Nikkor 24-120 opinions please

On New Year's Eve my 28-70/2.8 Nikkor got smashed beyond repair in a stampedo caused by some idiot pepper-spraying the club I was in at the moment. I literally picked up the pieces from the floor after going back in. I am a pro, work for a magazine and do a lot of work in clubs and at events, generaly very crowded places, lot of on-camera flash photography. I was fairly satisfied with the 28-70, but that's probably a topic for another thread. It did the job for me. Now that I need a new lens I am thinking about the 24-120. I don't care much about the 3.5-5.6 aperture, when I do portraits I use the 70-200VR or 85/1.8, so that's not an issue, I rarely go below 5.6 for the kind of work I would use this lens for. I like 24-120 being almost half the weight of the 28-70, I like the extra reach and the VR. I've never tried one out, I don't really have a chance to do that at the moment, so my question is: would You recommend it? Or should I buy an 28-70 again? I really disliked it's weight, it would be nice to lighten my bag a bit. All of my equipment is company owned, I kind of have a carte blanche when it comes to ordering things, so the price is not an issue. And, oh yeah, I use an F100 and shoot slides, so no crop factor involved (although we are waiting for the d2x to show what it's worth, so maybe in the future the 24-120 being a bit wider won't hurt a bit on a DX camera). Thanks in advance for taking time to reply to the post, guys

regards

Dabar

Dabar said:

I've never tried one out, I don't really have a chance to do that at the
moment, so my question is: would You recommend it? Or should I buy
an 28-70 again?

Click to expand...

My condolences on your loss. Was it insured?

On of the issues I find with a 24-120 (either model) is that it's more difficult to compose and focus in low light due to the smaller aperture. I don't know if that will be an issue for you. Depending on the film you use and the size of enlargement you need to make sharpness can be an issue as well.

I haven't found VR to be much of a help with flash. In available light, it's not a complete substitute for a faster lens, but it greatly increases the odds of being able to get the shot.

The 24-120 is built lighter than the 28-70. That's great for carrying it around, but it will survive less abuse than the 28-70.

Of course, for less than the same price as the 28-70 Nikkor, you can get a 24-120 and a Tamron 28-75 f/2.8, which may be worth considering.

--
That which does not kill me has made its last mistake.

Dabar said:

On New Year's Eve my 28-70/2.8 Nikkor got smashed beyond repair in

Click to expand...

I just saw the 24-120 poll. I guess it ind of answers my original question. Sorry, haven't seen the thread before. Thanks for Your time anyway And, no, my equipment wasn't insured, but that's the company's problem. When I got the whole kit I've mentioned it, but there weren't too many ears listening, I guess...

Dabar

Dabar said:

I just saw the 24-120 poll. I guess it ind of answers my original
question.

Click to expand...

Is this the poll you reviewed?

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1030&message=10861731

I'm a big advocate of the 24-120VR as a walk-around lens, but I'm not sure it would fit your professional needs. It's pretty slow, as it needs to be stopped down a bit to get good results, and even then, I think it might not meet your standards for critical sharpness. The Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 that was suggested earlier might be a better solution. I'm told that it comes very close to the Nikkor 28-70, but it's half the weight and 1/4 the price. I picked one up for party/wedding work, and my initial results have been promising.
--
Warm regards, Uncle Frank
FCAS Charter Member, Hummingbird Hunter, Egret Stalker
Dilettante Appassionato
Gallery at http://www.pbase.com/unclefrank/nikon

Uncle Frank said:

Uncle Frank said:

I just saw the 24-120 poll. I guess it ind of answers my original
question.

Click to expand...

Is this the poll you reviewed?

