24-120mm VR - the facts please.

[Ian Rance]

I am very tempted to buy this optic as a travel lens for my F80 (+grip). I am hoping that i) The VR will give me stable

telephoto shots whilst out walking. ii) The 24mm end will give me some good wide views of the sea and coast. iii)

That the optical quality will be as good as or better than my current 28-105mm Nikon zoom. iv) That the AF-S will

give me quiet and sure focus.

 

So, putting aside use on a digital body and the problems this causes, how does the 24-120 VR stack up against the

28-105, and also how does it compare against the similar Canon stabilised lens (24-105)?

 

If the 24-120 really is bad on film, then I will save my money and use it on something different, but the range of 24-

120mm sounds so tempting that I feel that it is worth persuing if it is any good.

 

Thanks, Ian

[Rene11664880918]

If you decide on buying that lens, wait a couple of weeks. There will be a lot for sale as its been said in another thread.

maybe people will buy the D700/24-120 kit and then sell the lens.

[Sanford]

Ken Rockwell calls it one of Nikons ten worst, but then that guy is full of it half the time. I have the earlier non-VR version and

have alway found it to be excellent, some distortion at 24 mm on film but great on digital.

[ShunCheung]

As I mentioned in another thread, the first time I saw the 24-120 AF-S VR was on a friend's F5 body back in 2003 when this lens first came out. It is immediately obvious that barrel distortion at 24mm is very serious.

 

If you don't mind correcting image after image on digital, barrel distortion is not necessarily a big deal, but that is not an option on your F80/N80 film body.

 

If you are more a casual photographer shooting travel shots with your F80, the convenience of the 24-120 may be a major plus. To me, it just doesn't make any sense to pair that up with the $3000 D700.

[Ian Rance]

"To me, it just doesn't make any sense to pair that up with the $3000 D700."

 

I quite agree! You can tell from the price discrepancy between the D700 and the 24-120 that they are a poor match. As said on another thread, the 50mm f1.4 would be a better match.

 

OK, if the 24-120 has barrel distortion, does it clear up by 28mm, or is the 28-105mm still better? Basically, is the 24-120mm optically better than the 28-105mm or is it just more convenient?

 

Thanks, Ian

[ShunCheung]

I never used the 24-120 extensively, but I had the 24-85mm/f3.5-4.5 AF-S for a few years. Generally speaking, Nikon consumer zooms all tend to have serious barrel distortion at 24mm, but it is usually gone by 29mm. You buy lenses such as the 24-120mm AF-S VR and 18-200mm AF-S VR DX for convenience, not top optical quality anyway.

 

Persaonlly, I by far prefer a wide lens that starts from 24mm than 28mm on the FX format.

 

As Rene says, if you want the 24-120, just wait another month for those people who are stuck with the D700 kit and need to dump their brand new 24-120 on the cheap in the used market.

[russ_butner___portland__or]

I wanted to like and get the Nikon 24-120. But after testing a couple of each version (VR and non-VR), I found the Tamron SP 24-135 to be much better. The Tamron SP 24-135, rarely leaves my F-100 now.

 

Russ<div></div>

[User_276104]

I wasn't going to change the subject, but since the Tamron 24-135 has now come up - I use this lens as a film all

'rounder and find it to be excellent. I've compared it to my Nikon lenses on a D2x and it's a little soft, but for

film it's just fine. Distortion is not bad at all at 24mm. No VR or AF-S, of course.

[User_276104]

Forgot to attach this photo...<div></div>

[Ian Rance]

Thank you Eric and Russ - looks sharp! I will look into that lens tonight.

 

Shun and Rene, yes, there will be some surplus hiting the market soon, but even if it is cheap, if it not better than my 28-105 then it will be a waste of money as I will gain nothing of any true worth over what I already have.

 

Anyone compared the 28-105 to the 24-120 VR directly?

[russ_butner___portland__or]

Ian

 

I wasn't aware that you already had the Nikon 28-105. I do too. The Nikon 28-105 is considerably better than both versions of the 24-120. Check out that Tamron SP 24-135. It's very good, well built and sharp. There are some accurate reviews of it on the FM site.

 

Russ

[Peter_in_PA]

Bjorn says it's soft, Rockwell says it's soft, Hogan says it's soft.

 

Sounds like it's soft to me. I would skip it myself.

[tbs]

If you can find it, the Nikon 28-200G lens is a beauty for travel. I use one frequently on my N80.

 

At between 12 and 13 ounces, the lens is as light as any you will find, the optical quality is quite good overall (if not

quite pro-grade), and the range is hard to beat. Though not quite macro, it will focus down to a subject a little over a

foot away. The drawback is no VR or AI-S focus speed, which, since I wasn't raised on those features, didn't bother

me when I bought it, and still doesn't matter to me too much.

 

If you find a good one, at a good used equipment shop or on ebay, they shouldn't even be that expensive by modern

standards.

[justin_ngo]

Rene,

I don't think there are many people buying the kit then sell the lens because they will lost a lot of $.

The kit's is $70 more expensive then the body and lens alone. That's strange!

This mentioned in this thread:

http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00QCAt

[SCL]

I had the non-VR version for several years and used it pretty extensively on both film & digital. While it was a very convenient lens, and delivered reasonable consumer performance, I eventually switched to primes and remain satisfied with my decision. You might want to compare the non-VR and VR versions, on both film and digital cameras, as reported by users at ( your 28-105 is also compared on this site). It isn't gospel, but a nice reference when doing initial research into alternatives:

 

http://www.photozone.de/active/survey/querylens.jsp

[lex_jenkins]

I'm worn out from trying to interject common sense about the 24-120 VR based on direct experience. See for yourself:

 

 

Those are all straight from my D2H, no editing. See the EXIF data.

