New 24-120 f4 Sample Images

Discussion in 'Nikon' started by graham_thompson|1, Oct 2, 2010.

  1. Here you go.
    24mm @ f4
    00XPEq-286479584.jpg
     
  2. And at 120mm f4
    00XPEt-286481584.JPG
     
  3. Another at 120 f4
    00XPEx-286483584.JPG
     
  4. Graham,
    thanks - can you please supply a bit more detail (body, settings etc)?
    andyc
    PS - avoid sitting on the chair at left til you've fixed the leg (or is it a result of lens barrelling?)
     
  5. D700. A setting. All camera settings 0 (Sharpening etc)
    All hand held. The bent chair is as a resut of me throwing it at next door who would not turn the noise down.
    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.
    NO PP other than resize. If anyone wants a couple shooting off let me know settings you require.
    Graham.
     
  6. Another 120f4
    00XPFt-286503584.JPG
     
  7. Looks good, can you post full size images please?
     
  8. Arthur. Here you go.
    00XPGy-286527584.jpg
     
  9. Those shots look to be alot sharper than most folks give that lens credit for. Not bad at-all.
     
  10. Thx Graham, first time shots looking fine to me.
    Just some PF in the trees in the first pics., does that dissapear when stopping down 1 or 2 stops ?
    BTW, did the neighbours leave after you throwing the chair at them ? ( house sold now..) :) .
     
  11. 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.
    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.
    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.
    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.
    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.
     
  12. 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.
     
  13. 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.
     
  14. Yeah need a comparison shot, some of the reviewers should get on it soon ..
    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 ...
     
  15. Well, this looks very very promising. Thanks for your postings!
     
  16. This lens in on my got to have list right after I get rid of my 35-70 2.8
     

Share This Page