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1030&message=10861731

I'm a big advocate of the 24-120VR as a walk-around lens, but I'm
not sure it would fit your professional needs. It's pretty slow,
as it needs to be stopped down a bit to get good results, and even
then, I think it might not meet your standards for critical
sharpness. The Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 that was suggested earlier might
be a better solution. I'm told that it comes very close to the
Nikkor 28-70, but it's half the weight and 1/4 the price. I picked
one up for party/wedding work, and my initial results have been
promising.
--
Warm regards, Uncle Frank
FCAS Charter Member, Hummingbird Hunter, Egret Stalker
Dilettante Appassionato
Gallery at http://www.pbase.com/unclefrank/nikon

Click to expand...

Yeah, that's the one

Hm, the Tamron might be a good idea, I'll take a look at that. Although in this particular poll it scored 8/10 I am a bit discouraged about the 24-120 when You mention problems with critical sharpness. On the other hand, that is exactly the reason why I wasn't too happy with the 28-70 Nikkor. Mind You, I've tried two other 28-70s and the results where almost identical, with both of my collegues also having complained about the sharpness and are now using primes on majority of their shoots. I do not want to start bashing that particular lens, but what I'm saying is just based on what I've seen, no more no less. Maybe someone else is making supersharp pictures with his copy of the lens.

Dabar

Dabar said:

Hm, the Tamron might be a good idea, I'll take a look at that.
Although in this particular poll it scored 8/10 I am a bit
discouraged about the 24-120 when You mention problems with
critical sharpness. On the other hand, that is exactly the reason
why I wasn't too happy with the 28-70 Nikkor.

Click to expand...

If you were already shooting digital, I'd have recommended the Nikkor 17-55mm f/2.8. It's sharp as a tack, and gives the equivalent FOV of 25.5-82.55 when used on a d2x. But it's a dx lens, so it wouldn't give you full frame images on your 35mm film based bodies.

Dabar said:

Mind You, I've tried two other 28-70s and the results where almost identical, with both of my collegues also having complained about the sharpness and are now using primes on majority of their shoots.

Click to expand...

While the Tamron 28-75 approaches the Nikon 28-70, it certainly doesn't surpass it, so if the Nikkor didn't meet your standards, the Tamron won't either. Primes might be your best solution, but they're so darned inconvenient...

--
Warm regards, Uncle Frank
FCAS Charter Member, Hummingbird Hunter, Egret Stalker
Dilettante Appassionato
Gallery at http://www.pbase.com/unclefrank/nikon

It's worth trying the "old" 35-70 2.8. Tack sharp as a collection of primes in the range, built like a tank, push-pull zoom. I have it, as well as the Tamron 28-75 2.8 and it's sharper than the Tamron. Excellent for portrait work but a bit slow in focusing. Worth a try definitely. I also own the 24-120VR and the latter, although very useful for traveling, is not even near the sharpness of the 35-70.

Dabar said:

On New Year's Eve my 28-70/2.8 Nikkor got smashed beyond repair in
a stampedo caused by some idiot pepper-spraying the club I was in
at the moment. I literally picked up the pieces from the floor
after going back in. I am a pro, work for a magazine and do a lot
of work in clubs and at events, generaly very crowded places, lot
of on-camera flash photography. I was fairly satisfied with the
28-70, but that's probably a topic for another thread. It did the
job for me. Now that I need a new lens I am thinking about the
24-120. I don't care much about the 3.5-5.6 aperture, when I do
portraits I use the 70-200VR or 85/1.8, so that's not an issue, I
rarely go below 5.6 for the kind of work I would use this lens for.
I like 24-120 being almost half the weight of the 28-70, I like the
extra reach and the VR. I've never tried one out, I don't really
have a chance to do that at the moment, so my question is: would
You recommend it? Or should I buy an 28-70 again? I really disliked
it's weight, it would be nice to lighten my bag a bit. All of my
equipment is company owned, I kind of have a carte blanche when it
comes to ordering things, so the price is not an issue. And, oh
yeah, I use an F100 and shoot slides, so no crop factor involved
(although we are waiting for the d2x to show what it's worth, so
maybe in the future the 24-120 being a bit wider won't hurt a bit
on a DX camera). Thanks in advance for taking time to reply to the
post, guys

regards

Dabar

Click to expand...

