What is your opinion of the Nikon AF 24-120/3.5-5.6 D??

[zachar_y_burack]

I am a beginner nature photographer and would like to get one or two lenses to start out. I do lanscape and wildlife photos. Do you think the Nikon AF 24-120 is a good choice for my Nikon N70?? What about the Nikon 60/2.8 Micro???

[david_stuckel1]

I have been at this long enough to know that I really don't know much so my advice may be worth just what you are paying for it. I would stay away from the "normal" length macro lens as a first purchase because it really requires you to get too close to your subject for a large image and most small critters won't allow you up close and personal. For static items it might be OK but you may prefer the perspective of a 105 or 200 mm lens so you can do more selective focus with a smaller angle of view. The 24-120 zoom is a nice lens (I got one recently and the first use turned out OK), but my complaint is that the essential lens hood that is fine for the 24mm end leaves a lot to be desired at 120mm end. This is always a trade off in most any zoom lens so you have to decide if the convenience of a lot in one lens is worth the compromises. Also, it is fairly slow at the long end of the zoom so low light focusing is somewhat of a problem. I can see a lot better with a f2.8 105mm even in good daylight. I use this lens when packing a lot of equipment and the pack just get too heavy or as a walk around lens when I don't want to carry a lot of equipment and may have a chance to return to the same location for more work.

[james_r_babb]

I've been using this lens for about 8 months and love it--with some caveats (slow speed being most noteworthy; big filter size--72mm--being another). I use it a lot for backpacking and landscapes, because it has enough range so that I needn't carry other lenses. I carry a PK11A extension tube that turns it into a fair-to-middlin macro lens. However, the lens' slow speed means I'm almost always working off a tripod; this may not be a problem for you if you're planning to shoot negative film, which holds its quality at higher speed. For low-speed chrome, however, you're in the shaky-shutterspeed range when you stop down one or two stops, especially if you're using a polarizer.

 

<p>

 

Under extreme magnification, the 24-120's images aren't as sharp as with my 105 macro, but they're definitely of publishable quality; the 24-120 is extremely sharp and brilliantly contrasty for a lens of its range.

 

<p>

 

If you use high-speed print film (ISO 400) or shoot mostly in bright sun, it's an excellent all-around lens. You mention wildlife photography, however: It's way too short for that; you'll need a 300 at least if you're serious about wildlife shots.

[don_atzberger]

I don't know that this would be the lens for the kind of work you're talking about. As another respondent mentioned, 300mm is about the low limit for wildlife and 60mm is not what I'd call the ideal nature macro lens. The 60 is great for flowers, but for bees and other little critters, it'll probably be too short. I use a 105 Micro and, when I really want to be back away from the subject, I put a 6T diopter on a 75-300mm Nikkor.

 

<p>

 

For scenics, I'm not certain the 24mm end will give you the same near/far sharpness that the 24mm f/2.8D prime will give you. The prime uses Nikon's CRC (close range correction) technology to pull the foreground into sharper focus. The 24-120 doesn't have this feature Actually, I like the 20mm f/2.8D for landscapes -- more drama.

 

<p>

 

The 24-120 is a great streetscape lens and it's good for events like conferences and (my personal favorite) static display shots and people shots at our yearly air show. I also shoot for a local home-building organization and shoot lots of interiors -- both wide and tight. The 24-120 is perfect for this work. For nature, however, I think you'd do better with a wide prime and either a 75-300mm zoom or a 300mm f/4 or f/2.8 prime with a pair of teleconverters -- 1.4x and 2x.

 

<p>

 

E-mail if you need more info...

[jack_kennealy]

I, too, have had the 24-120 for about 8 months now, and it is a truly remarkable lens. Stopped down to f/8 or f/11 and sitting on a good tripod, you can make slides and negatives that will produce very good 11x14 and larger prints - at all focal lengths. If you buy it, I'd also strongly recommend that you bite the bullet and put out the additional big bucks for a Nikon 72mm circular polarizer. It's an excellent filter with built-in step-up, so the glass is really about 85mm diameter and there is no vignetting even at 24mm.

 

<p>

 

Now, having said all that, I'm going to agree wholeheartedly with David and recommend that you start out with the 105/2.8 micro-Nikkor. Lots of photographers will tell you that this (or its Canon analog) is their favorite lens. Optically excellent. Ideal for portraits. Marvelous 1:1 macro capability. Terrific nature landscape lens. Pretty easy to get good 16x20-capable shots. And, if you really wish to become a serious photographer, starting out with such an excellent, versatile prime lens will help you develop much better photography discipline and habits than any zoom will. Like most beginners, you probably won't like that advice (I know, a large-ratio zoom just seems so much more sexy), but I think most experienced photographers would probably give you similar advice - and for the same reasons.

[jim_bridges2]

All the reports I've seen about the AF 24-120 are that it is a mighty fine lens. A bit on the slow side, but so is my AF 75-300, if you are using it from a tripod you should have no problems as far as speed. I don't think anyone will tell you not to get this lens because of it's poor quality. If "I" was just starting out I'd probably get this lens, because of all the focal lengths you get with one lens. It would be hard to turn it down.

 

<p>

 

The AF 24/2.8, and AF 105/2.8 Micro are my two landscape/scenic lenses. I use these two lenses more than a AF 35/2.0, AF 50/1.8, or AF 75-300. The 105 and 75-300 are excellent for macro work, but a sturdy tripod is "required", not an option for natural light shooting. In the areas I shoot the AF 75-300 is good for wildlife (Whitetail Deer and wading birds), but if they weren't so use to people being around all the time I'd probably have to use a 400+TC, or 500/4 to get any good shots, but the 75-300 works fine for me.

 

<p>

 

In the field the AF 105/2.8 is fairly easy to work with, but I sometimes need to use a TC-201 for more working distance. And if I need around five feet I'll use the AF 75-300 (for the shy critter's). It all depends on the subjects. I played with a AF 60/2.8 in the store before I bought a 105. The working distance of the 60 was just too close for me (four inches does make a difference in the field), but some folks swear by the 60, I guess it's up to the photographer and how he/she works. Good luck in your purchase, and I hope you enjoy this fine hobby as much as I do.

[john_pelafigue]

I'm happy to see that more experienced Nikon shooters than I like the lens. I wasn't sure I was doing the right thing to choose it as my first lens. I am a little dismayed at vignetting at 24mm, test shots showed vignettes at all f/stops, and one at 35mm wide open. However, since I invested in three expensive filters, I guess I'll keep it. It IS convenient to have all those focal lengths available in one lens.

[matti_ohlsin]

The swedish foto magazine "Foto" (I don't remeber the issue) did a MTF-test on Nikkor AF 24-120 in 1997, you might want to check it out. Sorry to say, I recall the results wasn't so good, especially at the long end of the range (MTF's around 0.5). The shorter focal lengths was fairly sharp in the center, but dropped heavily towards the corners.