24-120 AFS/VR opinions...

[grant_bridenbaugh]

Just looking for some feedback on my thoughts... For background,

I'm not a pro shooter, or even a well-heeled amateur. Just someone

who's trying to take better-than-snapshot images on a reasonable

budget. Currently I shoot with an N80, usually with UC400.

(sometimes use ISO 100 film, but all negative film in any case).

Lenses at moment are Sigma 70-210mm 2.8 APO (everyone who badmouths

Sigma should feel this lens' build quality and see the results), a

Sigma 18-35mm wide zoom (don't use it a lot, so can't justify big

cash for a pro-level wide zoom), and a Sigma 28-200 all-around (the

most recent, 62mm version).

 

On some occasions, I carry only the body with the 28-200 as a

handy 'walking around' setup when I want to concentrate on the

experience (i.e. with my family and munchkin) rather than gear.

 

I've been considering deep-sixing the 28-200 in favor of the Nikon

24-120 VR, to fill the same spot in my bag -- mid range and

sometimes solo use.

 

I'm pretty certain that the Nikon will be at least the equal of the

superzoom optically, and the speed is the same. AFS will be nice,

and the VR will be hery helpful, I'm thinking, as nearly all my

shooting is handheld.

 

My question isn't so much the Nikon vs my current lens... More, is

this a good choice (given my needs/use) versus other upgrade options

in the same price range (ie 35-70 2.8, etc)? I know I could get a

faster lens, or one that's optically better, but for my use are the

AFS and the VR (and the range) worth more? What advice would you

give?

 

Thanks... :)

[iambaxter]

I have the 24-120 VR, and find it to be a very usefull lens. If you shoot film and mostly 400ASA, then why would you want a VR lens. Even for hand held. The 24-120D gives you the same range, same F-stop, same optics and less money.

[melvin_bramley]

Just make sure that the VR works on a N80(not sure). OTOH;by repute the 24-85 AFSG has a better reputation. I have the older 24-120 D;It's not bad at all stopped down to F8. It's a sunny weather(my Mexico) lens.I believe that LEX just bought the VR version; maybe he can offer a more informed oppinion?

[lex_jenkins]

Ditto the advice to be sure the VR will function with your N80.

 

If so, sure, I can definitely recommend it as a good, all purpose midrange zoom. It's as sharp as my other midrange Nikkors (older 28-85/3.5-4.5 AF-Nikkor and 18-70DX kit zoom). Contrast, color rendition and flare resistance (ghosting and veiling) are all very good. The AF-S is quick and quiet.

 

It's a large diameter lens but doesn't feel heavy on my D2H. However, the D2H is already a heavy camera so the lens may feel a bit heavy on a lighter weight SLR.

 

I find the VR useful at all ISO ranges on my D2H because I'm a confirmed available light photographer and use flash as little as possible. My hands aren't too steady so the VR helps even in lighting that requires ISO 800 and 1600 settings.

 

A few drawbacks...

 

It does need to be stopped down at least one stop for best sharpness. However I'm satisfied with it at maximum aperture for many purposes.

 

Under close scrutiny you can see that the edges and corners are softer than the center.

 

With my D2H there's noticeable barrel distortion and some field curvature at 24mm, which is pretty well cleared up by 35mm. I don't know what it looks like on film because I don't have a compatible film Nikon.

 

There may be some sample variation with this lens. I've read too many widely varying opinions to believe that the differences are simply a matter of opinion. So check your sample carefully as soon as you receive it to be certain it's satisfactory.

 

I'll attach a sample from April showing a resized full frame view and 1:1 crop. It was taken near dusk from the Fort Worth Botanic Garden. The building with the flagpoles is either the Will Rogers or Amon Carter complex, I'm not sure (heck, I've only lived here most of my adult life!). In case the EXIF data was not maintained in prepping these JPEGs here's the basic data: 24-120 VR on my D2H; ISO 400; 1/400; f/10.

 

The shutter speed isn't slow enough to demonstrate what the VR is capable of but it does show the lens is reasonably sharp.<div></div>

[lex_jenkins]

<div></div>

[lex_jenkins]

Here's another photo that helps to demonstrate how effective VR is in extremely dim lighting.

 

This is a very small 1:1 crop from a photo taken in a restaurant. Image data: D2H; ISO 1600; 24-120 VR at 24mm; 1/13 sec.; f/3.5.

 

I ran it through Noise Ninja and sharpened it a bit because the original photo was taken with no sharpening. The relative sharpness of the final image is still representative, tho'.

 

There's very little motion blur visible in the Pepsi glass, despite my shaky hands. The hand reaching for the glass (my daughter's) is, obviously, blurred. VR has no effect on subject induced motion blur.<div></div>

[Mary Doo]

The VR works with the N80. For film cameras, VR works with the N80/F100/F5/F6. It does not work with the N90. If you don't care about VR, the Tamron 24-135mm is a great value at similar range.

[warbler5]

Hi Grant,

 

I picked this lens up about 3 months ago, and I love it! I took it on a trip to the desert, along with my Nikkor 105mm close-up lens, and the 24-120 never left the body of my D100. I used it for flower close-ups, impromptu family pictures, and landscape shots (email me if you would like to see some example). I would have loved to have had this lens/camera combo when my kids were playing soccer. The only downside to this lens that I have found is that it seems a little more prone to lens flare than the Nikkor 35-105mm that was its predecessor. But, in all fairness, Nikon DOES provide you with a plastic lens shade....I just prefer not to carry it. My advice is...BUY IT...before the munchkin gets any bigger!

[richard_hedges2]

A very sharp lens but what is the must impotant it has the best orclose to the best VR system and just important is its moter drive in the lens , is super fast focus for rodeo etc. I want a 18-70 F2.8 like my 70-200 VR.

[grant_bridenbaugh]

Lex, Thanks for the specifics. Thanks, others, too...

 

Len, as to the question of why I would need VR using ISO400 film... A few times it would be handy: Evenings. Indoors. Stopped down for more DOF. Stopped down for more sharpness. etc...

 

Also, it's probably a good thing other times, too. Isn't the "1/FL" shutter speed rule a guideline for 'acceptable sharpness'? I bet there's still room for improvement, even when one meets the guideline (i.e. 1/125 at 100mm handheld gets me 'acceptable' sharpness, not necessarily optimum sharpness). Hence, the advice often given to use a tripod whenever possible, right? For me, 'whenever possible' translates to 'when I want to', which is only occasionally. For the other 95% of my shots, I'm thinking VR is probably the next best thing to it. I suppose I'll find out. :-)

[hudspeth]

Hi Grant,

I have had my 24-120VR for three weeks. The most astonishing thing about this lens is the available light performance. I find myself shooting indoors with standard household tungsten lamps at 1/5 of a sec handheld. The VR mode takes all the hassle out. Now I use a D2Hs so I get to set the color balance but the shadow detail is terrific. I set the ISO to 400 or 640 when I shoot and I do bracket so that if I shake more than the lens can compensate for I still get sharp photos. In outdoor lighting I use aperature priority at 5.6 and shoot small birds on the ground. One out of five will be blurred due to the bird moving. Outdoors at night the again 1/5 wide open is great for seaside lights and fixed business lighting downtown or a shopping center.

I process the raw file shots and do not notice lens distortion or pin cushioning etc. This is my walk around and I am getting to really like it. Hope that helps.

[Allen Herbert]

24-120 AFS/VR opinions<div></div>