Alternatives to Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-120mm f/4G ED VR Lens

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>Raj, I think Eric's post should not be read as an advice against the Tamron (as he usually recommends this lens), but more a response to the two different requests you have:</p>

<ul>

<li>A longer telelens for birds, zoo etc. --> The Tamron 70-300VC would make a great choice for that, both Nikon lenses you list are also good choices. The 55-300VR does not have a great build quality, but optically it's really quite good (150 pounds is a very nice price!).</li>

<li>Shallow depth of field --> the f/4-5.6 lenses can do this, when you are close to the subject. But lenses with a larger aperture are better at this. This is where the f/2.8 lenses come in - they have less zoomrange, and are larger, heavier and more expensive, though. However, you could consider getting a fixed focal length lens (prime) such as the AF-S 50mm f/1.8G or AF-S 85mm f/1.8G (both quite affordable) to get a lens capable of very thin Depth of Field.</li>

</ul>

<p>So it comes down to making a choice between your needs; either get two lenses, or one seriously large expensive one, or get one lens and "loose" the zoomrange or the very shallow depth of field.<br>

Given your descriptions, I think it is a good idea to get started with a lens as the Tamron 70-300VC, or save a lot of money and get that 55-300VR, and get familiar with that lens, and see if that delivers you shallow enough depth if field. If not, you can still always consider one of those prime lenses to be added later.</p>

[krishnamoorthy_varadarajan]

<p>Many thanks Wouter. I will be going for 2 lenses. One Tamron 70-300 and Nikon AF-S 50mm f/1.8G</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<blockquote>

<p>All I am looking for is excellent dof. I want to spend as little as I can.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I had the same quandary, and I solved it by buying the older 28-70mm f/2.8 zoom, although I really wanted the 24-70mm f/2.8 zoom. The 28-70 doesn't have the focal range I would like to have, but I saved almost a thousand dollars. For now, it will have to do.</p>

<p>The same day I got it in the mail, a storm came up, and I managed to get this hand-held:</p>

<p><a href="/photo/17443748">http://www.photo.net/photo/17443748</a></p>

<p>Had I been just a half minute earlier, I could have gotten the rain blowing sideways.</p>

<p>It is such a fast lens I really don't miss the VR.</p>

<p>{Oops! I just saw that you are shooting DX. The lenses I discussed are really designed for full-frame cameras.)</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[kgavin]

<p>Chiming in late, but I had a 24-120 that I used for traveling and sold it earlier this year. For it's price (I bought a demo unit for $1150, but brand new it's $1299), I did not find it all that exceptional. I also found it a little heavy for just kind of carrying around the street casually. I ended up getting a used 24-85 VR on the auction site for about $275, sold the 24-120 for $1100, and bought a couple of Elinchrom softboxes with the difference. On my D800, I don't find too much of a difference in the IQ between both lenses and like the lighter load. However, if getting out to 120mm is important, there really is no other lens like it (constant f/4, VR, etc.). For me, most of the time I was just being lazy when I went out to 120mm.</p>

[simon_hickie1]

<p>Raj, I mainly use Olympus now (!), but had the 55-300mm which I found to be excellent. Indeed, a friend who shoots Canon, had to go out and buy an L series 70-200mm lens to match it in quality terms. It's outstanding value for money in my opinion.</p>

[krishnamoorthy_varadarajan]

<p>Thank you Wouter,Scott, Eric, Michael, Landrum, Kenneth, Stephen, Leszek, Steve, Dan, Andy , Alan, Elliot, Rick, Ilkka, Roy,Simon,Sebastian, Nick. Your valuable comments have helped me to make a purchase and I went for Tamron 70-300mm.<br>

http://www.wexphotographic.com/buy-tamron-70-300mm-f4-5-6-sp-di-vc-usd-lens-nikon-fit/p1520737</p>

[scottelly]

<p>Cool. Good luck with the Tamron! I look forward to seeing some of your photos that you shoot with that lens!</p>