--
D100, D70, CP4500, CP3100, Sony DSC-F717, Oly 8080; Film: Nikon FE, N70, F75
Several Nikkors, aliens, TCs. Taking pictures for 36 years.

Dabar,

I have both of those lenses, 24-120VR and the 28-70. I also have a 17-35 which gets used a lot more than the 28-70. The 17-35 allows you to get in real tight and it weighs much less than the 28-70. This is one alternative. Most times I use a combo of the 17-35, 45 2.8P, and an 85 1.4 as my basic setup. When I need the length I switch in the 70-200 for the 85. The nice thing is it will also work real nice on a digital when the time comes. Aside from that I think the Tamron mentioned earlier will make you much happier. I do own the 24-120VR however I usually only use it in ideal light. In low light everything must be still for the VR to work and I get too much softness from movement when shooting people.

Also you may want to consider the 28 1.4D if someone else is footing the bill. It's a killer lens in low light even when you shoot @ f5.6. The 1.4 really helps in focusing too.

GenoP

Nikon D100 ,Nikkor 28mm f/1.4D AF
Handheld @ 1/40s f/1.6 at 28.0mm ISO 400



Nikon D2h ,Nikkor 28mm f/1.4D AF
1/40s f/3.2 at 28.0mm iso400 with Flash



Nikon D2h ,Nikkor 28mm f/1.4D AF
1/30s f/2.0 at 28.0mm iso400



Nikon D2h ,Nikkor 28mm f/1.4D AF
1/40s f/2.0 at 28.0mm iso400

Dabar said:

On New Year's Eve my 28-70/2.8 Nikkor got smashed beyond repair in
a stampedo caused by some idiot pepper-spraying the club I was in
at the moment. I literally picked up the pieces from the floor
after going back in. I am a pro, work for a magazine and do a lot
of work in clubs and at events, generaly very crowded places, lot
of on-camera flash photography. I was fairly satisfied with the
28-70, but that's probably a topic for another thread. It did the
job for me. Now that I need a new lens I am thinking about the
24-120. I don't care much about the 3.5-5.6 aperture, when I do
portraits I use the 70-200VR or 85/1.8, so that's not an issue, I
rarely go below 5.6 for the kind of work I would use this lens for.
I like 24-120 being almost half the weight of the 28-70, I like the
extra reach and the VR. I've never tried one out, I don't really
have a chance to do that at the moment, so my question is: would
You recommend it? Or should I buy an 28-70 again? I really disliked
it's weight, it would be nice to lighten my bag a bit. All of my
equipment is company owned, I kind of have a carte blanche when it
comes to ordering things, so the price is not an issue. And, oh
yeah, I use an F100 and shoot slides, so no crop factor involved
(although we are waiting for the d2x to show what it's worth, so
maybe in the future the 24-120 being a bit wider won't hurt a bit
on a DX camera). Thanks in advance for taking time to reply to the
post, guys

regards

Dabar

Click to expand...

--
Web: http://www.pbase.com/genop754
Send eMail to: [email protected]

Dabar said:

On New Year's Eve my 28-70/2.8 Nikkor got smashed beyond repair in
a stampedo caused by some idiot pepper-spraying the club I was in
at the moment. I literally picked up the pieces from the floor
after going back in. I am a pro, work for a magazine and do a lot
of work in clubs and at events, generaly very crowded places, lot
of on-camera flash photography. I was fairly satisfied with the
28-70, but that's probably a topic for another thread. It did the
job for me. Now that I need a new lens I am thinking about the
24-120. I don't care much about the 3.5-5.6 aperture, when I do
portraits I use the 70-200VR or 85/1.8, so that's not an issue, I
rarely go below 5.6 for the kind of work I would use this lens for.
I like 24-120 being almost half the weight of the 28-70, I like the
extra reach and the VR. I've never tried one out, I don't really
have a chance to do that at the moment, so my question is: would
You recommend it? Or should I buy an 28-70 again? I really disliked
it's weight, it would be nice to lighten my bag a bit. All of my
equipment is company owned, I kind of have a carte blanche when it
comes to ordering things, so the price is not an issue. And, oh
yeah, I use an F100 and shoot slides, so no crop factor involved
(although we are waiting for the d2x to show what it's worth, so
maybe in the future the 24-120 being a bit wider won't hurt a bit
on a DX camera). Thanks in advance for taking time to reply to the
post, guys

regards

Dabar

Click to expand...

