Any users of Nikons 24-120 & 70-300

[stephen_fassman]

I've added a D70 kit to my F4, FE2, F3 systems. Fortunately the F4 len

collection: 24/2.8, 60/2.8.macro, 180/2.8 & 28-85 work fine with the D70. Too

bad the very fine 35-70/3.5, 80-200./4, and 50&135 primes will remain with

the FE2.

 

I welcome the light weight of the D70 as comped to the F4, but the bag

seems to weigh the unruley same with all the lens, and axxessories. Much too

heavy to carry on vacation.

 

1. Can anyone recc one of the 70-300's?

2. Would common sense dictate that I should stay away from the G model bec

it will not function on the F4: no arp control, mini image circle (or is the latter

only a DX feature)?

3. Any pro or user reviews on the 24-120, which could be "itself" on the F4

and reach out to 180 on the D70?

4. Theoritical Q: If the D70 sensor only sees the central 2/3's of the non DX

lens image, isn't this the sharpest part of the image, and an advantage over a

DX? And won't these lens work with all future DSLR's as the sensor size

increases to full frame?..not to mention it'll always be compatible with film.

[chris_leck]

I had the older 24-120. One of the best photographic moves I ever made was to dump it. It was mediocre: slow, not sharp, too much barrel distortion at 24mm.

 

I have the non-G 70-300 ED. It's a pretty good little lens, although there are varying opinions out there. Performance does drop off a bit past 200mm. The G version should work on the F4 in shutter priority and program modes, but I haven't tried it.

[watchin]

Had the 70-300G, didn't like the focus (it hunts a lot) which

indicates (to me) that there is a real course drive in the lens so it

scans right over the focus spot.

 

The small image circle is only on the DX models. and G is a good option

on a decent lens (have 24-85 AFs G and works great). But for your switching between G won't work.

 

I've switched to a 80-200D AF f2.8 (one with tripod mount). Heavy as a brick, built like a battleship, smooth as a baby's er... you know, fast as a race car,

and almost as expensive...

 

All of my lenses are non-DX so can't answer the other suppositions.

[joshua daniels]

I have owned several of the longer Nikon zooms, and the 80-200/2.8 is one of the best. But if you need to go to 300mm and want a lens that is light - though not that compact - the 75-300/4.5-5.6 is excellent. There is mixed opinion on this lens, and possibly some sample variation behind that - but I found it to be very sharp at all focal lengths, and quite usable wide open.

[srileo]

I second the 75-300. Its heavy, well built, and cheap these days. I dont really have experience with other lens of this range to compare with, but i find the image quality quite acceptable. With a 6T, its a good macro setup.

HOWEVER the autofocus is on the slower side. I've been frustrated with action shots trying to shoot dogs running really fast etc.

But for $100 from KEH, cant complain about this lens/

[bill_harris1]

I do not know what model 24/120 Chris was talking about..I have a 24/120D Nikkor that is great..I also have 28/200d NIKKOR. They worked great on my N90s and F5...I now use them on a D70 and a D100. They make very sharp 11x14s ..

As far as I can tell they are not slow to focus..As with any auto focus camera or lense they can be slow to focus depending on the contrast of what you are trying to focus on.

[tong_sun2]

I have the 24-120/3.5-5.6D lens. It is great when you stop down one or two stops, as sharp as AF 50/1.8, 105/2.5 and 75-150/3.5E that I used, all of which have great reputation. If there is a single lens for all in Nikon system, this one is pretty close, in my opinion.

[chris_leck]

I was writing about the earlier, non-VR version of the 24-120. Mine was a dog. It was acceptable with film, but digital highlighted its shortcomings painfully.

 

Stephen asked about reviews of this lens. Here are reviews of both versions: http://www.naturfotograf.com/lens_zoom_01.html#AF24-120.

[lex_jenkins]

I've had the 24-120 VR version for a couple of weeks. From a tripod it's clear that it's not the sharpest lens around and the edges and corners become softer.

 

However, it's entirely comparable to the 18-70/3.5-4.5 DX kit zoom (which I also own), with longer reach and the VR option.

