Nikon 28-200 vs. 24-120 zoom lenses

[tbs]

I already own the 28-200 zoom. Would the 24-120 VR zoom represent a

significant improvement in optical quality over it, over the comprable focal

lengths?

 

Both lenses have a variable maximum aperture, 3.5-5.6, over the length of their

respective zooms. The 28-200 is 12.7 ounces, while the 24-120 is 20.3 ounces.

The VR and AF-S features of the 24-120 would be nice. I'm looking for

something that would be good to take on a multi-day hike on a mountain, where

space and weight are at a premium, as well as the convenience of not having to

switch lenses a lot. But it all comes down to optics.

 

I find the 28-200 a good, but not great, lens. I get noticable crisper results

with my fixed 24mm and 50mm lenses when shooting wide angles and scenic shots,

but sometimes carrying them both around and switching back and forth is a pain.

 

Any advice?

[juanjo_viagran]

for what you are looking for I'll go for a 24-85mm AF-d 2.8-4

[frank_skomial]

Is your 28-200 the latest and already discontiued G lens? If it is G, you will not get much better pictures from a consumer type zoom type lens, unless it is a 2.8 fixed max aperture pro type lens.

 

The 24-120 VR lens got some mediocre reviews in the passed. Do you need VR for hiking?

[simon_hickie1]

I have the 28-200 G version & found it to be sharper than my 18-70 (since gone into Nikon for a check-up) and with better colour and contrast. The 24-120 is unlikely to be any better & may in fact be worse even with VR. You could always consider the 18-200 VR in the hope that you get a good one (or good with Nikon recalibration if necessary). Will the 24-84 give you what you need at the longer end?

[tbs]

Yes, my 28-200 is the recent G version. Its a lovely walk-around lens, great for taking to the zoo or on a picnic. I've taken many fine-looking pictures with it. But I do see at least some improvement in the image quality when I use my 24 and 50mms fixed lenses. Even looking through the viewfinder I can see greater clarity and contrast with the primes vs. the 28-200.

 

And, just to be clear, I can't use a lens like the 18-200. I'm using an N80 (film) camera.

 

To answer the question of why would VR be useful when hiking: when you are tired, and panting hard, it might be nice to have such a feature to minimize the effect of slightly unsteady hands. I've never really had a problem with this, but if (only IF) something like the 24-120 lens was an improvement in optics, then the VR would be a nice added feature. But it doesn't sound so far like the 24-120 would be an improvement.

[simon_hickie1]

Ah, sorry Thomas - my brain is too geared into digital at the moment! The 24-85 is indeed supposed to have very good sharpness at the expense of a bit more distortion, but I've never used one.

[hudspeth]

Hi Thomas,

I did not notice if any of the responses were from owners of the 24-120VR but I have one on my D2hs and it is a sharp lens if you stop it down to F8-10. The 120 end is the softest wide open but sharpens up when stopped down. I use auto ISO and aperture mode to maintain F8 or higher and that seems to work well. Finally why don't you rent or borrow one to test it. The Nikonians site has had a lot of comments on this lens.

[charlie_johnson1]

Thomas,

 

I have the AF-S Nikkor 24-120mm 1:3.5-5.6 G ED lens. At first, I thought, "Oh Crud, a G Lens." But its has worked out OK. It is a great walk around lens. I read the reviews the people hated this lens but I have actually liked mine. On my D1, its too long on the short end, 5ft. minimum focus, and too short on the long end, 120mm sometimes doesn't reach out far enough. The AFS is silent and fast on my D1, it should be lightning fast on the newer bodies. For more precise work, I switch lenses for what I'm doing. For walk around its great. My walk around lens on my Nikon N4004s was the much malinged 35-70 AF 1:3.3-5.6 but I got great shots with it that others couldn't figure out how I did it. The 24-120 is the same way. Its not my favorite lens, but it is the one I use the most. I have heard that the 28-200 was a great little lens that is often misunderstood. But the reviews I read, it was on a film body, go figure. The 24-120 is solid, the AFS is fast and quiet, the VR is OK, but to me just pulls the batery down quicker.

 

Something I learned with my N4004s, I have found, using the same techniques that the pros says one should use with film bodies in the PRE AF days actually makes the AUTO Evervthing turn out alot better. I play with my ISO and apeture to keep things in the range that tends just make everything pop. I compose myself and my shot to get what I am after. I also find, if you experiement with what you have, you can alway prove the reviewers wrong. I say play with your current lens and venture off the auto everything path. If you want to, like the other responder said, check around and see if you can rent one to try out.