I like the 24-120 a lot, but you have a very specialized need and you should try to give it a trial. It could be ideal for your purposes as it has lots for range than the lens that was destroyed.
--
D100, VR 24-120, VR 80-400
2.8 Tamron 17-35

I used to own this lens, but dumped it. It was marginal. Soft at 120, not wide enough at 24. I also owned the 24-85. It was a sharper lens, but slow.

If you were digital, I would get the 17-55. It's hard to beat.

Basically, any "normal zoom" range lens becomes un-normal when you go from full frame to digital. I would pick my film size, then pick my lens otherwise you'll just be trading it in when you do go digital.

John

GenoP754 said:

I have both of those lenses, 24-120VR and the 28-70. I also have a
17-35 which gets used a lot more than the 28-70. The 17-35 allows
you to get in real tight and it weighs much less than the 28-70.
This is one alternative. Most times I use a combo of the 17-35, 45
2.8P, and an 85 1.4 as my basic setup. When I need the length I
switch in the 70-200 for the 85. The nice thing is it will also
work real nice on a digital when the time comes. Aside from that I
think the Tamron mentioned earlier will make you much happier. I
do own the 24-120VR however I usually only use it in ideal light.
In low light everything must be still for the VR to work and I get
too much softness from movement when shooting people.

Also you may want to consider the 28 1.4D if someone else is
footing the bill. It's a killer lens in low light even when you
shoot @ f5.6. The 1.4 really helps in focusing too.

GenoP

Nikon D100 ,Nikkor 28mm f/1.4D AF
Handheld @ 1/40s f/1.6 at 28.0mm ISO 400



Nikon D2h ,Nikkor 28mm f/1.4D AF
1/40s f/3.2 at 28.0mm iso400 with Flash



Nikon D2h ,Nikkor 28mm f/1.4D AF
1/30s f/2.0 at 28.0mm iso400



Nikon D2h ,Nikkor 28mm f/1.4D AF
1/40s f/2.0 at 28.0mm iso400

Dabar said:

On New Year's Eve my 28-70/2.8 Nikkor got smashed beyond repair in
a stampedo caused by some idiot pepper-spraying the club I was in
at the moment. I literally picked up the pieces from the floor
after going back in. I am a pro, work for a magazine and do a lot
of work in clubs and at events, generaly very crowded places, lot
of on-camera flash photography. I was fairly satisfied with the
28-70, but that's probably a topic for another thread. It did the
job for me. Now that I need a new lens I am thinking about the
24-120. I don't care much about the 3.5-5.6 aperture, when I do
portraits I use the 70-200VR or 85/1.8, so that's not an issue, I
rarely go below 5.6 for the kind of work I would use this lens for.
I like 24-120 being almost half the weight of the 28-70, I like the
extra reach and the VR. I've never tried one out, I don't really
have a chance to do that at the moment, so my question is: would
You recommend it? Or should I buy an 28-70 again? I really disliked
it's weight, it would be nice to lighten my bag a bit. All of my
equipment is company owned, I kind of have a carte blanche when it
comes to ordering things, so the price is not an issue. And, oh
yeah, I use an F100 and shoot slides, so no crop factor involved
(although we are waiting for the d2x to show what it's worth, so
maybe in the future the 24-120 being a bit wider won't hurt a bit
on a DX camera). Thanks in advance for taking time to reply to the
post, guys

regards

Dabar

Click to expand...