 

Since I use a zoom in this focal range handheld 95% of the time, tripod sharpness is irrelevant to me. And I can't handhold steadily enough anymore to shoot slower than 1/100 without VR. With VR, I can shoot as slow as 1/8 sec. and still get acceptable sharpness, as long as I take my time to get a steady stance and keep my elbows tucked in. When shooting more quickly and off balance I can still get acceptably sharp photos at 1/30 and faster.

 

For me, it's an ideal compromise between technical sharpness and practical sharpness. The best available midrange Nikkor zooms will do me no good if I can't hold 'em steady. And if Nikon decides to make a midrange zoom with truly excellent optical performance *and* VR, I'll buy it.

 

I don't own the 70-300 ED version but I tried one for a while in a camera shop recently. All shots were from a tripod. It was better than most people give it credit for at 300mm. Sharpness and contrast were very good. About the only way I could distinguish shots taken at 300mm with this lens and those I took the same day with the much more expensive 80-400 VR Nikkor set at 300mm was that the 70-300 ED showed some chromatic aberration in extreme areas (around brightly sunlit white car paint, specular highlights on chrome bumpers, etc.), while the 80-400 VR showed virtually no CA. The ED element in the 70-300 ED can't hurt, but it doesn't eliminate chromatic aberrations entirely.

 

The 70-300 ED is very light (it felt lighter than my 24-120 VR) and can be handheld fairly steadily. It would be a good compromise between best optical performance and best portability for photographing animals at zoos, duck ponds or small scale sporting events where you can get close to the action, such as kid's soccer.

[gandicarter]

Don't be sad about not using those 4 lenses to only the FE2. Of course they work perfectly

with the F3 and F4, but they also work on the D70. You only lose metering, no big deal -

you have a histogram -- far better than any matrix meter. Embrace manual mode!

 

Okay it doesn't help with the heavy bag.

 

Let's address some (not all) questions: I don't have the 70-300, but it does work with the

F4. The 24-120 is good enough lens for me, but I would stop to f/11 as often as possible.

The only DX lens I have is the 12-24, which has excellent image quality over the whole

imager (and is usable with film from 16-24mm)

 

Gerald

 

( www.suresoft.ca/homepage/gcarter.html )

[sergio_leal]

I have used a 24-120mm for many years and have no complains at all.

It is a great lens for traveling.

Most of the pictures in my portfolio were done with it. You should check it out.

Good luck.

[albert_smith]

<I>I had the older 24-120. One of the best photographic moves I ever made was to dump it. It was mediocre: slow, not sharp, too much barrel distortion at 24mm.</I><P>

 

My experience matches Chris' on this lens, the non-VR version. I bought it based on the review in Popular Photography, and went out to shoot an event that I have shot in the past with basic prime Nikkors. I think it could have been a very fine 24mm to maybe 80mm lens, but they stretched it out too far. My shots at the long end were so soft and lacking in detail that I was sure that I got a very poor example or that Popular Photography got a cherry-picked example for thier review.<P>

 

I would be much more happy going out with my old (and much maligned in the photo press) 43-86mm Nikkor than the 24-120mm zoom.

[acearle]

I've got the 70-300G and it is great for what it is (it just spent the morning in a cargo pocket of my pants banging around the bush in Taiwan, if it dies, I replace it, that's what I love about it)....yep, I think the best description I've read about it was that it "hunts like a coon hound (all over the woods)" (somewhere here on p.net)....BUT, again, for the money its a great lens...

 

I have to admit a SERIOUS affection for the kit lens with the D70, which I do not own...because of what you mention, borrowed one and tried it with a film body and vignette be we...so I stay away from the DX lenses, even though there are a couple that are fantastic on digital bodies (full frame will eventually be here, I think)...

[cghubbell]

I think the 18-70 dx is a phenominal lens for the money. Sure, you can get better, but not for the money.</p>

 

As for the 70-300G, I used to *hate* it, and avoid using it unless I absolutely had no choice. That was before I forced myself to really work with and learn where it was good and bad. Every shot in my <a href=http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=442463>song</a> and <a href=http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=482820>shore</a> bird galleries was taken with the 70-300 G. I have to admit, its ability to capture fine detail has surprised me on occasion. I've even had a few nice bokeh shots in the mix.</p>

 

All that being said, I would opt for the 70-200 VR or 80-200 AFS in a heartbeat if I had it to do over again. On a tight budget the 70-300G is decent. On any other budget, it's probably not the best choice.