D700/24-120 kit package.. Lens quality?

I have a sweet tooth for a D700, as my daughter would love my D200, but.....from all previous reviews, Isn't the 24-120 a horror image

wise & spec wise? Why would nikon mate it to the D700 as a package? Is this a new design, with improved specs & IQ similar to the 18-

70, or 18-200 DX's? I could live with similar faults!

Shouldn't their 2 new FX zooms, or the 17-35/2.8 + some mid-telephoto (not yet in production ??), be the only considerations

commensurate to the abilities of this camera, (if your into Zooms)? Any sugg's? Thanks.

Yes, it does seem an oddity that Nikon would pair this, at best, very mediocre lens, with the Nikon D700. Maybe they have

a lot of product they can't move otherwise.

 

Suggestions? If you can only find the body paired with this lens, buy the combination and sell the lens.

Stephen, I read here somewhere that the lens package was overpriced and the lens was not so good. Give me a sec and I'll see if I can find it.

here is a thread, read Shun's response, he pretty much is dead-on when it comes to Nikon stuff:

 

http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00QQ28

also:

 

http://www.bythom.com/24120ens.htm

<i>"Isn't the 24-120 a horror image wise & spec wise?"</i><p>

 

Nope. It's entirely comparable to the popular 18-70/3.5-4.5 DX. If anything it's slightly sharper but not quite as resistant to veiling flare. It's very resistant to ghosting flare.<p>

 

Instead of relying on regurgitated rumors from folks who haven't actually owned, used or tested a lens, read comments from those who have. Read the photozone.de review of the 24-120 VR. In my experience with the lens (two years) it's dead on accurate, pros and cons.<p>

 

Is it an odd combination for a high end camera? No more so than any kit zoom. However, it does *not* appear to be a good value as bundled. That's the one and only reason I'd advise skipping this particular "deal" from Nikon. The lens is perfectly good, comparable to any of Nikon's better consumer grade zooms.

"Isn't the 24-120 a horror image wise & spec wise?"

 

I really don't think Nikon makes any horror lenses. I'm sure is not the best lens out there and I'm sure is not the best lens to

pair with a D700. It is just another KIT LENS. Maybe Nikon should had come out with a better new lens for this camera, if

they have a 24-70 kit would be very hard to move. It would be a 5K combo. I really don't see the problem, people buy a

D300 18-200 or 18-70 combo, I'm sure it is in the same category. So the best I think is just to buy a body and buy a good

lens that will match the capabilities of a D700 (18-35, 24-70, 28-70) Rene'

Aha this thread gets my last post prior to a month of long-awaited travels.

 

I often wonder why, for this kind of advanced body that is not at the "kit" end of the market, Nikon doesn't bundle it with the 50/1.8

 

Reasons for this view are that kit zooms are often not what a D700 type buyer will want to use but the same buyers will probably want to assemble their own selection of pro glass (whether zoom or prime).

 

In the 50/1.8, Nikon would not have to move the 'body only' price point much at all but would have an offering that would give a good 'out of the box' performance, and with a lens that would probably be kept by most photographers as a part of their bag of lenses.

<b>Isn't the 24-120 a horror image wise & spec wise?</b>

<p>Well, it's not Nikon's best (the kind that requires you to cough up lots of dough for the back-breaking heavy metal

for), but it's a decent pre-18-200mm all purpose lens.

<p>Mary

This is the better thread for a similar discussion last month:

http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00QCAt

 

Exactly as expected, B&H is now out of stock if you want the D700, body only. However, they have never been out of stock with the kit. Why would anybody put a mediocre lens on a very high-end body is beyond me. Worse yet, the kit will cost you $90 more than buying the body and lens separately. No wonder the combo is not selling very well.

Some number cruncher somewhere at a company we all know and love said "Oh crap, we have a LOT of those horrible 24-

120 lenses in stock. I know, let's sell them in a bundle with a high-end camera!"

I owned the lens for about 2 years. I really liked it. It gave me excellent results. Perhaps like the

18-200mm, there are good and bad copies. I am not saying it is the best lens choice for a D3 or D700. But for

general photography for a snapshot shooter, there is nothing wrong with it. It is probably not for pixel

peepers! But that criteria could/would also apply to many Nikon lenses.

 

Perhaps someone who owns the D700 and the 24-120mm can post some sample shots.

 

The D700 (body only) is still in stock at Ritz online. They have been and continue to be out of stock of the

D700/24-120mm combo.

I have got the D700/24-120 and I am not entirely impressed with the quality of this lens. While it is bright and sharp on

short focal distances its quality is bellow expectations once it goes over 50mm. I got the camera last weekend so did not

have time to play with it but there is an example of a photo taken with D700/24-120.

 

<a href=" title="20080101-DSC_0023 by Ovidiu_S, on Flickr"><img

src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3275/2739814048_f9d5b4f8cb.jpg" width="500" height="333" alt="20080101-DSC_0023" /></a>

"Isn't the 24-120 a horror image wise & spec wise? Why would nikon mate it to the D700 as a package?"

 

yeah a kit package doesn't seem appropriate or a wise buy to me for the quality of the D700.

in my opinion, if i ever actually get one (which my hours of lurking threads and reveiws on it hope) i would spend the extra money and build myself a set of a few good quality lenses. the 24 - 120 kit seems to me a ploy to distract people from the price of the body and not to accentuate the full skills of the camera

If I were considering a D700 and a zoom I would look at the 17-35mm or one of the mid range f2.8 zooms. Of course two or three primes might be a better solution. Just from general reading it seems most people want zooms so I guess Nikon will oblige with a not to expensive package. It may not be the best but it has a lot of range.

