24-120 Nikkor

[rick_helmke]

While perusing my favorite pawn shop earlier today I found a 24-120 Nikkor with

all the letters ie. it's VR, G and so on. While it won't work on my old stuff

it will be fine on the new digital bodies. Anyone have any thoughts on this

lens? Good, bad, it sucks, greatest glass ever? It's in perfect shape and they

are asking $100 for it. While that's a super price I don't know well thought of

this lens is. I'll probably pick it up tomorrow unless everyone hates it.

Thanks.

 

Rick H.

[mitchfalk]

A little on the soft side, but for $100. bucks - you cant go wrong.

[hugh_davis]

Rick,

Take your camera with you and make sure it works, if you haven't already (that's a 'too good to be true' price). Bjorn Rorslett's review of it at www.naturfotograf.com in the 'lenses' section is dead on in my experience, i.e., fair at 24, good at 50, better at 100. It has some all-in-one-zoom weaknesses, but it's decent. Best of luck, HWD

[tonybeach]

For me it's not wide enough, not long enough, and too slow; but my girlfriend might use it.

[hayward]

I had the non VR version and the distortion at 24mm was too much for me to keep it. If it was sitting in front of me for $100, I'd buy it, though.

[alex_surrey1]

I just got one yesterday and it is awsome. I love the VR and the versitle zoom.

[david_duffy2]

i use a VR version 24-120 as a stock lens, agree the distortion was too much in my original lens, yes its too good to be true. check its softness try it on your camera and also check the action on the zoom feature. i wouldnt be without mine...id seriouslyu consider it.....

[SCL]

An OK all around lens. Mine's (non VR version) gotten a lot of action over the last 3-4 years even though I have much better lenses available. I don't find the distortion to be a problem, and if it becomes one it can usually be corrected with Photoshop.

[jose_angel]

Yes, I hate (not so much) this kind of lenses. I dislike this kind of zooms with that highly protruding barrels... they are really useful, but I prefer a more solid feel. I know I`m a bit fuzzy (probably a lot fuzzy, I should say).

[Peter_in_PA]

Not wide enough for digital great for film. 100 bucks... I'd buy it and get a decent film body

and buy me some B&W film again

[rick_helmke]

I pulled the trigger this afternoon. I was able to test it in the shop on my D200 and everything works well. Out the door for $109 and I'm off to talladega in the morning. Got the good passes too. As long as this is a decent lens and not like the old 43-86 I'll be happy. A bit slow but a good addition to the 17-55/2.8 Worse to worse I can put it on the 'bay and probably double my money.

 

Rick H.