OK, So What's the Verdict on the 24-120 f/4?

<p>The Nikkor 24-120 f/4 has now been out for several months. What's the verdict?</p>

<p>This was a lens that was looked forward to with lots of hopes and expectations.</p>

<p>The reviews have been all over the place. There are lots of fans who compare the image quality favorably to the 24-70 f/2.8 in their common range.</p>

<p>There are folks who say it is soft. Everyone says there is some distortion, but the verdict is that this can be fixed easily in post-processing.</p>

<p>There is vignetting at the corners when used on a full-frame camera, but the fans say all lenses do this.</p>

<p>I'm confused. My standard is the 28-105 in terms of sharpness. What is your experience? What is your verdict?</p>

<p>My experience with it is that is much better than previous 24-120mm Nikkors. Af f/5.6 I'd say it is a pretty close match to the 24-70mm f/2.8G.</p>

<p>It's just so darn expensive.</p>

<p>I dunno, maybe this is the new normal :-/</p>

<p>It highly depends on what you are using this lens for. There are definitely the usual distortion and vignetting, but I use this lens for photographing children so that I can't care less about those issues. What I like about is the extended zoom range to cover 1 or multiple children, and the constant f4 is still ok under slightly dim conditions. But when it is really dark, I certainly miss an f2.8 zoom or f1.4 fixed lens.</p>

<p>I got mine with Nikon's instant rebate when you purchase it with a body, so that cost was lower. The 24-120mm/f4 AF-S VR is made in Thailand and it is not a small lens. I am quite happy to use it on both FX and DX.</p><div></div>

<p>BTW, as a small JPEG, that image may look pretty "sharp." It was actually captured on a D700 @ ISO 6400, 1/60 sec at 82mm wide open at f4.</p><div></div>

<p>Shun, I see a set of parallel diagonal lines in the background close to the top right corner, running top left to bottom right. Is that something that was there in the background?</p>

<p>I`m more about confortability and useability. There are sharper lenses in the 24 to 120 range, but this is the sharpest non f2.8, 24/28-XX zoom I have used.</p>

<p>If you`re used to the 28-105, even the 24-85AFS is an upgrade. And then, the 24-120/4 is again another (more noticeable) upgrade.</p>

<p>I think this lens has been a Nikon response to "serious?" users` demand. It`s not a mass product, thought. I now can guess why they didn`t make it before... even being a very compact design, is still a big lens. Construction and balance is a bit compelled and daring to my taste. I`d say it`s for people who know what they want. Variable aperture zooms are cheaper, way smaller&lighter, more reasonable and good enough for most people. Now I see the 24-85/2.8-4 was a smart move.</p>

<p>A more sophisticated design could not differ from a 24-70, probably making it even bigger and more costly.</p>

<p>Anyway, I think it`s an interesting lens for those actually concerned in taking photos. As a travel lens is irreplaceable on a D700. As mentioned, the longer range makes it desiderable instead of the 24-70. The constant aperture provide far better control in comparison with any other consumer zoom. Since I bought it, has been my most used lens together with the 50AFS. I have only used the 24-70 & 70-200 a couple of times (events), just to have the maximum image quality.</p>

<p>I`d say if you think you want a pro zoom but find them too heavy or bulky as a travel/walk around lens, this could be the choice. If you`re simply looking for a cheaper f2.8 zoom substitute, it`s not.</p>

<p>Oliver, I captured that image of Ryan when we were having dinner inside a restaurant. Behind him was a window and there was an alley with street lights on the other side of the window. It looks like they have wires inside the window glass to reinforce it. The wires may be what you observed.</p>

<p>Any banding due to electronic issues inside the camera should be parallel to the edges of the frame. Banding wouldn't appear diagonally across the frame.</p>

<p>I wish that umbrella weren't in the background. That handle is quite distracting. Unfortunately, I didn't notice it.</p><div></div>

<p>Here is a totally different image captured with that same lens, @ 35mm, f5.6, 1/15 sec hand held with a lot of help from vibration reduction. This is also on a D700 @ ISO 1600.</p>

<p>This is one of my favorite Borders Bookstores. As some of you know, Borders is under Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection. Unfortunately, yesterday I found out that they are closing this store as well.</p><div></div>

<p>As Ellis points out, sharpness is very good @ f5.6, even though I was hand holding @ 1/15 sec. VR is extremely effective.</p><div></div>

<p>I hear a lot of negitives on this lems when used ona FF camera,but isin't this a full frame lens? If you have a DX body there are better chices out there in my opinion. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>I hear a lot of negitives on this lems when used ona FF camera</p>

</blockquote>

<p>A lot of those negative comments were about the two older versions: 24-120mm/f3.5-5.6; the first one is an AF-D and the second one is an AF-S with VR. This thread is about the new version which is a constant f4 AF-S with VR.</p>

<p>Yea I know it's the new lens,but there is still alot of distortion in this one,by the way why not get the Nikon 28-300 it's is just as good distortion wise as the 24-120 with a way more useful range and it's about $250.00 less money.</p>

<p>Alan, actually I have both the 24-120mm/f4 AF-S VR as well as the 28-300mm/f3.5-5.6 AF-S VR. The 28-300 is my "one size fits all" backup lens. As I have mentioned a couple of times, Nikon cheats a bit on both ends so that it is not quite as wide as 28mm and not quite as long as 300mm. Since I prefer the wider 24mm than 28mm on FX anyway, having 24 is a big plus for me, so is the constant f4 max aperture.</p>

<p>Distortion is a big deal on certain subjects and a "doesn't matter" on some other subjects. If I shoot architecture, I wouldn't use either one of those two lenses.</p>