--
Web: http://www.pbase.com/genop754
Send eMail to: [email protected]

Click to expand...

GenoP754 said:

Dabar,

I have both of those lenses, 24-120VR and the 28-70. I also have a
17-35 which gets used a lot more than the 28-70. The 17-35 allows
you to get in real tight and it weighs much less than the 28-70.
This is one alternative. Most times I use a combo of the 17-35, 45
2.8P, and an 85 1.4 as my basic setup. When I need the length I
switch in the 70-200 for the 85. The nice thing is it will also
work real nice on a digital when the time comes. Aside from that I
think the Tamron mentioned earlier will make you much happier. I
do own the 24-120VR however I usually only use it in ideal light.
In low light everything must be still for the VR to work and I get
too much softness from movement when shooting people.

Also you may want to consider the 28 1.4D if someone else is
footing the bill. It's a killer lens in low light even when you
shoot @ f5.6. The 1.4 really helps in focusing too.

GenoP

Nikon D100 ,Nikkor 28mm f/1.4D AF
Handheld @ 1/40s f/1.6 at 28.0mm ISO 400



Nikon D2h ,Nikkor 28mm f/1.4D AF
1/40s f/3.2 at 28.0mm iso400 with Flash



Nikon D2h ,Nikkor 28mm f/1.4D AF
1/30s f/2.0 at 28.0mm iso400



Nikon D2h ,Nikkor 28mm f/1.4D AF
1/40s f/2.0 at 28.0mm iso400

Click to expand...

Hi Geno

I'm sorry but I wasn't able to see Your pics. Not sure if it's my fault or something wrong with the links. Good sugestions, it's just that 17-35 is a bit too wide and short for my needs. I used to work with it and tended to drift towards the 17 too much, especially if the space was confined, which I didn't like, subjects which aren't around the center of the frame look just too unnatural and streched. Of course, with practise You can control yourself, but very wide zooms just make you go wider and closer to Your subjects, at least that's what happens to me in crowded places I also used to work with the D1x (17-35 was a dream on that body until the point something broke down inside, after coming back from service it never was the same again) and the 35-70, while being very nice at f5.6 or f8, was terrible wide open at any lenght. And that was brand new out of the box. It might seem from my posts that I am too picky and full of complaints about every lens. I am not. Maybe I was just unlucky with the ones I got. I am really not an equipment freak, I'm more concerned about how I'll take a picture than what I'm taking it with. Always have been that way. But if unsharpness is obvious I can't pretend I don't see it, and if a picture gets blown up across two pages in the newspaper, then details that you can't really see through a 10x loupe become very obvious, roto scanner, post processing and all. That is my only criteria. The only thing I really have a fetish for is my Leica M6 with a 50mm Elmar on. Everything else is just business. Anyway, the 28/1.4 is a really nice lens, have given it some thought, but in the kind of work that I do it is sometimes really important to zoom in on things quickly, so in the end I'll have to go with a zoom of some sort. And untill I go D_something_x and get my hands on a 17-55, I'll have to make other choices. thanks again

Dabar

Absolutely LOVE mine!! Got it w/the D2H a few days ago and have had excellent results (even wide open). I had several of the old 24-120's and never got a good one...... In my experience, this new one, VR model, aside from the great same range, is nothing like the old one.

Hope this helps.

Bob

Dabar said:

