Nikon 24-120mm F4 G ED VR

[koffiejunkie]

This beauty just got announced.



Now the D700 is a real option to me

 

[Jola]

Hmm, I could go for that

Already have a D700 - needs a carry-around lens !

 

[koffiejunkie]

The lack of something like the Canon 24-105mm f/4 L IS USM is the reason I didn't buy a D700 when my camera got stolen. I find 24-70 a bit too short for my all-round taste.

 

[Jola]

The lack of something like the Canon 24-105mm f/4 L IS USM is the reason I didn't buy a D700 when my camera got stolen. I find 24-70 a bit too short for my all-round taste.

I agree, I have a 24-70, but may consider selling it if I get the above lens.

I used to have the Canon 24-105/4L IS, great all-round lens.

 

[synapseZA]

I am quite tempted by the new 85mm f/1.4G....

 

[bwana]

Now the D700 is a real option to me

Planning on switching then?

Looks nice but, like the canon 24-105, F/4 is still to slow for my general needs.

 

[koffiejunkie]

Planning on switching then?

Not planning, but next time I have to buy a new camera, it's nice to know I have this as an option.

Looks nice but, like the canon 24-105, F/4 is still to slow for my general needs.

If I was making money off my shooting, I would probably have the 24-70 f/2.8 already.

 

[Jola]

That 24-70/2.8 is a great lens, but it is big and heavy, I don't always take it with me.

 

[bwana]

If I was making money off my shooting, I would probably have the 24-70 f/2.8 already.

The mistake I make all those years ago when I started (was it three or four years ago ) is I didnt buy lenses with the possibility in mind that one day I would want to be . . . which explains that 70-200 f/4 that's in my bag. Although an awesome lens the f/2.8 version would have made more sense.

That 24-70/2.8 is a great lens, but it is big and heavy, I don't always take it with me.

Another reason why I bought the sigma.

 

[koffiejunkie]

The mistake I make all those years ago when I started (was it three or four years ago ) is I didnt buy lenses with the possibility in mind that one day I would want to be . . . which explains that 70-200 f/4 that's in my bag. Although an awesome lens the f/2.8 version would have made more sense.

That's true, but I'm not going buy something that doesn't suit my needs just because I might one day use it to make money. I've shot two friends' weddings now, and while I did ok, I did not enjoy it one bit. Maybe it would be better if it's stranger's wedding, but still, the time and effort goes into it just isn't worth it for me. And besides, if I need to do something that requires different gear, I have access to a great rental company.

 

[bwana]

That's true, but I'm not going buy something that doesn't suit my needs just because I might one day use it to make money. I've shot two friends' weddings now, and while I did ok, I did not enjoy it one bit. Maybe it would be better if it's stranger's wedding, but still, the time and effort goes into it just isn't worth it for me. And besides, if I need to do something that requires different gear, I have access to a great rental company.

http://lh3.ggpht.com/_zr0UVQMb62Y/TG1BkE4tExI/AAAAAAAAB2Q/C-z_vozBInQ/IMG_3826.jpg

Glad to see they managed to get one in stock for you finally . . . you have to admit it's a bit of a risk when you have to rely on renting. Is it the new 70-200 f/2.8 IS II?

I've done my fair share of em but weddings aren't my main thing anyway . . . which reminds me I have to drum up something a bit longer than my 300mm f/2.8 for next months CLT20 matches and I don't have the luxury of a decent rental company nearby.

EDIT - I'm guessing it might not be so be careful if it rains!

 

[koffiejunkie]

Glad to see they managed to get one in stock for you finally . . . you have to admit it's a bit of a risk when you have to rely on renting.

It is but I figure by the time I get good enough and well enough known to get good gigs at very short notice, I will have had fair warning to buy stuff. Anyway, as it is I'm not allowed to make money any other way than my day job (work permit restrictions) and when that changes, there are few other things I'd rather do and that I'm way better at.

Is it the new 70-200 f/2.8 IS II?

No, it's the non-IS one. One came back early so they were able to help me out. I was going for the old IS one though, the new one is about double the price and I don't see the need.

I've done my fair share of em but weddings aren't my main thing anyway . . . which reminds me I have to drum up something a bit longer than my 300mm f/2.8 for next months CLT20 matches and I don't have the luxury of a decent rental company nearby.

I don't even like sport, so no danger of getting into that

 

[BigAl-sa]

I looked at this lens on DPR this morning, and thought to myself, if I had Nikon, I'd look to this to replace my Sigma 24-135 without thinking twice.

 

[koffiejunkie]

And the photozone.de test is up:

http://www.photozone.de/nikon_ff/574-nikkorafs24120f4vrff