<p>The 24-120/4 produces images with better sharpness at the shared long end (i.e. 70-105mm) than the 28-105 but on the other hand the 24-120/4 has prolific distortion and vignetting. Sharpness is usually good from f/5.6 to f/8. After two months of use and evaluating prints in various applications (office portraiture, street photography, landscape, architecture, horse riding, and children playing outdoors) I sold my 24-120. It's not that I don't want the extended range; it is very useful and the lens is a lot of fun to use. However, the image quality from my other lenses is better, and in the end it's not just about having fun while shooting; I prefer to be able to enjoy the print too. What I really do not enjoy is sitting by the computer fixing images after work. Life is too short for that.</p>

<p>I hear you Shun,but the IQ of the lenses are a different matter when used on DX bodies I'am quoting reviews I have seen using the new 24-120 on an FX body. vignetting,distortion,etc.</p>

<p>+1 To Allen RE:28-300. I also tried to decide on the 24-120 or the 28-300. I was fortunate to have a cousine who loaned me his Nikon 28-300 for a week. Since I live very near the theme parks in ORL I was able to put it through the ringer and see results. Next, I tried the 24-120 at another park for a day. My conclusion, the 24-120 as a walk around was so-so, but go inside a dim light area and it was a winner. Now, the 28-300 was clearly unbeatable for versatility and getting those quick shots. I use a D3, so inside with the 28-300 I cranked up the ISO and used noiseware in post where needed and IQ was very acceptable. For my applications...bang for the buck for walk-around/general use and with fairly good user technique for dim/semi-dim light, I purchased the Nikon 28-300.</p>

<p>Here is Ryan again playing with one of his favorite toys, the i-Phone.</p>

<p>This was captured with the 24-120mm/f4 AF-S VR @ 28mm, f5.6 on the DX-format D7000 at ISO 1600, 1/80 sec.</p><div></div>

<p>Recall that the D7000 is extremely demanding on lenses, but the 24-120 holds up quite well @ f5.6. ISO 1600 does degrade the image a bit, but it is still good for DX.</p><div></div>

<p>My experience: It is an excellent multipurpose lens, streching from wide-angle for landscapes and interiors to head-and-shoulder portrait tele. Having a fixed aperture makes manual exposure much easier when zooming and VR allows for lower iso settings on stationary subjects. No other Nikon lenses gives me all this in one lens!<br>

If you look for faults you will find them with all lenses; some distort, some have vignetting, some are not super-sharp. But, it is the whole package that gives you the picture, and there are definately some shots that I could pull off with my 24-120 f4 that I could not have gotten with a 24-70 f2.8. All depends what you use your lens for. Point is, for many subjects and situations, versitality (24-120) wins over best possible quality (24-70).<br>

Now, for the DX/FX discussion: All FX lenses will distort and vignette more on a FX camera body than on DX. Simple optical physics. If you have a problem with it, buy FX lenses and use them on DX bodies. Then you use the central part of the optics and have the best quality.</p>

<p>My verdict: The 24-120 f4 is used for 95% of my pictures and I love it. The rest is a split between the 20mm f2.8, 50mm f1.4 and 180mm f2.8.</p>

<p>Why I did not buy the other lenses mensioned:<br>

24-70 f2.8: I wanted the 70-120mm reach and VR<br>

28-300 f3.5-5.6: I wanted constant aperture, had no need for the 200-300mm range and prefered 24mm over 28mm.</p>

<p>I have an old 24-85G which is very compact and pretty sharp, but the lack of VR makes using it problematic in situations with poor light requiring exposures longer than 1/60th of a second. So I often used the relatively soft 24-120 3.5/5.6 VR which came with my D700 kit. I was hoping Nikon would make something like a 24-85 F4 with VR II, but that obviously is not going to happen. So I bought the 24-120 F4, hoping for better image quality plus the VR II.<br>

<br /> The new 24-120 F4 is obviously sharper than my old 24-120 3.5/5.6 VR, and published tests confirm that. But I have not found any good comparative evaluations with the IQ of the old 24-85 3.5/4.5G, so I have wondered about whether the 24-120 F4 was signficantly better. Shun's examples above are encouraging about the IQ in real world use. Sad to see the end of Borders though. And I still would be interested in IQ comparisons with the 24-85 3.5/4.5 G, which I have kept as a light weight option, if anyone knows of any good ones.<br>

<br /> BTW - the distortion is easily corrected on RAW import with Lightroom 3 or ACR 6. The same is true with the 16-35 F4. If you set up a default import profile, you do not have to add any additional steps in PP to deal with this in most cases.</p>

<p>Trygve what Nikon body do you use with the 24-120? Using the sweet spot is nice if you are a tele person how about wide angle.</p>

<p>Alan:<br>

Yes, I forgot to mension: I am using a D700.</p>

<p>Nice camera by the way. So you can use the full ability of this lens. Did you have one of the older 24-120's, if so is the quality that much better in the newer lens for that amount of money?</p>

<p>Alan:<br>

No, I have not had any of the older 24-120's. I bought the D700 with the 24-120 f4 coming from a D2H with assorted old lenses from the film days. I bought the D2H very cheap with over 100.000 actuations on it, knowing it would only be an interim camera until I could/would buy the D700. Before the D2H I was using an F4 with the 28-85 f3.5-4.5 as my main combo. I still have that lens but I have not tested it on the D700.</p>

<p>I think this review (<a href="http://mansurovs.com/nikon-24-120mm-vr-review">http://mansurovs.com/nikon-24-120mm-vr-review</a>) is very on par with my experience of the 24-120 f4, only I have not the other lenses to compare it with.</p>