Jump to content

Nikon 24-120mm F/4


moi1

Recommended Posts

<p>I plan on shooting (mostly landscpes and family pix)with this lens on a D300...<br>

Would like to get some feed back as to what you folks think of it in general and on DX.<br>

I do plan on going FF in the coming year so this is also one of the reasons I am contemplating the purchase.<br>

I also have<br>

35mm F/2 AI<br>

55-200mm 4,5-5,6<br>

12-24mm F/4</p>

<p>Thanks for your time...</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I would like to hear your feedback once you have used the lens for a while. Not many here have it. My only thought is that the tests show it to have considerable distortion, but that may not be such a big problem for you. Moose Peterson likes it a lot, but he's a Nikon guy of old. Also, it costs a bundle. There is a test report on photozone.de on an FX body.</p>

<p>Good luck.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I like this lens. It`s a bit on the heavy/thick side, but still compact for the range and great for its constant aperture and VR feature.</p>

<p>I`m satisfied with its optical performance, from a practical point of view it has almost replaced the 50AFS I had permanently attached to my D700.</p>

<p>My only fear is about protection. The balance is heavily towards the front element, making it largely proned to be knocking everywhere. The hood is small (it have to work with in a super wide setting) then a protection filter is a must, making it even more "big headed". It`s not a pro-zoom kind of lens. </p>

<p>It has a telescopic type zoom displacement design, with its inherent <strong>benefits </strong><em>and</em> <strong>disadvantages</strong>.</p>

<p>I think it`s the most useful Nikkor zoom I have ever used, although I`d never buy it for DX.<br>

---<br>

Edit:<br>

I`m using one of the first units that were sold around here, as mentioned above its my most used lens since then.<br>

I`m not worried about distortion; my subject types doesn`t make it obvious (most people photography). I really don`t care about it.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I also like this lens. For just casual walk-around shooting the range is great on the D700 and the optical quality is fine. It will never replace my primes or pro zooms for critical work but, like Jose, it stays on my D700 most of the time.<br>

I also agree with everything in the photozone report. There is vignetting at 24mm, it is not super-sharp at 120mm, and is overall better stopped-down a stop or two -- typical of most zoom lenses. In other words, it is a well-made, decent lens with a really useful range for FX.<br>

And I also agree with Jose: I would not recommend this for DX. The range is not that useful on DX. This is really the "ultimate kit lens" for FX.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I have had the 24-120mm/f4 AF-S VR for two months. For family pictures, it is fantistic and probably an overkill. The wide zoom range means I can zoom into a kid at 120mm when necessary, thus doing a better job than my 28-70mm/f2.8 AF-S. I also tested it at 24mm, f8-f11 for some near-far landscape and I am happy with the results.</p>

<p>However, I shot a corporate event last week and inside a bar for celebration, I had some focusing issues at maximum f4. If you shoot indoors a lot, especially at dim light, the 24-70mm/f2.8 may be a better choice.</p>

<p>Jose is correct that the front element is very close to the rim of the lens. The hood is wide and shallow to accomoate 24mm. So I too pretty much use an NC filter on this lens at all times for protection.</p>

<p>And I also agree that this is a lens for FX. I mainly use it on my D700. On DX, 24mm is not wide enough for me and is therefore very annoying.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>There seem to be lot of discussions regarding the goodness and value of this lens. Those who are most critical of this lens does not seem to own it and does not use it but the basis of their argument is the test results published in various websites. Those who own and use the lens, vast majority appear to be quite happy with the lens. I fall into the latter category. For me, this lens stays on my D300 most of the time. </p>

<p>I don't shoot indoors very much with this lens (other than to capture the moment, otherwise I change it to a wider, faster lens). But do use it for family/sports/recreation type of images outdoors. It provides a good overlap between my 80-200 and 24-120 for sports on D300 - having to change lenses less often. The images from D300, is its quite nice - color, contrast and sharpness overall. Vast majority of the test issues associated with vignetting and large pincushion are outside of DX sensor. In other words, it uses the better center image quality characteristics of this lens. My recollection is that there is a similar behavior with the 70-200VR-I (the original) between FX and DX bodies (being discussed by others).</p>

<p> </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p> Those who are most critical of this lens does not seem to own it and does not use it but the basis of their argument is the test results published in various websites.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That is completely normal. For example, I have tried several copies of the highly popular 18-200mm/f3.5-5.6 DX lens. In 2009 I had a brand new one on loan during a 3-week trip. To me, that lens is perfectly fine on the short end but unacceptable near 200mm, and I decided not to buy one myself. Why would I own something that I don't like at all?<br>

<br>

As far as test results, the quality varies a lot. Some sites are known to provide "test results" on lenses they have never seen. Some people have no idea how to test lenses but yet they have a site providing results.<br>

<br>

As I said, I have had the 24-120mm/f4 AF-S VR for a little while. I am quite happy with it but I wouldn't hesitate to point out its limitations. It is a 5x zoom; some optical compromises are inevitable. E.g., distortion is at its minimum around 35mm or so. Once you are away from 35mm, distortion gets pretty serious. However, for people photography and landscape photography (as long as I don't have the horizon near the edge of the frame), I don't care about distortion. But if you try to shoot architecture with this lens as Ilkka did, it will annoy you probably to no end: <a href="00Y34B">http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00Y34B</a></p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I have the older version of the lens which is a lens that always gets poor reviews, yet there are some like me who actually own the lens and find it to give very good results (especially after post processing). I think in general the new lens has received good reviews. You will probably enjoy it but to be sure, I would suggest you purchase it from a dealer that accepts returns. That way you can try it out for yourself and if you decide you don't like it, you can return it.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I've had the older 24-120 F3.5-5.6 VR as my main carry-around lens for a number of years. I liked it on my D200 and I like it better on my D3. It has some issues now- the zoom is a little sticky- but the range is good and for what I do it works fine. There's no comparison to a pro grade lens like my 70-200, but it's a lot lighter (as Mr. McGuire said to Ben: "Plastics.").</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>BTW</p>

<p>You might consider the 28-300 ED VR as an alternative. Comparable (cheaper) price, size, and slightly heavier weight but more than twice the focal length at the long end. I don't own it, but I'm thinking about it as a replacement for my 24-120... On the other hand, a 450mm equivalent on your D300 might be a little long (great for wildlife though). Depends on whether or not you need the wide end of the range.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...