Just how poor is the 24-120 VR?

[User_276104]

Lex - I admire your tenacity on this subject. If I give in to my curiosity about the 24-120 VR and buy one I'll compare images with you first.

 

That's meant to be a positive response, not a wise-a** reply.

[lex_jenkins]

Heh, I'm just practicing my snarkasm approach. The common sense method didn't seem to be working.

 

If there's a local shop that stocks one just try it out there. You can get a legitimate idea of the lens' performance just from a few handheld photos around the shop. I don't see the point of tripod mounting a camera for photographing newspaper to test this sort of lens. It's all about the VR. Either it's useful to an individual photographer or it ain't. If your hands are steady, a non-VR variable aperture zoom is a better value.

 

When I bought mine a few years ago I was still recovering from severe back and neck injuries incurred during a nasty car wreck. At the time VR was essential. I couldn't handhold my D2H steadily even in daylight. After physical therapy and time I regained some strength and stability and didn't really need four variable aperture midrange zooms. I sold the 24-120 VR last year to pay for truck repairs, but I'd definitely consider something like the 18-200 VR as an all purpose walk around lens for travel. Heck, even the 24-120 is a good focal range for the DX format, as long as your expectations are reasonable, and it's a perfect focal range for FX, tho' the variable aperture may not appeal to some folks. But it's comparable to some of the most popular midrange variable aperture zooms of the 35mm film era.

 

Sometimes when I look at my recent 18-70 DX event pix I wish I'd sold the 18-70 DX and kept the 24-120 VR. The VR would still be handy even tho' I'm a bit steadier now. And while the 24mm isn't very wide on a DX dSLR, I'm not shy about getting close for event photos. The problem with the 18-70 DX is that near minimum focus it loses effective focal length and becomes only a 50-55mm lens. I often need the extra reach of the 120mm end.

[Mary Doo]

Thanks to Lex again for a balanced evaluation. I went through 3 copies of this lens from non-VR to 2 copies of VR

when one had a malfunction which has since been fixed. To me it was the best general-purpose-walkaround lens in

my mostly-film days, until the 18-200 replaced it with a longer reach for digital. I always thought the image quality

was decent and I am not sure if the 24-85 is any better in my experience. The 24-70mm is a better lens of course,

but now we are jumping to the heavy-metal-higher-price-shorter-focal-length-most-likely-not-for-walkaround category.

 

Mary

[bruce_hemingway]

I have the D3, and 14-24, 24-70, and 70-200VR lenses for it. I also have the 24-120VR, which spends more time

than the rest on the camera. Why? a) it's good enough for everyday shooting, and b) it's so much lighter. The

others come out when criticality is important.

 

Here is an gallery all shot with D3 and 24-120VR:

 

http://hemingway.cs.washington.edu/Pre-Walk/

 

-Bruce

[lex_jenkins]

Regarding my Flickr folder of unedited JPEGs, straight from my D2H, taken with the 24-120 VR, I'm adding notes to point out the strengths and weaknesses of the lens. By mousing over the note boxes the text will appear.

 

 

No worries, I won't gloss over the warts. As I've said, the lens ain't perfect. But hopefully this will serve as some evidence in addition to the usual rhetoric.

[tbs]

Does anyone have an opinion they'd care to share about the relative merits of the 24-120 VR and the (defunct) 28-200

G lenses. I have the 28-200, which I use frequently on my N80, and I find it to be one of the best all-purpose lenses

I've ever had. Yes, if I want the absolute best, sharpest, fastest then I use my 24mm and 50mm primes, but if I'm

just going to be walking around, not sure exactly what I'm going to see, in decent light, not wanting to carry heavy

stuff, I'm usually very happy with the 28-200 results. Is the 24-120 VR a step down in image quality from my zoom?

[ilkka_nissila]

If you're looking for run-around-in-the-city-with-a-camera type convenience, a D90 or D300 with a 17-55 would be

better than getting the D700 with a poor lens.

 

If you can't get the 24-70, there are prior versions of the same topic in the form of the 28-70/2.8 and the

35-70/2.8 which you may want to consider to go with the D700. The 35-70 doesn't have AF-S but the quality of the

lens is good and the price on the 2nd hand market is quite low, and supply abundant. It's also much smaller than

the 28-70 or the 24-70.

