Is Nikon D90 compatible with Nikkor 24-120mm AF

[h_b9]

<p>I own a Nikkor 24-120mm 3.5-5.6D AF (Not AF-S) lens which I bought with my Nikon 35mm SLR in 2000.<br>

I am thinking of investing in a D90 - does anyone know if my old lens is compatible with the DSLR?</p><div></div>

[gogu]

<p>Of course it is!<br>

AF-D lenses are not considered that "old", they are fully compatible with every Nikon digital camera (of course they will not AF on cameras like D40, D60, D3000, D5000, etc which don't have an incorporated motor in their bodies). Bear in mind that your lens (originally an "FX" lens) will give you an angle of view equivalent to that of a 36-180mm on the D90.</p>

<p>rgrds</p>

[NetR]

<p>Yes it is compatible. It will autofocus and meter. Here is a really useful site (when someone talking about Nikon says "its in the book", then Thom Hogan wrote the book).</p>

<p><a href="http://www.bythom.com/lensacronyms.htm">http://www.bythom.com/lensacronyms.htm</a></p>

<p> </p>

[h_b9]

<p>Awesome! thanks guys!</p>

[h_b9]

<p>gogu can you explain what you mean by "angle of view equivalent to that of a 36-180mm on the D90"? Ha, just need clarification :)</p>

[mart_e]

<blockquote>

<p>gogu can you explain what you mean by "angle of view equivalent to that of a 36-180mm on the D90"? Ha, just need clarification :)</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The lens was designed for 35mm film - or full format digital sensor size. The D90 is a DX format - with a smaller sensor. So the image is 'cropped' from 35mm. Once cropped you are not seeing the full image from the lens - the field of view is therefore less across the whole range. the ratio is 1.5, so a 50mm lens has the effective field of view of a 75mm, and the zoom range of your lens will be 36-180mm.</p>

<p>Martin</p>

 

[gogu]

<p>Heidi,<br>

I was going to answer your question but Mart E. came first and honestly, nothing needs to be added to his excellent explanation:-)</p>

<p>rgrds</p>

[Two23]

<p>It will work on the camera, but it's not a good "fit." That lens will not nearly wide enough for a DX camera. Also, many consider it to be one of Nikon's least sharp lenses made in the past 15 years. I would sell it and buy something like the newer Nikon 18-105mm VR. You will notice a difference.<br>

Kent in SD </p>

[carl_becker2]

<p>The Nikkor 16-85mm zoom is the equivalent in DX format to this lens used with film. I would also sell the 24-120mm unless I needed the longer range. I have used neither but read much about both. Personally a faster zoom would be much better for my needs and there are some good ones available. A D90 is a nice body and deserves a very good lens.</p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>It is indeed a bad fit. I find myself going wider than 24 a LOT of the time.</p>

<p>If you need a "bargain" lens, pick up a used 18-70. WAY better fit for that camera.</p>

[mfophotos]

<p>Kent -- I'd disagree, as I have been using a 24-120 for years, though more often with 35mm film. It has an excellent range in FX format, and even with a APS-C sized sensor, the 36-180 cropped equivalent is a range that is very useful. Not everyone shoots at 28mm. If one has an 18-55, then this would be a decent additional lens. It close focuses nicely at 120mm. Heidi, shoot with it and then decide if it's doing the job for you.<br>

There are a lot of misconceptions about various Nikon lenses that seem to get passed around as truth, and some lenses get maligned on a few "many people consider" statements. Without going into great detail, yes some lenses are better than others, but the lens you have with you is better than the lens sitting in the store.</p>

 

[mart_e]

<blockquote>

<p>Heidi, I was going to answer your question but Mart E. came first and honestly, nothing needs to be added to his excellent explanation:-) - gogu</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Thanks :) - hope you didn't mind, I actually hadn't noticed it was written as a direct question to yourself.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>If you need a "bargain" lens, pick up a used 18-70. WAY better fit for that camera. - Peter Hamm</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I can second that. I had this lens with my D70, and have tried it out a few times on my D90, it's a very useful range, although I tend to use mainly my 12-24DX and 105mm Micro lens for specific subjects, the 18-70 is a good walk-around lens (effective FoV on DX of a 27-105mm lens)</p>

 

[Two23]

<p>Mark O'B-<br>

I was thinking more of the sharpness and distortion of the lens. I note that Bjorn R. rates it as a 3/3.5 through most of its range. That puts it at the bottom of the list of modern Nikon zooms. Either the newer 18-105mm VR or 16-85mm VR would offer both a better focal range and better image quality. It's nothing like the superb Canon 24-105mm f4 IS. That's the lens Nikon needs to be making.<br>

Kent in SD</p>

 

[gogu]

<p>Come on Mart, anyone can answer, there are no direct questions:-)<br>

Important is to help the OP to get good answers to his questions!</p>

<p>rgrds</p>

[ramon_v__california_]

<p>i will go with the 18-70mm also. you'll soon find out that it is not wide enough on DX format, as mentioned and argued above.</p>

[glockman99]

