24-120 VR

[mark_tupper]

I owned the 24-120 VR for a year and found it the poorest Nikkor I have ever

owned - the VR did work (went into Nikon UK for a checkout), but the overall

sharpness varied from okish to poor on a daily basis. I have to say I always

believed that optical centering was critical in lens design/construction and

don't understand how VR can reduce shake whilst maintaining high overall

resolution...maybe I need to read some more - my 1974 lenses - 28 2.0, 55 3.5,

105 2.5 and 1985 20 2.8 leave it for dead, using all on a D2x, Progress ???

[tregoures]

Hi mark,

 

When did you buy you lens? It seems that they had a lot of problems for the first year see

 

http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=108&sort=7&cat=28&page=1

 

However the reviews of Thom Hogan

 

http://www.bythom.com/24120ens.htm

 

and Bjørn Rørslett

 

http://www.naturfotograf.com/index2.html

 

don't say that this is such a bad lens.

 

I just bought one, and I did not see any sharpness variation on a daily basis as you mentioned. VR works very well and the range 24 - 120 mm is very useful. The real drawback to me is that it is a sloooow lens.

 

Cheers,

[elliot1]

I owned and used one for about a year and a half until I upgraded to the 18-200. I usually shot at f8 and got great results. Are you shooting wide open or stopping down the lens. The experts say most lenses have a 'sweet' spot where they work best, and typically need to be stopped down by at least 2 stops for optimal results.

[warbler5]

In spring 2005, I purchased the 24-120 VR after spending several months on a waiting list for the 17-55 DX. I took this lens with me to the desert that year, and I fell in love with it! Every picture I shot was tack sharp, and the lens was great for handheld photos of butterflies and other insects encountered while hiking during a year when the wildflowers were at their best. Although I was carrying a 105mm macro, I never removed the 24-120mm VR, as I found it to be quite versatile for shooting anything from flower close-ups to landscapes. Much like your 55mm f/3.5, which I also own, I found landscapes to be the weak point of this lens. My only wish for this lens is that my TC 1.4 teleconverter could be used with it.

 

Mark, I think you had a defective lens. I now own two VR lenses, and they are both superb!

[david_le1]

That lens is a bit soft. I was considering it, but Now, i dont know due to lack of sharpness. it's not known for its sharpness afterall.

[walterh]

"Progress ???"

 

Come on Mark - would you have bought a 24mm-120mm lens in 1974? The collection of lenses you mention show that you have some knowledge of good optics - so I am certain at the same day you bought those excellent optics you would have sneered at any 24-120 zoom :-)

 

I once got a very good price quoted for this lens in almost new condition. I tried a few shots and thank you - no .-P

[mark_tupper]

Nicolas, Thanks for the links

Elliot, yes I know about stopping down but as Nicolas observes the lens is slow to start with

Dee, I agree - think I had a duff one !

David, agreed !

Walter, A 24-120 in 1974, I think it would have cost more than a new car!

For me - I'm sticking to fast primes, 12-24 4.0, 17-55 2.8, 80-200 2.8, All Nikkors no VR....oh and back ache !

Thank you all for your time and input