy it alone.

I don't own the 24-120, but it is normally considered to be a reasonably good lens, and it has VC. You are thinking of it as a portrait lens, however. So I would lean back and think whether this lens really suits me, or is it that I just buy it because I am lured in by the offer. In the latter case, I would not buy it, no matter how cheap I get it: you do what the seller wants, not what you want.

Many people would with for a portrait lens a larger fstop, and would go instead for primes: if you get, for instace, the 50mm 1.8G and the 85mm 1.8G, you should end up with about the dame money - not having any wide-angle, of course - but with lenses which are very well suited for portraits.

Just one idea, my point is: look t your own wants/needs.

Lukas

[realdereal]

- not having any wide-angle, of course - but with lenses which are very well suited for portraits.

Just one idea, my point is: look t your own wants/needs.

Lukas

Yes and that was just it. I was really missing my 17-55mm f/2.8 for some more thematic story portrait images so that is why the temptation. (Also, Nikon makes some lovely glass and that didn't hurt either )

[lukaswerth]

Here is my own consideration: I have primes, mostly, but for what I imagine similar to what you call thematic story portraits, namely for interpreting events, I got myself a Tamron 24-70mm. I was aware of the Nikon 24-120, but the Tamron opens up to 2.8, and has VC - this made my decision. (Let me emphasize here, with regard to another thread I opened, that I am not paid by Tamron or some marketing agency; this is just an example.)

You may also want to decide how you proceed with regard to your pocket (consideration for me, certiainly): get ready for everything by hok or by crook with the new camera, or make yourself a roadmap of some stuff to buy. The latter strategy leaves you somewhat wanting at the beginning (which may, however, also be the case with the first one), but you are likely to end up with equipment more carefully tailored around your needs.

Lukas

[pnodrog]

AOA the difference between f/2.8 and f/4 is one stop, and "K" the D7100 is a fine great camera in the hands and will do almost anything in the hands of someone that knows how to get what they want, so why do you want the D750? It is not that much of a leap upwards.

Cheers: Allan

It is a reasonable big leap up especially for landscape, architecture, sport and high ISO. Whether it is a needed leap is not for us to judge.....

For instance here is the DX0 comparison between a D7100 with his 55-200mm lens, a D7100 with 24-120mm and a D610 with the 24-120 lens being considered. (D750 not yet tested with lens but will possibly be even better)

I used the older 24-120 3.5-5.6D for years on a F90x film camera and it was very capable of taking portraits and was at the time my lens of choice for weddings.

[mrinmoyvk]

I would personally not go for f4 lens for portraits. Also having D7100, D750 is not a much higher leap for portraits..

My dream lens is for portraits Nikon 24-70 f2.8G but as your existing D7100 has builtin focus motor, and if you buy D750, it also has one. I would suggest to go for Nikon D24-70 f2.8D

My personal thinking is buy new gear only when existing one is absolutely not capable of giving you what you want, not because the new one is better than existing.

[pnodrog]

A 80mm focal length lens on a FX body at 1.5 meters and f4 gives a 8cm DOF and at 2.8 gives 6cm. Assuming you focus on the eyes some of the DOF (about a 1/3rd) will be in front of the face. From the cheeks and back past the ears you end up with either 5cm at f4 or 4cm at f2.8.

So why would f4 not be suitable for portrait and yet the dream lens at f2.8 is?

[Clactonian]

I decided against the kit 24-120 when buying my D750 after having read many reviews of the lens, but bought the 35mm f1.8G and 50mm f1.8G instead for a similar outlay. I already own an older 85mm f1.8 and 180mm f2.8 which are both stella performers on the D750. For wider requirements I have a Voigtlander 20mm f3.5 which is normally attached to my D3200 travel camera.

[pnodrog]

I decided against the kit 24-120 when buying my D750 after having read many reviews of the lens, but bought the 35mm f1.8G and 50mm f1.8G instead for a similar outlay. I already own an older 85mm f1.8 and 180mm f2.8 which are both stella performers on the D750. For wider requirements I have a Voigtlander 20mm f3.5 which is normally attached to my D3200 travel camera.

Owning a 85mm f1.8 and a 180mm f2.8 you had a very different starting point...

P.S. I am tossing up as to whether the 85mm f1.8 or a 105mm macro is at the top of my very long wish list

[Clactonian]

Owning a 85mm f1.8 and a 180mm f2.8 you had a very different starting point...

P.S. I am tossing up as to whether the 85mm f1.8 or a 105mm macro is at the top of my very long wish list

That's quite true and it did make the decision easier.
If it's any help to you I have found the 85mm one of my least used lenses, albeit on a DX camera. I am saving up for a 105mm Macro myself which I can see me using a lot although I might go for the Tamron 90mm macro which gets similarly good reviews and is substantially cheaper.

[pnodrog]

Yes, the Tamron looks like a good option and easier to save for.

[mrinmoyvk]

A 80mm focal length lens on a FX body at 1.5 meters and f4 gives a 8cm DOF and at 2.8 gives 6cm. Assuming you focus on the eyes some of the DOF (about a 1/3rd) will be in front of the face. From the checks and back and back past the ears you end up with either 5cm at f4 or 4cm at f2.8.

So why would f4 not be suitable for portrait and yet the dream lens at f2.8 is?

You may not always shoot portraits in proper light, many times the locations are dark but amazingly good for portrait. f4 is many times not sufficiently wide enough to capture light at those times.
Also 1.5 meters is ideal length (head to chest shot) and many times subject is far from camera with background near to subject and you might want to capture head to waist or even full head to toe shot. At these times 2.8 will help in giving bokeh as background is near to subject and subject is far from camera.

Being new to photography I might be wrong with this. These are my personal experiences. I might not be utilizing f4 efficiently.

[mrinmoyvk]

I decided against the kit 24-120 when buying my D750 after having read many reviews of the lens, but bought the 35mm f1.8G and 50mm f1.8G instead for a similar outlay. I already own an older 85mm f1.8 and 180mm f2.8 which are both stella performers on the D750. For wider requirements I have a Voigtlander 20mm f3.5 which is normally attached to my D3200 travel camera.

So now you have 35mm 1.8, 50mm 1.8, 85 mm 1.8 & 180mm 2.8?
Amazing collection I must say....

[ajohnw]

I would have thought 24mm as a bit of a complete waste of time for portraits especially as I feel 60mm on a full frame is still rather short for this use but not out of the question. So 60-120 still leaves a fair amount in the portrait range. The lens like all such wide to long drops off in performance at the longer end. If that bothers you the optimum Nikon zoom for portrait work on full frame would be the 70-200mm F2.8 or F4. Sigma also do one which is cheaper but the Nikon lens is very highly regarded with good reason.

To be honest I wonder if you would be better off forgetting full frame and buying a Sigma 55-150mm F2.8 and sticking with crop. There are 2 main gains with full frame. 2 stops better ISO - noise performance if you choose the right camera and so called reach. While say 200mm on crop is reckonned to be 300mm FF equivalent 300mm on FF is likely to give much higher resolution.

Personally I feel that it's very astute of Sigma to make this lens as it covers a range that the main manufacturers mostly ignore when it comes to high quality lenses on crop.

John
-