Nikon 24-120mm question

I've come over from the D100-300 forum. I'm considering moving up to a D700 and this would mean selling my D200 and D300 plus Nikon 18-200, Tokina 12-24 and Sigma 70-300. I will keep my Nikon 50mm and Sigma 50-500 both of which are FX lenses. Recently several members of the D300 forum have rediscovered the usefulness of the previously maligned 18-200 VR as a walkabout lens and I'm wondering whether the apparently poor reputation of the FX 24-120 is as ill-deserved. When I'm out to take photographs I use my walkabout lens except when I know I will need a more specialist lens. The Bigma for birds, safaris, wildlife in general, motor racing, airshows etc and the wide angle for buildings, interiors and exagerated perspective. Most of my work is landscape based and for this I prefer not to use wide angles - indeed most of my general photography seems to use from 28-90mm (FX equiv) with only occasional excursions towards 200mm. I change lenses with reluctance and being an old fart from pre zoom film days I prefer to use my legs rather than swap lens where this is enough to make the difference and sometimes (eg. safaris), I carry 2 bodies. One will be fitted with the walkabout and the other with either 12-24 or 50-500mm depending on the photographic situation but the 18-200 walkabout will almost always get the most use.

So lens snobbery and pixel peeping at lens charts aside - in real life photography, is the 24-120mm a good lens when matched with the D700 or do I need to immediately budget for a FX 24-70mm and a second longer (independent?), lens which may well be enough to deter me from upgrading.

I'll be interested to hear views on this.
--
Rens

I use this lens sometimes (family outing and such) and it's perfectly fine zoom at F8 and up. It is slow and somewhat soft wide open - yes. But this lens is for F8 and a minimally decent light (VR helps here too). In these conditions it will produce a pro-level results easily.

Regards,
--
Nick Morozov
ROSECOLOR Studio
http://www.rosecolorphoto.com

I also use this lens and echo the comments above. It is an excellent walk-about lens and on my D3 has provided me with some superb images. It is not a 24-70 F2.8 but is extremely good for what it does and that is a reasonably low cost, light weight, VR, walk-about lens, with the perfect range for my type of photography. Make sure however,that you are able to get a good example because it appears that several of the earlier versions were not so sharp. Mine is superb especially with the VR on. I recently used the LensPro alignment tool to adjust all of my lenses, (17-35 F2.8, 70-200VR F2.8, 85 f 1.4 and of course the 24-120 VR) and the 24-120 VR needed the least amount of in-camera adjustment. Hope this helps, Bruce

Vic Chapman said:

So lens snobbery and pixel peeping at lens charts aside - in real
life photography, is the 24-120mm a good lens when matched with the
D700 or do I need to immediately budget for a FX 24-70mm and a second
longer (independent?), lens which may well be enough to deter me from
upgrading.

Click to expand...

Short answer: yes, but it depends!

Do you want to stop motion? Is absolut sharpness important to you? Do you need bokeh? Then you will need a 24-70mm 2.8 (Nikon/Sigma).

Here is my experience with the D700+24-120mm VR combo:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/stephanrudolph/tags/24120mm

I am using this lens for over nine month on my D700 and I was not amused to see complex and noticable distortion at wideangle, dark corners below f8 and it is the softes lens in my bag, BUT you can live with it: http://www.flickr.com/photos/stephanrudolph/3171423347/

Besides its issues the zoom range is very useful. 70mm is simply not long enough for a good walkaround.
It is leightweigt compared to the heavy 24-70mm, that was important for me.

I am very happy to have VR especially with 24mm at f3.5, which is a BIG advantage over 24mm f2.8 w/o VR.

With this lens I never miss a tripod at night, thanks to VR: http://www.flickr.com/photos/stephanrudolph/2939555121/

It turned out, that this lens, especially the zoom range was perfect for indoor events, like a party (with flash, even the pop up flash).
It is very useful at night for not moving objects, handheld.
Nature is ok: http://www.flickr.com/photos/stephanrudolph/3352044701/

geometric objects, like houses or cities don't look so good, because all the lens problems will be visible: http://www.flickr.com/photos/stephanrudolph/3091153030/

Remember: VR doesn't help to stop mortion. If sharpness, less distortion and bokeh matters and weight, price and shorter zoom range doesn't bother you the you must get the Nikon 24-70mm 2.8, cheaper alternative: Sigma 24-70 2.8 or the 28-70mm 2.8.

On the other hand their is the Tamron 28-300mm VC, which seems to be overall the better choice rather than the 24-120mm VR.

Or if VR doesn't bother you: look out for an older version of the 24-120mm, which should be much sharper.

I always prefer my 50mm 1.4D as a walkaround lens, which is light, a lot more sharper, is fast enough to stop any motion and has a great bokeh.

