24-120 3.5-5.6 AFS VR Thoughts

[Stephen53697]

I've read some bashing of this lens along the lines of "Why would I want VR in this focal length?" However, wouldn't the addition of VR help to compensate for not going to 2.8? You wouldn't get the DOF of a 2.8, but you would be able get images in lower light. If you could get a sharp picture handheld at 1/15 of a second at 3.5, that could more than compensate for a couple of stops as far as light is concerned. This means that you can have a smaller lens and you don't have to open up to 2.8 for light when you would prefer to be a stop or two higher for detail. With ED glass, the detail should be there at 3.5. The AFS is just icing on the cake. I am very excited about this lens. I could see it replacing my Tamron 24-135 3.5-5.6. Just some random thoughts.

 

[Stephen53697]

Any Thoughts?

 

[alabaster]

Any Thoughts?

Looks like a brilliant lens. It features two ED glass elements, two aspherical lenses, AFS, VR, IF, 5X zoom ratio and weighs 575g. Killer.

The only negative i can think of is the 72mm filter size.

It will be available May 2003.

One of them is mine, mine, mine....woops!
--
Alabaster

 

[peacefoto]

that'll be a sweet travel lens. If its sweet spot can match the wonderful 28-105 i'm gonna get one.

... actually i'm trying to make a decision at the moment. I sold the AFS 28-70 a while ago due to its size and weight. Now I found myself changing lenses a lot - 28mm - 50mm - 85mm and the AFS 28-70 is the perfect path to stop that. BUT, now there's this newer 24-120VR, AFS 28-70 and a rumoured 16-70/2.8DX, so that makes the choice much harder. AFS 28--70 is tried and true, top of the line. 24-120 is smaller, lighter, cheaper, wider and longer, and VR is great. the rumoured DX zoom is smaller, lighter, higher zoom rario, and since it is designed for digital sensors, it should have better optics on a digital body. Should I get the AFS now? Or wait two months for the 24-120VR? or wait... 6 months for the announcement of a new high power DX zoom? man... i'm going to bed now and hopefully i get some revelations in my dreams...

{:-(

I've read some bashing of this lens along the lines of "Why would I
want VR in this focal length?" However, wouldn't the addition of
VR help to compensate for not going to 2.8? You wouldn't get the
DOF of a 2.8, but you would be able get images in lower light. If
you could get a sharp picture handheld at 1/15 of a second at 3.5,
that could more than compensate for a couple of stops as far as
light is concerned. This means that you can have a smaller lens
and you don't have to open up to 2.8 for light when you would
prefer to be a stop or two higher for detail. With ED glass, the
detail should be there at 3.5. The AFS is just icing on the cake.
I am very excited about this lens. I could see it replacing my
Tamron 24-135 3.5-5.6. Just some random thoughts.

 

[Ron Reznick]

Yes, assuming your subject isn't moving VR will help a lot in compensating for the slower aperture. What is yet to be determined is whether or not the optical performance of this lens has been radically improved. The original 24-120 was a poor performer at both ends (distortions) and soft to fuzzy below f/8-f/11 depending on focal length.

If the new lens can be used one stop down from max aperture with quality results it will be an effective f/5 wideangle to f/8 short telephoto. This would make it a useful general-purpose lens with fast acquisistion capabilities and some low light capabilities. If you have to go two stops down it becomes less useful. If the distortions are not corrected, then using the lens wider than about 30mm or longer than about 100mm will be a problem unless you don't mind the distortions.

I'd wait and see before committing to this lens. I had one of the originals, and long before I developed my standards for quality I knew that the original 24-120 lens was a poor performer.

Ron

Any Thoughts?

--
Ron Reznick
http://digital-images.net
http://trapagon.com

 

[Clubpick]

I got the call today from my contact...the 24-120 is shipping and I should have it in 2-3 weeks (hopefully). It's listed at ritzcamera.com as $699.00
I can't wait to have it in hand and do some real testing with it...