 

Judge for yourself whether it's suitable for your purposes. It was for mine (I sold it only to pay for truck repairs and would buy another, altho' I'd probably consider the 18-200 VR instead).

[Mary Doo]

I agree with you Lex. I am not sure why there are so many bad copies. I have had three - sold the non-VR, got

a VR, then one of the screws stuck out (repaired now), so I bought another. I am not using them much (may sell

when there is time to deal with these things). But they are good and I have no complaint, really.

 

Mary

[lex_jenkins]

I don't think there are a bunch of bad copies. I think it's selective opinions based on expectations, among those who have actually tried the lens. The rest is a classic example of piling-on by folks who haven't used the lens but are anxious to regurgitate what they've read elsewhere. Apparently distasteful opinions are more readily regurgitated.

 

I've said it before, I'll say it again. I've owned both the 18-70 DX and 24-120 VR and used both for two years. They were virtually identical, with a slight edge toward the 24-120 VR in sharpness and a slight edge to the 18-70 DX in flare resistance.

 

The web consensus works out like this:

 

1. 18-70 DX = Good. It's cheap, nobody had high expectations, therefore the fact that it makes vaguely recognizable images translates to "fantastic!"

 

2. 24-120 VR = Bad. It costs more. Most folks who bought it didn't need the VR. They had high expectations. It takes better photos than the 18-70 DX, but because their high expectations were disappointed, "It sucks!"

 

Simple as that. Got photos to prove otherwise? Let's see 'em.

[User_276104]

I hope this isn't too off-topic, but it's something that occurred to me after reading Lex's comments.

 

I took a look at Thom Hogan's review of the lens, and see that he tested it with a Kodak Pro 14N digital camera.

Regarding the general softness that the 24-120 VR is often accused of, is it fair to test a lens that was

introduced when film was still (sort of) mainstream on a DSLR?

 

Does anyone remember when the D2x came out and people were complaining that certain high-end lenses now looked

like crap?

 

The reason I bring this up is because of the little test of my Tamron 24-135 on a Nikon D2x. The 17-35 and 18-70

Nikkors are clearly sharper, but I didn't buy the Tamron to use on a D2x. I bought it for convenient use on a

film body and I think the film images it produces look great.

 

I thought this might be relevant because this thread was concerning use on an F80/N80 film camera.

[Landrum Kelly]

I bought the VR version of this lens about two and one-half years ago and used it only on the Kodak 14n (full-frame, 14 MP, Nikon mount). It was my first VR or IS lens, and so perhaps I was expecting too much from it. It was not a terrible walk-about lens, but it was pretty bad around the edges at the wide end using a full-frame camera. Overall, it just was not sharp enough for the 14n (which had very high resolution in good light, tons of noise in low light). In other words, the high-resolution sensor really brought out the softness in the lens. Therefore it surprises me to see it bundled with the FX sensor D700. I would think that it might work better with the DX bodies, but I have no experience with it on such. Compared to my 80-200 ED, I considered it a piece of junk and got rid of it by the summer of 2006. Did I simply have a bad copy? I don't know. I just remember being terribly disappointed.

 

--Lannie

[ben_p1]

I have the 24-120 and have no issues with it.

 

When the D700 was first listed on B&H, the 24-120 VR was called 24-120 VR II

That has changed now, but hopefully it will end up being a new version.

Also, according to B&H, under optics, the D700 only works with VR lenses. Great.

[Landrum Kelly]

"[A]ccording to B&H, under optics, the D700 only works with VR lenses."

 

What? Am I missing something here, or are there two readings of this sentence which my feeble mind is incapable of seeing?

 

--Lannie

[Peter_in_PA]

Ben writes "Also, according to B&H, under optics, the D700 only works with VR lenses."

 

Nope. it's got very wide compatibility which INCLUDES but does not REQUIRE VR lenses... from B&H...

 

"Nikon F Mount with AF coupling and AF contacts

Compatible with DX AF, D-/G-type AF (excluding IX), AF (other than D-/G-type excluding lenses for F3AF), AI-P, and Non-

CPU AI NIKKOR Lenses"

[bruce_hemingway]

I have the 14-24, 24-70 and 70-200VR for my D3. I carry the 24-120VR as my everyday walkabout lens. It's fine.

 

Of course, it's not as sharp as the big guys, but a little pp helps. For extra range I add the 20 2.8AF and/or

the 200 f4 AI for a light-weight kit. The big guys come out for critical shooting.

 

The 24-120VR benefits from AF fine tuning on those bodies that offer that feature, as well as careful post

processing. Some of my favorite shots are with this lens-- pictures I wouldn't have made because I wouldn't

carry the weight of the big guys.

[lex_jenkins]

Edge and corner resolution of the 24-120 VR was something I never got around to testing. The D2H sensor would have cropped off those bits. I don't have a recent enough film Nikon for a G lens so I never got around to testing the lens for edge and corner quality.

 

Last night I reviewed some of my theater photos taken with the 24-120 VR when I first got it back around 2005. Other than being too slow for a fast enough shutter speed to stop motion, I'm satisfied with the photos that were reasonably free of blur. I'd forgotten how many photos I took handheld at shutter speeds slower than 1/15 second that were relatively free of camera shake. But the ideal version of this lens would be an f/2.8 for those of us who are addicted to available light photography rather than pixel peeping.