As someone that actually has the 24-120 AFS VR I can state that it is not as bad as it's online reputation would suggest. Most postings knocking the lens are probably from folks who never used the lens on a D3 or D700 or have bad copies or just have unrealistic expectations of the lens. On a DX body I did not like the quality of the lens, but on the FX body it's not bad - no worse than the 2 kit lenses (I have both) the OP mentioned. The biggest deficiencies on my copy are the corners at wide apertures at the wider angles and distortions. Not the lens to be shooting newspapers or straight lines at 24mm wide open. For a walk-about lens or to use with flash/strobes to cover a people type event such as a wedding reception, it's works. The 24-70 AFS would give you the best optical and build quality but it is several times the price, heavier, bigger, and less range than the 24-120. Also, as some posters have stated above, the kit price is no bargain. Better to get both separate. Nikon should have priced the kit $100-200 less than the current price IMHO.

The focal lenght range and feature set (VR) seems just about right for an FX camera body. For those who think Nikon has

made a bad choice in pairing the D700 & 24-120, I ask you what lens you would select from the Nikon catalog to pair in the

kit?

Although Lex beats the same drum every time this question comes up I completely agree with him on this. There are a bunch of self-perpetuating opinions about the lens on the internet. It is no miracle lens by any stretch but it is a lens that just works. I have had one getting close to 5 years, first on F100 and N80, and more recently on a D80. True it is not the sharpest for pixel peepers, but still produces very pleasing useful images. My opinion on the short coming of the lens is that wide open the lens takes a bit more of a nose dive than other nikon lens. No this lens does not solve world hunger.

Dan,

 

I wouldn't pair a lens with the D700, would not sell it in "kit form". I believe most people who consider purchasing the D700

probably have a performance expatiation exceeding the capability of a lens such as the Nikon 24-120mm.

 

A body at this level of sophistication in the Nikon digital SLR line should be sold alone, in my opinion.

I am afraid that some people simply don't understand that a lens that maxes out at f5.6 is very limiting.

If I were buying a $500 consumer DSLR, it makes perfect sense to couple that with a cheap 18-55 f5.6 lens. When you are spending $3000 on a high-end DSLR, why would you want to limit yourself to f5.6?

Any lens (except for super teles) had better produce excellent results at f5.6; meeting that should barely pass the bar, not an advantage. "Not bad" at f5.6 simply doesn't cut it, especially on a $3000 body.

 

If you are buying a $3000 DSLR, you should either have a few very good lenses already or have an additional $3000 budget for lenses (or some combination of both). As Dan Brown puts out, it doesn't make sense to dress "Miss America in a burlap bag."

Shun - Yes I agree that 5.6 is limiting but I don't think substituting it in the kit for a $1000+ 2.8 lens would make much sense either. The D700 should not really be a "kit" camera for anyone that is in the market for it. "Not bad at f5.6" does not cut it on a D700. IMHO "Not bad at f5.6" is OK for a $500 FF lens, with VR, designed for film, covering this range, and is about 5years old. Pairing it with a D700 was not a good, but it seems that Nikon's options for a moderate priced VR lens to pair with the D700 was somewhat limited by their current lineup. Just my thoughts. Shun - BTW thanks for your hard work around here!

Sorry, I meant performance expectation, not "performance expatiation".

I think Nikon recognizes very well part of its demographic. A lot of photographers with deep pockets and little experience will flock to the "fool frame" because they've been persuaded that they must have it. They won't know or care about the lens. They think it's the big sensor that makes all the difference.

 

In a few weeks they'll be posting questions on the web asking where the picture icon modes are on the D700, wondering whether the 18-200 VR would be a major upgrade from the 24-120 VR kit lens, and trying to figure out why they can't upload a full resolution raw file to photo.net for critiques.

I bought a 24-120 a couple of years ago because I couldn't get an 18-200. I was perfectly happy with it although a bit soft at the long end. When I got the 18-200, I sold the 24-120 (because the 18-200 is so much better) and never looked back. While I strongly agree that the D700 should not be in a "kit" I also know that its more than obvious that Nikon over-produced the lens and needed to get rid of it. The good thing? Many are buying the kit and selling the 24-120. There are a ton of them on the market and can be had used (read brand new) for very cheap. Almost worth getting another one for fun.

To Shun's Dan Brown quote: "...it doesn't make sense to dress "Miss America in a burlap bag." I'd take Miss America in a burlap bag over Rosanne Barr in a top fashion swimsuit. :)

 

Of the 3 current in production Nikon wide to medium telephoto zooms, one is too expensive for a typical 'kit' (24-70 @ $1,700), another is an older screw drive and no fancy techno initials in it's name (24-85/2.8-4) to market. Only the 24-120 has the marketing loved string of features at a reasonable price (ED-IF AF-S VR). The deep pocket amateurs with less photography knowledge are more likely to get such a kit. Those who know what their actual needs are will choose differently. I happen to already have the lens and find it to be fine for what it is on FX - it does the job. When top quality is more important than convenience then the 17-35 or 85/1.4 comes out.

 

And the end of the day, if Nikon makes more money selling the kits vs just bodies alone, the better it is for all Nikon users. It's more revenue and market share.