The Trees of Late February

Testing a cheap lens on the D800E on a late February day. I waspretty pleased with this $275 lens from KEH--the Nikon 24-120mmf/3.5-5.6 VR, the much maligned precursor to the constant aperture f/4version--but I had to stop it down to f/8 to get anything usable at120mm. Comments welcome.

--Lannie

At 24mm wide open (which is only f/3.5), and when used on a full-frame camera, this lens has the worst corner and edge sharpness I have ever seen.  Stopped down, it is (again at full frame) not really very good at 24mm, but it can be used.

 

It is much more usable at the long end (as in the posted photo), but, make no mistake, this lens is never much good wide open on a full-frame camera.  (The posted shot was made at f/8.)

 

I had this lens years ago (2006 or so) and got rid of it because it was so soft.  On the D800E, it can be horrifying wide open on the short end.  I thought that there was yet another VR version besides the new constant aperture f/4 version, and so I did not realize that this was the same lens that so disappointed me years ago (which I used then with the Kodak 14n).  Alas, no, it is the same one.  About the only good thing I can say about it is that it was cheap at KEH ($275). I still want the 24-70 f/2.8 but cannot presently afford it.  This is a very, very poor substitute.

 

I suppose that, if one really wants to take casual photos over this zoom range, it is usable, provided that one can tolerate the vignetting and edge softness at 24mm anywhere near wide open.  I hope that the new (constant aperture f/4) version is a lot better.

 

All that said, if one stops it down and uses a tripod, one can get usable results, but then that sort of defeats its purpose as a general walk-around mid-range zoom.

 

The posted shot was made at 120mm at f/8, where it is passable, especially for $275--but the 100% crops are soft enough to make one jump out of one's skin.  The price is low because of the new f/4 constant aperture version, but it is the same old soft lens that it always was.  On a crop sensor camera, it has to be better, but then it frames as if it were 36-180.

 

This was a walk down memory lane that one really would not want to take, especially with the D800E.  Next time I will do my homework better.

 

I will still say this: for $275, and if one is willing to find the sweet spot and the optimal f-stops at various focal distances, this is still a usable lens--but it is always going to be frustrating, even with a tripod.  Without a tripod, it is usable only for casual snaps, but there are better point-and-shoot cameras for that.  I am left shaking my head over this one, since I do not presently have a mid-range zoom, and I find them very useful.  I keep comparing it to the Canon 24-70 2.8L, but of course there is no comparison.  That lens was a dream to shoot, and I am sure that the Nikon version of the 24-70 2.8 is likewise a very pleasing lens to use.  By comparison, this one was a horror.  Yet, yet, I managed to come away with something at 120mm at f/8, and so I will give it one more outing (with better light and different focal lengths) before I decide whether or not to send it back.

 

The posted photo had no post-processing besides being resized.  It was shot at ISO 800 and f/8 and 1/80 sec.  The focal length was 120mm.  Positives: At least it is not a huge lens, and it was cheap on the used market.  The D800E is wasted with a lens of this quality, of course.  Yet again, for a test shot, it gave me something usable.  I wasn't even trying to frame this one.

 

I guess that it all goes to show that, if one has time enough, one can pull something usable out of just about anything.  That is certainly not a strong endorsement, but what can one say?  The new constant aperture f/4 version at about $900 is no doubt much better.

 

--Lannie

Hi Lannie,

I like your example and write up here.

My Nikkor 24-120 F/3.5 to F4.5 original zoom of 17 years remains the best of the releases from Nikon. In many tests involving the later releases ("VR" series), the overall performance compared to the original version fell below the standards that would justify me to own it .

My tests revealed no "sweet spots" as F/3.5 to F/4.5 produces very acceptable results from the original release.

As 5 to 1 zoom ratio designs go, it is a good lens, not a great lens.

It is better suited the Nikon DX full frame camera or the Nikon D3X full frame camera.

Best Regards my friend, Mike

 

I sent the lens back and got my money back. 

 

--Lannie

No more zooms for me.

 

I think it's easy to get some softness shooting against the sky, but I see what you mean.  best, jamie

And I had to work hard to get even this, Jamie. . . .  You should have seen the corners at 24mm.

 

I need a good medium zoom--or at least I think I do. I had the 24-70 2.8L in a Canon, but I have no money for such lenses in a Nikon right now.

 

--Lannie

Dear Lord in Heaven!  No wonder you're worried.  16'' x 24'' at 300 dpi without upressing.  My goodness.

 

You need a better lens.  You need a prime.  And you need to keep it open.  Sigma, Dude.  best, j