Reading mode: Light Dark

D800 + 24-120VR f/4 in the studio

Go to last post
try it at 120mm at f4

anyway the issue isnt resolution it is distorion and vigneting and out of focus area quality. all of witch this lens is weak in. its also very expensive for a lens if its image quality. Its a great zoom range but you do make sacrifices to have that. I just cant see why someone would reccomend this lens for studio work. it work. it might be the lens to use if you dont have alternatives. but i am suspecting you buy for a more edititorial approach to photography
 
cameraguy5 said:
cameraguy5 wrote:
cameraguy5 said:
Bill Fagan wrote:

Nice work- but why would you not use a 70-200 or similar?
Click to expand...
Thanks Bill.

My 70-200 is a tank compared to the 24-120mm, in size and weight. I prefer a lighter lens when I'm doing portraits, for I hand hold the camera. It's sharp as can be, and at 120mm it's the perfect focal length that I prefer at f/8. I can't really think of any reason I would use a 70-200 or similar unless of course I wanted a shallower depth of field.
Click to expand...
+1
 
Makes perfect sense to me, I've used my 24-120 in studio quite a bit too.
 
Kodachrome200 said:
Kodachrome200 wrote:

I just cant see why someone would reccomend this lens for studio work.
Click to expand...
If you re-read my original post you will see that I did not actually recommended this lens for studio work, I merely pointed out that it can be used in a studio environment.

I fully agree with you that the lens have shortcomings, and many of them too, but it is not as entirely useless as what many believe.
 
I find it perfectly OK for studio work, specially portrait work. Neither vignetting, nor distortion have ever been an issue for me in studio portrait work with this lens, and I seldom shoot at f2.8, so I can care less about that.

You made your point in the original post. To even use the word "useless" in the same sentence as this lens is madness. It is not even close to useless. It is a very good all around performer with very good image quality, just maybe not the very best, but pretty dammed good for many of us.

Ozzie
 
Last edited:
I looked at the other work you've done. On the basis of a comparison, these pictures are not your best work. The 24-120 did perform well. The combo produced clear, sharp, but not well staged, images. I am not convinced that I would ever use the 24-120 in a studio, except in an emergency. My lenses of choice would be the 85, 28-70, or the 70-200 for studio. My 24-120 is a walkabout, and all purpose event lens.
 
cameraguy5 said:
cameraguy5 wrote:
cameraguy5 said:
Bill Fagan wrote:

Nice work- but why would you not use a 70-200 or similar?
Click to expand...
Thanks Bill.

My 70-200 is a tank compared to the 24-120mm, in size and weight. I prefer a lighter lens when I'm doing portraits, for I hand hold the camera. It's sharp as can be, and at 120mm it's the perfect focal length that I prefer at f/8. I can't really think of any reason I would use a 70-200 or similar unless of course I wanted a shallower depth of field.
Click to expand...

OK, I get that- I just never use the 24-120 as my 28-70 and 80-200 (old AFS) are so much better. The weight does not matter to me, but I can understand your point- thanks
 
Kodachrome200 said:
Kodachrome200 wrote:

try it at 120mm at f4

anyway the issue isnt resolution it is distorion and vigneting and out of focus area quality. all of witch this lens is weak in. its also very expensive for a lens if its image quality. Its a great zoom range but you do make sacrifices to have that. I just cant see why someone would reccomend this lens for studio work. it work. it might be the lens to use if you dont have alternatives. but i am suspecting you buy for a more edititorial approach to photography
Click to expand...
f/4 is too shallow depth of field for the shot I was doing. I wanted his hands to be in focus as well as his face. Regarding distortion and vignetting, like I said before, I correct all that in camera raw with no problems. I have alternatives...the 70-200mm, but it's too heavy as I mentioned before to hand hold for an entire shoot. You definitely shouldn't use this lens if you aren't happy with what it does. But if you are happy with it, shoot away and enjoy like I do!
 
Rich you're correct, the 24-120 is doing a fine job as a general walk-around lens and was certainly not intended as a portraiture or studio lens, but I found it to be more capable in that role than what I expected. As to the images in my blogpost - these were grab-shots that I took while assisting a good photographer friend of mine (who became severely incapacitated after suffering a terrible stroke) to do a bit of studio portraiture.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top