{:-(

I've read some bashing of this lens along the lines of "Why would I
want VR in this focal length?" However, wouldn't the addition of
VR help to compensate for not going to 2.8? You wouldn't get the
DOF of a 2.8, but you would be able get images in lower light. If
you could get a sharp picture handheld at 1/15 of a second at 3.5,
that could more than compensate for a couple of stops as far as
light is concerned. This means that you can have a smaller lens
and you don't have to open up to 2.8 for light when you would
prefer to be a stop or two higher for detail. With ED glass, the
detail should be there at 3.5. The AFS is just icing on the cake.
I am very excited about this lens. I could see it replacing my
Tamron 24-135 3.5-5.6. Just some random thoughts.

--
http://www.clubpick.com
[email protected]

 

[Andy Currie]

Despite its obvious charms, personally I'd rather wait until folk like Ron Reznik post details of the optical quality before jumping in.

I have the current 24-120 and its not such a sharp lens - I've even read some posts by people saying its a dog, so there's an obvious quality variation here.

I won't be jumping until Ron or Photodo tell me what its like ....

{:-(

I've read some bashing of this lens along the lines of "Why would I
want VR in this focal length?" However, wouldn't the addition of
VR help to compensate for not going to 2.8? You wouldn't get the
DOF of a 2.8, but you would be able get images in lower light. If
you could get a sharp picture handheld at 1/15 of a second at 3.5,
that could more than compensate for a couple of stops as far as
light is concerned. This means that you can have a smaller lens
and you don't have to open up to 2.8 for light when you would
prefer to be a stop or two higher for detail. With ED glass, the
detail should be there at 3.5. The AFS is just icing on the cake.
I am very excited about this lens. I could see it replacing my
Tamron 24-135 3.5-5.6. Just some random thoughts.

--
http://www.clubpick.com
[email protected]

--
Andy .

 

[Dennis S]

I got the call today from my contact...the 24-120 is shipping and I
should have it in 2-3 weeks (hopefully). It's listed at
ritzcamera.com as $699.00
I can't wait to have it in hand and do some real testing with it...

Vr or no Vr isn't the optics on that lens less than good. That was the rap on the original model...and is it AFS. The 5.6 isn't that hot also because thats the lowest aperature you can use when the electronic aperature control is used from 24 to 120 for constant aperature or resort to autoexposure which in my work can be irregular. A VR doesn't slow down fast action it just minimizes camera shake. I guess that's why Pro's like the constant aperature 2.8 or F4 type of lenses. In my work variable aperature lenses mean higher ISO settings. A raft busting through a big rapid on an overcast day is mush at 1/60 and near mush at 1/125 no matter how steady the camera/lens combo and a faster lens gives you that extra action stopping shutter speeds. Now big lenses are a different story...the 300,400,500,600 because most of them are F4 or 2.8 and need the camera shake function for hand holding purposes...in other words did they improve the optics on this lens. Years ago Tokina had a 60-120 2.8 lens that probbably would have helped me out when I got the D1 because that 1.5 multiplier had me backed "against the wall" on the shorter part of the 80-200 2.8 D lens and I had trouble getting framing on the last shots of my sequences. The 24-120 would just about be perfect if the quality and a constant aperature of at least F4.

 

[Walter Freiberger]

that'll be a sweet travel lens. If its sweet spot can match the
wonderful 28-105 i'm gonna get one.
... actually i'm trying to make a decision at the moment. I sold
the AFS 28-70 a while ago due to its size and weight. Now I found
myself changing lenses a lot - 28mm - 50mm - 85mm and the AFS 28-70
is the perfect path to stop that. BUT, now there's this newer
24-120VR, AFS 28-70 and a rumoured 16-70/2.8DX, so that makes the
choice much harder.

Can you say more about the rumored AFS 16-70/2.8 DX? This would be a very interessting development and IMO most probably mark the end of FF DSLR's.

Walter

 

[Dennis S]

I got the call today from my contact...the 24-120 is shipping and I
should have it in 2-3 weeks (hopefully). It's listed at
ritzcamera.com as $699.00
I can't wait to have it in hand and do some real testing with it...