On New Year's Eve my 28-70/2.8 Nikkor got smashed beyond repair in
a stampedo caused by some idiot pepper-spraying the club I was in
at the moment. I literally picked up the pieces from the floor
after going back in. I am a pro, work for a magazine and do a lot
of work in clubs and at events, generaly very crowded places, lot
of on-camera flash photography. I was fairly satisfied with the
28-70, but that's probably a topic for another thread. It did the
job for me. Now that I need a new lens I am thinking about the
24-120. I don't care much about the 3.5-5.6 aperture, when I do
portraits I use the 70-200VR or 85/1.8, so that's not an issue, I
rarely go below 5.6 for the kind of work I would use this lens for.
I like 24-120 being almost half the weight of the 28-70, I like the
extra reach and the VR. I've never tried one out, I don't really
have a chance to do that at the moment, so my question is: would
You recommend it? Or should I buy an 28-70 again? I really disliked
it's weight, it would be nice to lighten my bag a bit. All of my
equipment is company owned, I kind of have a carte blanche when it
comes to ordering things, so the price is not an issue. And, oh
yeah, I use an F100 and shoot slides, so no crop factor involved
(although we are waiting for the d2x to show what it's worth, so
maybe in the future the 24-120 being a bit wider won't hurt a bit
on a DX camera). Thanks in advance for taking time to reply to the
post, guys

regards

Dabar

Click to expand...

--
BobNik

Dabar Sir,

im not a pro. just a hobbyist. newbie. might not the best person to tell you this. but this is what i can say.

if you are a pro and use it for lowlight conditions - the 24-120vr might not be a good choice.

i will have to buy 28-70 again or the 17-55dx.

jmho,

24-120vr advantages - extra reach, vr, good for walk-around

24-120vr disadvantages - 3.5-5.6 aperture, sharper until stopped down

d70
24-120vr
17-55dx
50 1.8
100-300 F4 sigma
18-70 kit lens
-----------------------------------------
regards, dayv
http://www.pbase.com/dayv

Hi Dayv!

After doing a research, I think my only option for a fast tele (longer than my 80-200 f/2.8 Nikkor) is the Sigma 100-300 f/4. I'd like to buy the 120-300 f/2.8, but it is expensive and heavier.
Can you tell me your opinions/caveats/comments about it? Thanks!

I LOVE my 100-300 sigma. I find I use it for a lot of things that I never planned on using it for... Basketball indoors is one.

qazuhb said:

Hi Dayv!
After doing a research, I think my only option for a fast tele
(longer than my 80-200 f/2.8 Nikkor) is the Sigma 100-300 f/4. I'd
like to buy the 120-300 f/2.8, but it is expensive and heavier.
Can you tell me your opinions/caveats/comments about it? Thanks!

Click to expand...

--
http://www2.csbsju.edu/~jwfedere/

I have a 24-120 and think it (coupled with a 12-24) is the perfect lens for traveling with - or for walking about and all that. Great coverage, light wieight, and the VR helps if the light gets too low. It's a 'jack of all, master of none'... and that's why It's great if you are going to be traveling and only want 1 or 2 lenses.

However, when you know what you are going to be walking into - say, a dark club. There are always going to be better choices. That's why, even though I took 6000 shots in Europe with my 24-120, it rarely sees useage in 'normal' situations.

For x-mas, I knew the size of the room and that it would be dark and that people wouldn't want tons of flashes... so I brough my 28f1.4 and my 50f1.4 ... they are better suited than the 24-120, even though that lens would have 'worked'.

For sports, I find my 100-300 sigma or a faster prime like an 85f1.4 work better than the 24-120 - even though it 'works'.

I could go on... but the point is that the 24-120 'works' for everything, but if you truly have a carte blanche, look towards a lens that will be 'just that much better' in the situations that you shoot.

That having been said, I'm not sure what else would really be better for the situtaions you talk about - the 24-120 might be the best, considering you are using a flash most of the time and don't go to large ap's.

--
http://www2.csbsju.edu/~jwfedere/

I've used my 24-120 VR in exactly the situations you have stated and their is a trick and technique that works exclusively with this lens. Check out my gallery section on my site:

http://www.inhousephoto.com/gallery.html

About 3/4s of the shots in my nightlife section were with the 24-120 VR, some of the fashion shots were with the 24-120 VR and my whole celebrity section was shot with the lens. My technique shooting with this lens in clubs is to use very low shutter speeds anywhere from 2 seconds to 1/60th shutter speeds and I stay around f/5.6 or a stop higher, set the sucker on rear curtain flash and start shooting away. Using this technique and VR you will get results only possible with this lens, not even the 28-70 can touch.