 

Or you can pick some primes ... the 28/2 manual focus is excellent, the 50/1.8 is fantastic and the long primes

also work great with FX. Avoid Nikon's ultrawide primes <24mm, and you should be fine. Ai-S Nikkor and Zeiss ZF

manual focus lenses should be considered along with the autofocus ones.

 

If you're willing to do some testing with some older zooms of which there is not much FX data on, you may test

the 24-85/2.8-4 AF-D ED Nikkor and the 28-105/3.5-4.5 AF-D Nikkor, as well as the 35-105/3.5-4.5 AF-D Nikkor (be

sure the last one is "D", it's a compact & robust package). These have the advantage that they do not have

as wide a range as the 24-120 and hence are likely to be optically a bit better. I have used the 28-105 on 35mm

film and found it to be very good for most of the range, with softness at 105mm. These lenses are all relatively

small and cheap as the interest waned since the FL ranges were not ideal for DX according to current fashions. I

personally have thought about getting the 35-105 D, such a small lens.

 

Many people seem to suggest that the 24-70 is "the only way" to go when buying an FX body like the D700. This is

not true, and there are many options to consider between the f/2.8 and the f/5.6 zooms.

[elliot1]

Ilkka, the 24-70 is not "the only way" but is possibly the best way to go.

[photo_dark]

You get what you pay for.

 

Think about this.... There is more to "sharpness" than just the optics themselves.

A cheaper lens that is stuck at 5.6 at the long end may cause you to use a higher ISO (see lex's flower shot full size @ ISO 800 on a D2x.... nice shot... poor colors, contrast and edge detail)

 

Contrast that to the shot below. I know it's a canon, but i'm assuming the quality is pretty similar to what you'd get with the Nikon 24-70 2.8. This pic is from a shoot I did to expand my stock library..... sharpness at 2.8 is about as good as it gets. If you can save up for the better glass... it's worth every penny.<div></div>

[ilkka_nissila]

Elliot, it may be the best "PJ" standard range lens, but not everything one might shoot is PJ. It gives excellent

wide aperture performance at mid-range distances and it's virtually impossible to get it to ghost (thanks to the

nano coating). But stopped down to f/8 and/or at infinity it's sharpness is mediocre, and in strong high

contrast backlight it flares with the result of low contrast. I first observed these issues in a test among

24-25mm lenses, but subsequently have obtained disappointing sharpness in full-body portraits shot at f/8. I will

need to reprint these with higher sharpening than usual, we'll see how it goes.

 

Time and time again many people desire the newest, the biggest, and the most expensive lens, not realizing that

everything is a compromise and all lenses are optimized for certain applications and shooting conditions. I've

found the best results from the D3 in many of my applications are obtained by using some of the classic prime

lenses from the 80s and 90s, as well as newer manual focus Zeiss lenses. I like the 24-70 a lot, it is perfect

for e.g. church wedding ceremony images at f/4 (with remarkable potential for enlargements of crops), but it

would not be my first choice for landscapes or architecture at wide angle settings at f/8.

 

I am not trying to persuade anyone from buying the 24-70 - it is a great lens, one of the greatest. But you need

to consider what your applications are and what the lens is designed for. Lens designers at Nikon who designed

the 50/1.8, the 28/2, and the 85/1.4 were not dumb. As much as I'd like to change Maxwell's equations, they

remain resolute and constant. ;-)

[abintraphoto]

Taken by my 16 year old daughter the first time she ever used a dslr ...... 24-120mm VR mounted on a D50 - no less ...<div></div>

[ilkka_nissila]

Ah, Ken, you probably cheated and didn't tell her that it's a bad lens. It's difficult to prevent an enthusiastic young

photographer from being successful.

[abintraphoto]

Shhhhhhhhhhhhh - lol - (-; ...

[Mary Doo]

Ilkka, it's a "bad lens", really? Nah, please don't blame the lens. The multiple images provided by Lex and others

are decent enough.

 

As you mentioned, "everything is a compromise and all lenses are optimized for certain applications and shooting

conditions", right?