If Nikon will release an update like 24-120mm f4 VR ED N (sharp, less distortion and less falloff) or even better 28-200mm 3.5-5.6 VR, I will get it, if it is under 800€
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/stephanrudolph

Nikon D700/F80 + 50mm f1.4D/70-300mmVR/105mm 2.8 VR/24-120mmVR/Tamron 17-35mm f2.8-4/Lensbaby Composer + SB600 + Fuji FinePix S9500

the 24-120VR is an average lens. i sold mine after using it for a few months on the D3. images were too soft (i don't usually shoot above f/7.1), and the VR didn't seem to be effective compared to the 70-200VR (my only other VR lens). if you don't mind buying used, the nikon 28-105mm is a much better all-around lens.

BTW, the light falloff with the 50-500mm is something else on an FX body. it's still noticable even with the vignetting control turned on.

--
http://pbase.com/ottosphotos

http://www.ottosphotos.com

Vic Chapman said:

I'm wondering whether the
apparently poor reputation of the FX 24-120 is as ill-deserved.
So lens snobbery and pixel peeping at lens charts aside - in real
life photography, is the 24-120mm a good lens when matched with the
D700 or do I need to immediately budget for a FX 24-70mm and a second
longer (independent?), lens which may well be enough to deter me from
upgrading.

Click to expand...

I recently picked up a used 24-120VR in mint condition for $300 for use on my D700. As already mentioned, it's a bit soft wide open - but stopped down just one stop increases sharpness noticeably. I find I don't need to shoot at f8 or f11 to get sharp prints at 8.5x11. The fact that it's small and light (compared to 24x70 f2.8), relatively inexpensive (used prices), has a decent range (120mm vs. 70) with VR, and that it's useable with the on-board flash (D700) makes it a winner for me.

Thanks for your input guys.

Got to agree with FKS. The Nikkor 28-105 3.5/4.5 AF-D is a great lens for general use and my copy if much sharper than the 24-120VR (of which I've tested 3 variations).

The 28-105 also has a very useful 1:2 macro facility which give incredible results. All in all a great little lens that can be had for under £200 on the used market. I got mine from Grays of Westminster in mint condition with the original box, caps and warranty card. I will mention that my 28-105 does seem to vignette at 28mm if used from f3.5 to f5 but then that can be sorted quickly and easily in post processing although it doesn't bother me as I usually shoot around f8 anyway. Would like to hear other users experiences regarding this though.

We've recently returned from a weeks holiday and the 28-105 was used for 96% of my shots with the other 4% being taken with the Sigma 70-200 2.8 when I was photographing a falconry display.
--
Regards
Jason
Replica Imaging Limited
Derbyshire UK

Vic Chapman said:

When I'm out to take photographs I use my walkabout lens except when I know I will need a more specialist lens. The Bigma for birds, safaris, wildlife in general, motor racing, airshows etc and the wide angle for buildings, interiors and exagerated perspective. Most of my work is landscape based and for this I prefer not to use wide angles - indeed most of my general photography seems to use from 28-90mm (FX equiv) with only occasional excursions towards 200mm. I change lenses with reluctance and being an old fart from pre zoom film days I prefer to use my legs rather than swap lens where this is enough to make the difference and sometimes (eg. safaris), I carry 2 bodies. One will be fitted with the walkabout and the other with either 12-24 or 50-500mm depending on the photographic situation but the 18-200 walkabout will almost always get the most use.

Click to expand...

Vic Chapman said:

So lens snobbery and pixel peeping at lens charts aside - in real life photography, is the 24-120mm a good lens when matched with the D700 or do I need to immediately budget for a FX 24-70mm and a second longer (independent?), lens which may well be enough to deter me from upgrading.

Click to expand...

Hi!

Unless you are usually using your lens stopped down, for great IQ, and to meet your stated needs ("...most of my general photography seems to use from 28-90mm..."), get the 24-70. Yes, you'll miss a bit on the tele end, but most of the great zooms have a limited focal range (E.g. 14-24, 17-35, 24-70, 200-400)

Also, some have found the light falloff of the 50-500 ("Bigma") problematic, but you'll have to decide that for yourself.

Good Luck!

RB
http://www.pbase.com/rbfresno/favourites

--

Lenses to consider on FX:
28-105 getting expensive used as the FX crowd bidding it up
28-200 G/D ditto the 28-105

Tamron 28-300 VC a modern compact design with very good VC that will make you forget your 18-200

It works, not real good. Way better than a point and shoot, though.

It is a very convenient lens. It stays on my D700 except when I am in speciatlty situations, like low light, portraits, macros,and wider than 24mm shots. I have taken over 5,000 images with it and it has gone to Antarctica as well. The VR helps but you still are missing a lot of fstops and critical sharpness. Still, until something better comes along I will continue to use it most of the time. When traveling it is very convenient and you do not have to change lenses in the field. I usually shoot with two cameras, the D300 being the other one with a long tele on it.
--

D700 and some glass to go with it. My pictures are at http://flickr.com/photos/95044248@N00/