Vr or no Vr isn't the optics on that lens less than good. That was
the rap on the original model...and is it AFS. The 5.6 isn't that
hot also because thats the lowest aperature you can use when the
electronic aperature control is used from 24 to 120 for constant
aperature or resort to autoexposure which in my work can be
irregular. A VR doesn't slow down fast action it just minimizes
camera shake. I guess that's why Pro's like the constant aperature
2.8 or F4 type of lenses. In my work variable aperature lenses mean
higher ISO settings. A raft busting through a big rapid on an
overcast day is mush at 1/60 and near mush at 1/125 no matter how
steady the camera/lens combo and a faster lens gives you that extra
action stopping shutter speeds. Now big lenses are a different
story...the 300,400,500,600 because most of them are F4 or 2.8 and
need the camera shake function for hand holding purposes...in other
words did they improve the optics on this lens. Years ago Tokina
had a 60-120 2.8 lens that probbably would have helped me out when
I got the D1 because that 1.5 multiplier had me backed "against the
wall" on the shorter part of the 80-200 2.8 D lens and I had
trouble getting framing on the last shots of my sequences. The
24-120 would just about be perfect if the quality and a constant
aperature of at least F4.

Another thing...that F3.5 you refer to is noly good at the 24mm mark and even with the elctronic aperature control won't make the F5.6 aperature at 120mm become f3.5 so your shutter speed gets even slower in low light.

 

[Dennis S]

that'll be a sweet travel lens. If its sweet spot can match the
wonderful 28-105 i'm gonna get one.
... actually i'm trying to make a decision at the moment. I sold
the AFS 28-70 a while ago due to its size and weight. Now I found
myself changing lenses a lot - 28mm - 50mm - 85mm and the AFS 28-70
is the perfect path to stop that. BUT, now there's this newer
24-120VR, AFS 28-70 and a rumoured 16-70/2.8DX, so that makes the
choice much harder.

Can you say more about the rumored AFS 16-70/2.8 DX? This would be
a very interessting development and IMO most probably mark the end
of FF DSLR's.

Walter

Walter... that would be a great lens...giving you a decent 24mm wide angle with the multiplier.

 

[Dennis S]

that'll be a sweet travel lens. If its sweet spot can match the
wonderful 28-105 i'm gonna get one.
... actually i'm trying to make a decision at the moment. I sold
the AFS 28-70 a while ago due to its size and weight. Now I found
myself changing lenses a lot - 28mm - 50mm - 85mm and the AFS 28-70
is the perfect path to stop that. BUT, now there's this newer
24-120VR, AFS 28-70 and a rumoured 16-70/2.8DX, so that makes the
choice much harder.

Can you say more about the rumored AFS 16-70/2.8 DX? This would be
a very interessting development and IMO most probably mark the end
of FF DSLR's.

Walter

Walter... that would be a great lens...giving you a decent 24mm

wide angle with the multiplier. Or wait a minute. Is the DX lens designed to eliminate the efects of the mutiplier. I better catch up on this.

 

[Ursus]

Walter... that would be a great lens...giving you a decent 24mm
wide angle with the multiplier. Or wait a minute. Is the DX lens
designed to eliminate the efects of the mutiplier. I better catch
up on this.

The multiplier is still in effect.

What a DX lens gives you is the ability to make a smaller (in diameter) and lighter lens at the same focal length. Also, being smaller, it's easier to keep the optical quality up while reducing the cost.

--
-----Bear

 

[peacefoto]

Walter,

thats a rumour i've seen in a couple of posts which the posters claimed 'insider news'. if they indeed make such a lens that'll be a perfect companion for the smaller sensor! I think nikon needs to make lenses like these that are nearly impossible to achieve on a 35mm body, therefore people would realize the benefit. the 12-24 is a great beginning, a lens of that spec for a FF body would cost $2000+ and four time the size and weight!

that'll be a sweet travel lens. If its sweet spot can match the
wonderful 28-105 i'm gonna get one.
... actually i'm trying to make a decision at the moment. I sold
the AFS 28-70 a while ago due to its size and weight. Now I found
myself changing lenses a lot - 28mm - 50mm - 85mm and the AFS 28-70
is the perfect path to stop that. BUT, now there's this newer
24-120VR, AFS 28-70 and a rumoured 16-70/2.8DX, so that makes the
choice much harder.

Can you say more about the rumored AFS 16-70/2.8 DX? This would be
a very interessting development and IMO most probably mark the end
of FF DSLR's.

Walter