 

Mary

[Mary Doo]

I used to have this lens on my camera all the time in my film days shooting slides. Here is one using Tungsten film.

 

Mary<div></div>

[Allen Herbert]

24-120mm VR mounted on a D50 - no less ...

 

Tut,tut...obviously not been reading the Nikon forum about having the latest and greatest to take proper photos.

[ilkka_nissila]

Mary, my comment was intended to be a joke. I originally put a smiley after the first sentence but then I thought that would

spoil it.

[ilkka_nissila]

Just to add: I've seen good work done with the 24-120 here and elsewhere, on DX and on FX. I've talked to users of the

lens and they thought it was good for the price. I am surprised at the how negatively the coupling of the 24-120 and the

D700 as a kit has been received online. I have not used the 24-120 personally so I wouldn't be in a position to say if it is

good or bad. I meant my comment on Ken's daughter's photo as a compliment.

[Mary Doo]

Oops! Obviously the joke is on my lapse of humor! LOL!

 

I do agree, however, that bundling the D700 with the 24-70 lens would probably be perceived as more appropriate, as

both are new products, and both belong in the high-end range.

 

Thomas asked about the 28-200 lens. I remember it became available the same time as the original 24-120, and I

was trying to make a choice between the two - about 9-10 years ago, I think, when I was a rookie photographer. I

read

the reviews then and they were about similar in quality according to what I read. I could have bought either but opted

for the 24-120. I paired it up with a 70-300 on an N70 body (remember that one?) and happily gave both a work out at

a Mediterranian cruise -- shooting negative film (imagine that?). Those were the simple days and those were

the only two lenses I used. This all seems so long ago now -- and so many camera bodies, lenses, and gadgets ago!

 

Mary

[lex_jenkins]

Right, not a bad lens. Just a bad photographer, on my end.

 

The 24-120 VR was actually sharp enough wide open between 50-120mm that I had to retouch hundreds of wedding photos a few years ago to mask the anxiety blemishes on the young bride and groom. I'm not usually a proponent of using soft focus lenses for that sort of thing, but if I had to do it again I'd have used a more forgiving lens.

 

I actually have a few worthwhile photos taken with the 24-120 VR, but they're all archived on CD and I'm too lazy to dig through 'em now. Those I posted to Flickr were just the last I happened to still have on my hard drive. Somewhere around here I have extensive comparison photos taken with the 24-120 VR, 18-70 DX and a couple of primes (50/2 AI and 105/2.5 AI, I think), of exciting stuff like brick walls, peeling paint on the side of a house, etc. Naturally the 105/2.5 humiliated the lot. Aside from that, the 24-120 VR and 18-70 DX were very close, with the minor differences I've described before (contrast, flare, etc.).

 

If I was gonna get another variable aperture VR for my D2H I'd probably go for the 18-200 just for the sake of convenience, not due to any test results I've seen on photozone.de or elsewhere.

 

Another difference I'm seeing is that the D2H is a bit dated. It's image quality beyond 400 really doesn't compare with even the D50. It's fine for my purposes but I've seen better sample photos from the 24-120 VR on other people's dSLRs.

[russ_butner___portland__or]

I wanted to like & purchase the 24-120. But after testing a few different ones (VR & non VR models) against the Tamron SP 24-135, it was obvious that the Tamron was considerably better.

 

Russ

[squareformat]

Sincere thanks, everyone, for the input. Having read it all and weighed everything up, I think I'll probably get the

D700 with the AF 50mm f1.4 and add 20mm, 28 and 105 AI/S primes. I haven't done any manual focusing since my Mamiya Press days so that will be a laugh!

[ilkka_nissila]

You can probably soon get a split image screen for the D700 from brightscreen.com. At least they make them for the D3.

[Sanford]

I have the previous non-VR version of this lens and have always found it to be excellent on both film and digital Nikons.

[ShunCheung]

Since nobody has mentioned that in this thread, these are links to Bjorn Rorslett and Thom Hogan's reviews:

 

Hogan's conclusion: "For some, this lens will be adequate, but it's not a pro caliber lens."

http://www.bythom.com/24120ens.htm

 

Rorslett tested it on the D1X and D1H, not the D700, though: http://www.naturfotograf.com/lens_zoom_01.html#AF24-120