<p>" <a href="../photodb/user?user_id=39504">Kent Staubus</a> <a href="../member-status-icons"><img title="Frequent poster" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/2rolls.gif" alt="" /></a>, Sep 29, 2009; 08:20 a.m.</p>

<p>...Also, many consider it to be one of Nikon's least sharp lenses made in the past 15 years. I would sell it and buy something like the newer Nikon 18-105mm VR. You will notice a difference.<br />Kent in SD"</p>

<p>Kent, I think it matters what version it is. I have the "made in Japan" version of this 24-120mm AF Nikkor lens, and if it were any sharper, I wouldn't be able to stand it. I have read where the "made in Korea" version does lack SOME sharpness.<br />I use my 24-120mm lens on my Nikon F4s, and I LOVE that lens.</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>These threads about the 24-120 Nikkors are amusing. Must be because over the years they seem to generate the same punchlines. Especially when the opinions are basically regurgitating web lore from a <a href="http://lmgtfy.com/?q=ken+rockwell+blowhard">well known blowhard</a> rather than from a <a href="http://www.naturfotograf.com/lens_zoom_01.html#AF24-120">reliable source</a> or, heaven forbid, direct experience.</p>

<p>BTW, Bjorn's rating of 3-3.5 for the older 24-120 VR and 3-4.5 for the 24-120 AF-S VR puts these lenses into the Good-Very Good overall category, useful for non-demanding, general purpose photography. That matches my experience with the latter VR version, which is entirely comparable to the very popular 18-70 DX (which I still have and enjoy using, now that I'm over my highbrow pretensions).</p>

<p>Just to put some perspective on the matter, here's a quote from the December 1996 issue of Popular Photography:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"For sheer optical audacity no lens shown at Photokina surpassed the 24-120mm f/3.5-5.6D IF Zoom-Nikkor with its close-focusing range reaching 19-1/2 inches."</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>What a difference a decade makes. Back in the 1980s-'90s, a variable aperture zoom with the equivalent focal range of around 35-180mm was considered quite an accomplishment. That was also what Olympus put on its flagship ZLR, the iS-3, which was and still is a very good 35mm camera.</p>

<p>Lenses didn't suddenly get worse, even when you consider the demands of digital. But the expectations have changed dramatically. Now what used to be considered a wide angle isn't wide enough. Sharp isn't sharp enough. And many people expect a consumer grade zoom to perform as well as an expensive upper tier pro lens.</p>

<p>For many of us, especially for casual use, these lenses were and still are good enough. But some folks aren't so much interested in photography as in technical aspects, spec-quoting and worrying about what someone else claimed wasn't good enough.</p>

[jerry_sousa]

<p>Thank you Lex, for putting this issue into some perspective and context. Common sense indeed!</p>

[Ray House]

<p>I will also say "thank you Lex"! Heidi, I would advise you to try the lens on that new D90 and then make decisions as to keeping it or not. I have only used one early copy of the 24=120 (and it did not have VR) and the friend who let me use it still has it and uses it as his main lens on a D80. I am still impressed by the quality and sharpness of his images taken with this lens.</p>

[h_b9]

<p>Wow thanks for all the feedbakc guys much appreciated!<br>

I have been using this lens (and this lens only) with my Nikon F65 and I must say it has never failed me. <br>

Now, I am clearly not as hardcore a photography nut (it's compliment :D) as most of you. I mainly want to invest in a new digital SLR for travel photogaphy. I've decided to stick with Nikon hoping that it will be compatible with the lens I already own - unless if there was a VERY good reason to swith to Canon... Also, the D90 shoot HD vids which would be a bonus as it saves me frome having to invest in an HD camcorder and it adds convenience for traveling (i'm a girl and I travel solo alot).<br>

Kent, you mentioned "Canon 24-105mm f4 IS... lens Nikon needs to be making." Can you explain why?</p>

[donald_weed1]

<p>I bought my 24-120 vr lens new in 2005 and it was not sharp! I tried a good tripod( gitzo reporter) different f stops,and zoom ratios and it was just not very good . It was made in korea or taiwan as i remember. I have a friend who has the older ( non v.r. ) 24-120 nikor and he finds it very sharp. It was made in japan. I believe thats why there is so much confusion about this lens sharpness. Some are great and some are just not so great. I would test youre sample to see if it measures up or not. I got rid of mine and now have a 24mm nikor and a 60mm nikor on my digital camera and they are very sharp lenses.</p>

[neuner]

<p>I too own the metal mount, reported sharper version of the 24-120mm f/3.5-5.6D and love it. I've read as many reviews, reports and opinions as I could on this lens and it's always a big mix. It appears there are good and bad versions of this older lens and I think the made in Japan vs Korea has it nailed pretty good. I've been using mine on a D80 for about 5 years now. There are better ones out there of course but they have a narrower range of use. I always fall back to this one because it produces the best image in it's broad range of capabilities, hence a 'walk-around' lens.<br>

I'm disappointed that lately mine has developed sticky aperture blades. They aren't stuck in position but slow to react to a new setting. Be careful not to store yours in a hot area for an extended amount of time.</p>