dmanthree

For general travel: the F100 and 24-120 zoom. Tremendous range, a great camera body, and very good to excellent sharpness from the lens. Combine it with a high quality 400 speed film, and you've got most of it ("it" meaning the stuff you shoot) covered. And, when the new version of tht lens finally appears, you can substitute that one, since it has VR and will allow for slower films.

The difference between the 35-70 2.8 and the 24-120 isn't simply a stop or two, it's a better lens optically, and more substantially made, as well. The pro lenses offer more than just more speed, they offer sharper and more contrasty glass, and better mechanics. I have both the 24-120 and the 35-70 2.8, and the 2.8 zoom is a much better lens in every respect than the 24-120. I'm not saying that the 24-120 is bad. Hardly. It's a great zoom, just not as good as the 35-70. But when you need wider range, and want to travel light, you simply can't beat the 24-120. I'll get one of the new 24-120 VR models as soon as they're released.

You've got to take all lens reviews with a grain of salt, but you can find lots of reviews of Nikon lenses at www.nikonlinks.com. Also, David Reuther's site contains quite a bit of information (http://www.ferrario.com/ruether/). I've found his reviews to be more realistic, but he doesn't review all lenses. There's also a few other links to review sites from the www.nikonlinks.com page. Keep in mind that Photodo's ratings are very simplistic, and usually don't tell the whole story that can be obtained by simply shooting pictures and examining the results. Unfortunately, fewer testers actually shoot pictures than in days past, and they rely on other measurement techniques.

Nick! The obvious answer (to drones like me, anyway) is that this discussion serves two purposes:

 

1. Venting

2. Education

 

Until I can afford a full-frame D-SLR, forget it. These sub-frame D100s, S2s, and the lot simply don't exist for me. They don't represent a good alternative to Provia and Reala. If you're one of the many who seeks to offset a lack of talent with volume, then digitals may be for you. Sure works with my Canon G2...

Unless Nikon produces a full-frame (or equivilant) D-SLR, I've bought my last Nikon. Sub-frame cameras are of no interest to me, since all my glass is designed for full-frame use. What in the hell is the point of carrying all that heavy glass in the first place? If Nikon is so out of touch with their customers, then they lose. And if they're going to standardize on a frame size, why bother with sub-frame? Right now, it's OK, since full-frame sensors are somewhat rare and expensive. But what stands still in the digital world? Certainly not sensor size! Nikon, get on with it. Put your resources into designing a full-frame D-SLR instead of toy half-frame lenses.

I love my 24-120, but I'm going to get one of the new models when they're available. The new design, AF-S, and VR (!) are too good to pass up. Once you've tried VR, you get hooked. The 24-85 is a nice lens, but I've really gotten used to that nice range on the 24-120. The only downside is that the 24-120 (the new one) will probably cost much more than the 24-85.

I pretty much agree with the others about this lens. I love it, but I don't shoot sports or action with it. Response time with VR is slow, and even with VR turned off, it's still a little sluggish. Not an action lens. But optically, it's excellent, and VR does work very well. It's not a very heavy lens, given it's range. I have this and the "middle" 80-200 (the 2-ring version) 2.8 zoom. It think it's a great lens for scenics, birding, and anything distant that isn't moving too fast. I haven't had the opportunity to test it on subjects moving side to side (panning), so I can't comment on that. Overall, it's a very nice lens if you can live within it's limitations.

I agree about waiting for the new 24-120. I did shoot a single roll with the 24-85G, and it's a nice piece of glass, definitely not junk. But I'd wait to see how the new 24-120 tests out, since it includes VR in addition to AF-S.

First stop; the owner's manual. Read it cover to cover, especially the section on AF. The AF system is deep and capable, and while not all of us may use it to it's fullest, it's good to know how it works.

 

Second stop; get some slide film, and shoot. Play with the exposure controls, motor controls, etc. No substitute for actually using the thing.

