New 24-120 f4 Sample Images

<p>Here you go.<br />24mm @ f4</p><div></div>

<p>And at 120mm f4</p><div></div>

<p>Another at 120 f4</p><div></div>

<p>Graham,<br>

thanks - can you please supply a bit more detail (body, settings etc)?<br>

andyc<br>

PS - avoid sitting on the chair at left til you've fixed the leg (or is it a result of lens barrelling?)</p>

<p>D700. A setting. All camera settings 0 (Sharpening etc)<br>

All hand held. The bent chair is as a resut of me throwing it at next door who would not turn the noise down.<br>

I expect I will get the full kit out tomorrow. Kirk RA bracket on Arca Swiss Ballhead on heavy old Manfrotto with cable release and mirror lock up.<br>

NO PP other than resize. If anyone wants a couple shooting off let me know settings you require.<br>

Graham.</p>

<p>Another 120f4</p><div></div>

<p>Looks good, can you post full size images please?</p>

 

<p>Arthur. Here you go.</p><div></div>

<p>And again</p><div></div>

<p>Those shots look to be alot sharper than most folks give that lens credit for. Not bad at-all.</p>

<p>Thx Graham, first time shots looking fine to me.<br />Just some PF in the trees in the first pics., does that dissapear when stopping down 1 or 2 stops ?<br />BTW, did the neighbours leave after you throwing the chair at them ? ( house sold now..) :-) .</p>

<p>Looks good enough to me, after studying the high resolution samples. Seems a little better at 24mm wide open than my copy of the older 24-120/3.5-5.6 VR; and about the same at 120mm. Might be a good all purpose zoom for my purposes. I've been kicking myself for selling my 24-120/3.5-5.6 VR, but at the time I didn't think I'd be needing VR again. Wrong-O.</p>

<p>I notice from the EXIF data the photo at 24mm was focused on the plant at left (confirmed as 2m distance), which might be a bit misleading for viewers expecting the center to be sharp.</p>

<p>There's less light falloff (vignetting) at the corners than I'd expected to see from this lens wide open at 24mm on an FX body. A little at 120mm too, but not objectionable for most purposes.</p>

<p>I see a little purplish blooming in foliage against the sky, but so far I'm not seeing any CA - not sure whether that's automagically corrected for in the D700.</p>

<p>Thanks for posting the pix, Graham. I downloaded 'em to play around with, see how the D700 JPEGs stand up to editing. The D700 JPEGs are about the same size as my D2H NEFs - around 6 MB. Pretty big difference. Much smoother in the skies.</p>

<p>Without a comparison photo from another lens, it is difficult to tell other than to say the shots look typical of virtually all Nikon lenses - excellent! Enjoy your new lens.</p>

<p>Thank you. I think I want to get this lens and sell my 24-120mm f/3.5-5.6 VR. Mine is a very good copy since it was cleaned and aligned, but I want f/4 beyond 30mm.</p>

<p>Yeah need a comparison shot, some of the reviewers should get on it soon ..</p>

<p>I think it could be nice but then again a f/4 lens is approx the same as a f/3.4-4.5 lens, good convenient FL range thou for maybe a quality lens but not a fast one. Not sure if I would get one myself since I do landscapes mainly, v v seldom portraits, events et al .. not even sure if I would get a 2.8 mid zoom lens at all ...</p>

<p>Well, this looks very very promising. Thanks for your postings!</p>

<p>This lens in on my got to have list right after I get rid of my 35-70 2.8</p>