Since you have an F100, the lens will focus fast no worries. Also it should be plenty bright enough in the viewfinder with the F100, the 24-120 VR mounted on my old N/F80 was way brighter than any prime mounted on my D2H. Primes for clubs suck too.

The only other lens I would recommend would be a 24-85 D f/2.8-4, doesn't have AFS, but is a faster lens and is sharp.

Hope that helps!

--
got noise?

http://www.inhousephoto.com

Jonathan F/2 said:

I've used my 24-120 VR in exactly the situations you have stated
and their is a trick and technique that works exclusively with this
lens. Check out my gallery section on my site:

http://www.inhousephoto.com/gallery.html

About 3/4s of the shots in my nightlife section were with the
24-120 VR, some of the fashion shots were with the 24-120 VR and my
whole celebrity section was shot with the lens. My technique
shooting with this lens in clubs is to use very low shutter speeds
anywhere from 2 seconds to 1/60th shutter speeds and I stay around
f/5.6 or a stop higher, set the sucker on rear curtain flash and
start shooting away. Using this technique and VR you will get
results only possible with this lens, not even the 28-70 can touch.

Since you have an F100, the lens will focus fast no worries. Also
it should be plenty bright enough in the viewfinder with the F100,
the 24-120 VR mounted on my old N/F80 was way brighter than any
prime mounted on my D2H. Primes for clubs suck too.

The only other lens I would recommend would be a 24-85 D f/2.8-4,
doesn't have AFS, but is a faster lens and is sharp.

Hope that helps!

--
got noise?

http://www.inhousephoto.com

Click to expand...

Hi Jonathan

Although "these guys" were making sense and I don't think I should ignore what they were saying, what You're saying sounds fine too. Since I shoot 100 and 200 ASA slides I usually expose 1/8th of a second or so, depending on the amount of ambient light, with the flash set on rear. When You shoot a 100 ASA film there is hardly ever any need too choose a faster shutter speed at f5.6, since there is never too much light, especially in clubs. And I do have a steady hand too The VR in this lens would make my life easy because it would probably allow me to go even slower than that, handheld (I hope). These kinds of shoots are just about half of the work I do, I also do fashion, portraits, little bit of sports sometimes, but I have other lenses for that. For more serious or studio work I generally use medium format. The techniques You are describing are more or less what I do now, and I feel the shots could be even better with the VR involved. That's what got me thinking about the 24-120 in the first place. From what I've seen on the site you linked, this former part of my job is very similar to what You've got there. Thanks for the post

Dabar

Bob,

I'd like to see some of your 24-120 shots. I'm still learning the D70 side of things, and someday I'll move on to mastering my lenses. Thanks!

I really like my 24-120VR, and I like it. However I find that it is rather large for a walkaround lens. I also have the 35-70mm 2.8. It looks like a toy compared to my newer lenses, but it sure doesn't act like one when the shutter drops.

35-70mm test shot:



24-120 test shot:

bobmax said:

Absolutely LOVE mine!! Got it w/the D2H a few days ago and have had
excellent results (even wide open). I had several of the old
24-120's and never got a good one...... In my experience, this new
one, VR model, aside from the great same range, is nothing like the
old one.

Hope this helps.

Bob

Click to expand...

--
=-=-=-=-=-=-==-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
http://www.pbase.com/skyrunr
D70 ~ N70 ~ 24-120VR
=-=-=-=-=-=-==-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

I thought the web site's images were too small to analyze. I found some larger examples that Jonathan posted here:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1021&message=11563446

(I like the 2nd statue and the man sleeping against the wall the most. All were nice shots.)

Dabar wrote:
--
=-=-=-=-=-=-==-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
http://www.pbase.com/skyrunr
D70 ~ N70 ~ 24-120VR
=-=-=-=-=-=-==-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=