 

Last stop; give yourself a project and execute it photographically. See how you do, and see if you can take advantage of the camera's strengths.

 

I'll have a 24-120 for sale in about a month, I hope. Heh, heh...

It wouldn't make sense to me to have both the 80-200 AF-S and the newer lens in the lineup. The functionality overlap between the two is too great to keep building both. I can see leaving the older 2-ring zoom and the newer one in the lineup, though.

Shun,

 

I agree that the D100 image quality is sufficient for most applications. But that's not why I don't own one. It's the small sensor. For me, it makes little sense to buy a small sensor camera and then lug around all that glass that's capable of covering a much larger image area. Pointless. I won't buy any D-SLR that isn't a full-size sensor.

Leif,

 

Curious; you mentioned that leaving off the ring is purely a marketing/commercial decision, and not technical. Do you know this for a fact? I don't have intimate knowledge of lens design, but I've got to believe eliminating the mechanical means of control for the aperture blades will simplify design. If it's a marketing decision, why hasn't Nikon built a lens that combines AF-S, VR, and the aperture ring?

 

Consider this; if the G lenses existed first, wouldn't it cost extra to add a mechanical aperture control ring? I'd like to hear from someone who really knows how lens design is affected by the decision to add or remove a ring.

No question, the G lenses are a love/hate thing. But, when you get down to it, what choice do you have? If you want the new 24-120 with AF-S and VR, you get a G lens. If you want the new 70-200 with VR, you get a G. So if you refuse to buy a G lens, where do you go? Canon? Keep your old stuff and never replace or upgrade?

 

I believe that more and more lenses will be G lenses. Nikon, and others, can (apparently) simplify lens design by eliminating the mechanics associated with the aperture ring. Why build in two mechanisms to control the aperture blades when one is all you need? Also, for whatever reason, Nikon cannot seem to build a combination AF-S/VR lens unless it's also a G lens.

 

G'night all...

Naji,

 

Glad I could entertain you with my comment on the 28-70 AF-S lens. While the ring on the current lens, in and of itself, isn't heavy, removing the ring, and the mechanics associated with it may provide the opportunity to produce a smaller and lighter lens. Canon's similar lens is much smaller and lighter than Nikon's. Why?

 

Case in point: the 24-120. The new lens is close in size and weight, but includes VR and AF-S focusing. It shed the aperture ring, gained significant functionality, and is roughly the same size. I'll take the new lens over the old anyday, and plan to buy the new one as soon as it's available. Wanna buy an old 24-120?

 

Get over it everybody, the ring is history for many future lenses. The Canon crowd seems to have learned to live with it, haven't they?

Nikon, at some point, must move away from their "total compatiblilty" claim simply because technology will force them into making the decision anyway. Why? Trying to continue to be all things to all people, and offer lenses that will work with everything isn't practical. VR requires newer bodies. AF required new bodies. G lenses will also require newer bodies. So what? Truth is, I do a bit of shooting with my F100 and a 24-120 attached, and I use it like a G lens all the time. A-ring stays put, I use aperture-priority mode, and fire away. This is better than using the ring for one simple reason; the aperture, once set to f8, stays at f8 regardless of focal length, while the ring method wouldn't. Granted, using aperture-priority automation would obviate this a little, but when shooting manual-mode, or with studio strobes, it's a great convenience. A G lens would have only two effects on me; less expensive and lighter lenses. If Nikon could make a G version of their 28-70 AF-S zoom that was smaller and lighter, I'd take a look. As it is now, that lens is just too damned big and heavy to consider. If removing that aperture ring will lower prices and weights, that's great.

 

So yes, bring on the "Gs." I see where Nikon announced the availability of an AF-S/VR/G version of the 24-120. I'll be anxious to get my hands on one of those, for sure. The addition of VR for that lens allows me to shoot slower and sharper film without a tripod. AF-S is nice, but I usually don't need it. Plus, it appears to be an updated optical design, as well. So if this is what I can expect from G lenses, let's have at it.

Buying a used lens is a little riskier than new, but there are lots of great used lenses out there. I havde three zooms, and two of them were purchased used. The "middle" 80-200 2-ring zoom was purchsed cheap because someone had to have the AF-S version. The 35-70 2.8D was acquired very cheaply, because the 28-70 appeared and they had to have that. I did buy the 17-35 new, though. Not many of those around used, and for a good reason.

 

The 35-70 2.8D is a wonderful optic, professional in every respect. Yes, the front element moves, but I've learned to live with it. It's very sharp, contrasty, and fairly small and light (compared to the 28-70 AF-S).

Greetings,

 

My comments on Ken's site were not meant to damn him, or his work. I derive benefit out of his work like many of you. But I do disagree with a few of his reviews where he hasn't actually shot any pix with a lens, and then recommends that the user look elsewhere. Example--the test/review of the 28-70 AF-S lens. It's an outstanding lens, and offers a combimation of wide aperture and focusing speed unmatched by other mid-range zooms. But he dismisses the lens because he can't imagine a situation where it may be useful. This lens is incredibly useful, sharp, and an excellent performer. He dismisses it without ever actually using it! Like you, I agree with may of his reviews. But a review like this one taints all the others for me.

 

Enjoy, all, and good shooting.

While I agree that Ken Rockwell is honest in his opinions, you must take these reviews with a grain of salt. For example, check out his review of the AF-S 28-70 zoom. He never actually shot any pictures with it. And the review of this (the 24-85 G) lens does not indicate,clearly, what the testing methodology was. He mentions that he shot a D1H, and that the lens was sharp, but is this a reasonable test? No. The D1H, with it's small sensor, doesn't even approach the corners of a full 35mm frame, so this test says nothing about corner sharpness. Also, this particulr D-SLR is not a high-resolution model, so how can you test sharpness? You can't. Yes, I read that he shot film, but where are the details? What kind? Tripod mounted? In order to get a true read on this lens, you have to shoot some high-resolution film, tripod mounted, and examine it under a powerful loupe. Unless you can get your hands on a Kodak 14n, there isn't a true high-resolution Nikon D-SLR.

 

I appreciate the work Ken does and certainly do not mean to insult him, or belittle the work he does, but you have to read carefully and think before accepting the results in his, and any other tests. My advice: find a test or review that used both digital and film, and conducted extensive tests. Better yet, beg, borrow, or rent a copy of the lens and shoot your own tests. It's the only way to really get to know a lens.

In short, no. From 24-85, I believe the 24-120 is better. But, it is also slower, if speed is a consideration. I've shot both, and prefer the 24-120, because I can live with the slower speed lens, I like the ability to go to 120mm, and I have a fast mid-range zoom if I need one. The 24-120 is an excellent all-around and travel lens, and I'd never give it up.

As a long time Nikon user, I find this lens a huge mistake. By designing a lens to overcome a shortcoming in digital camera bodies, they've admitted that it may be quite a while before they produce a full-frame digital SLR. I don't see a future in the "multiplier" D-SLRs of today, not at all. Designing lenses specifically for them is self-defeating. Nikon would be better served by putting their efforts on a better D-SLR than wasting their resources on products like this.

 

The only possible explanation to me could be that they're moving to a new standard, which will obsolete all my Nikon gear. If that's the case, and I end up having to change lenses to stay with a Nikon D-SLR, it won't be Nikon glass I'll trade for.

 

Then again, since this is a "development" announcement, it could be years before this thing hits the shelves. Nikon's track record of announcing a product and then shipping anytime soon is abyssmal.

Is the new Hassy leaf shutter? If so, isn't the Contax focal plane? For me, this is a huge difference.

 

No, I won't buy either. Not with the introduction of a 14MP Kodak camers that takes Nikon lenses...