Reading mode: Light Dark

Whatever faults it may have, this is the lens that stays on my D750

Go to last post
F

fis

Active member
Messages
89
Reaction score
7
Location
US
Why is this is the Rodney Dangerfield of Nikon lenses? It's no slouch, and yet it's not the fastest. It's not the sharpest. It's not the lightest. It's not the brightest. It's not the most rugged. It doesn't produce the best bokeh.

So why have I barely removed it from my D750 since I got it? Because for most casual shooting, the compromises have been more than worth it. Compared to a prime lens, or to a 24-70mm f/2.8, this lens offers great VR, great range, and great portability. I almost feel guilty using it so much, because I know it's not my "best" lens, but this lens's versatility keeps winning out.

I recently had an opportunity to put the VR through its paces, shooting a high school theater production from my seat in the audience. I would normally shoot such a show with my 50mm f/1.8, but with a deep stage and no ability to move around, I decided to start with the 24-120mm f/4 and switch lenses if needed. The lighting varied from bright spots to near total darkness, but the 50mm f/1.8 stayed in my bag. On my D750 (in quiet/continuous mode with spot metering and 3D focusing) the 24-120 focused quickly and consistently. Handheld at pretty slow shutter speeds, the sharpness exceeded my expectations and only a handful missed the mark.

Here are some samples. Remember these were taken handheld in a dark room at very slow shutter speeds:

Handheld 1/50 sec
Handheld 1/50 sec

a3f1e78841a94f16a5f89951f2dff621


Handheld 1/25 sec in near total darkness

4ad60719aac64566983116fd35ebd8e5


Handheld 1/50 sec

2a6b31f0f00444fa8a88de2ea010e1af


Handheld 1/50 sec

Given this price and the optical range of this lens, that's pretty hard to beat.

If I was a professional lugging a variety of lenses on shoots, or doing studio work, I would probably choose other lenses. My biggest complaint is the bokeh, which is meh. However, for this amateur, this lens is getting more than its share of use.
 

Attachments

  • a3f1e78841a94f16a5f89951f2dff621.jpg
    a3f1e78841a94f16a5f89951f2dff621.jpg
    5.7 MB · Views: 0
  • 4ad60719aac64566983116fd35ebd8e5.jpg
    4ad60719aac64566983116fd35ebd8e5.jpg
    5.9 MB · Views: 0
  • 2a6b31f0f00444fa8a88de2ea010e1af.jpg
    2a6b31f0f00444fa8a88de2ea010e1af.jpg
    4.4 MB · Views: 0
fis said:
Why is this is the Rodney Dangerfield of Nikon lenses? It's no slouch, and yet it's not the fastest. It's not the sharpest. It's not the lightest. It's not the brightest. It's not the most rugged. It doesn't produce the best bokeh.

So why have I barely removed it from my D750 since I got it? Because for most casual shooting, the compromises have been more than worth it. Compared to a prime lens, or to a 24-70mm f/2.8, this lens offers great VR, great range, and great portability. I almost feel guilty using it so much, because I know it's not my "best" lens, but this lens's versatility keeps winning out.

I recently had an opportunity to put the VR through its paces, shooting a high school theater production from my seat in the audience. I would normally shoot such a show with my 50mm f/1.8, but with a deep stage and no ability to move around, I decided to start with the 24-120mm f/4 and switch lenses if needed. The lighting varied from bright spots to near total darkness, but the 50mm f/1.8 stayed in my bag. On my D750 (in quiet/continuous mode with spot metering and 3D focusing) the 24-120 focused quickly and consistently. Handheld at pretty slow shutter speeds, the sharpness exceeded my expectations and only a handful missed the mark.

Here are some samples. Remember these were taken handheld in a dark room at very slow shutter speeds:

View attachment 5652815
Handheld 1/50 sec

Handheld 1/25 sec in near total darkness
Handheld 1/25 sec in near total darkness

Handheld 1/50 sec
Handheld 1/50 sec

Handheld 1/50 sec
Handheld 1/50 sec

Given this price and the optical range of this lens, that's pretty hard to beat.

If I was a professional lugging a variety of lenses on shoots, or doing studio work, I would probably choose other lenses. My biggest complaint is the bokeh, which is meh. However, for this amateur, this lens is getting more than its share of use.
Click to expand...
Until you get an AFS-18-35 ! my walk around lens now for outdoor use.
 
I agree 100 % on all of that !

IMHO, the 24-120 f/ VR is certainly the most "everyday" lens one can have ! Ifirst had the 24-70 f/2.8 (which I liked a lot), but after 1 1/2 year, it fell down from less than 3" on thick fresh grass and broke down ! No way to get it repaired, said Nikon ! Ad I'm not a "pro" nor have I enough $$$ to get a new 24-70, I decided to get the 24-120 f/4 VR, which also offered a wider zoom range, despite the f/4 aperture !

I LOVED my 24-120 as it was almost as sharp thru the whole zoom range as my 24-70..... Until it also fell down from the same height as the 24-70 and broke down too !!!

Now I'm stucked with a 50 f/1.8G (and a few other lens, hopefully), but I've been thoroughly enjoying the "basic" 50mm. lens for more than 6 months ! I learned -again- to WALK forward/ backward to get the framing I want ! ...and it works !!

Still, next July I'm going back -for a month holidays- to my home country, Switzerland, where I will definitely re-buy a new 24-120 f/4 -hoping it will have the same IQ as the first one-, because it's soooo nice to use !

:-)

Photo Galleries at http://www.pbase.com/scherrer
Spherical Panoramas at http://www.360cities.net/profile/jps or http://www.viewat.org/?sec=pn&id_aut=2489
 
Last edited:
Great review and totally agree :)

One tip re. the bokeh: it gets a lot better if you stop down to f5.6 - it loses a lot of the 'edginess' that it has wide open.
 
+1 It is a very good lens but gets little to no respect. Mine is on my D750 most of the time.

Yours did a very good job under dim conditions. The D750 does focus great in dim light even with an f/4 lens.

If you had one then the 70-200 f/2.8 would have worked great but at 1/2 the cost the 24-120 f/4 works well. I did have a f/3.5-5.6 version & of all the Nikkor's I have owned or used, it was the least desirable. Perhaps that has carried over to the perception of the f/4.
 
Docking half a star for bokeh? With a lens that slow, I'd have thought bokeh would be the least of one's concerns...
 
mais51 said:
fis said:
Why is this is the Rodney Dangerfield of Nikon lenses? It's no slouch, and yet it's not the fastest. It's not the sharpest. It's not the lightest. It's not the brightest. It's not the most rugged. It doesn't produce the best bokeh.

So why have I barely removed it from my D750 since I got it? Because for most casual shooting, the compromises have been more than worth it. Compared to a prime lens, or to a 24-70mm f/2.8, this lens offers great VR, great range, and great portability. I almost feel guilty using it so much, because I know it's not my "best" lens, but this lens's versatility keeps winning out.

I recently had an opportunity to put the VR through its paces, shooting a high school theater production from my seat in the audience. I would normally shoot such a show with my 50mm f/1.8, but with a deep stage and no ability to move around, I decided to start with the 24-120mm f/4 and switch lenses if needed. The lighting varied from bright spots to near total darkness, but the 50mm f/1.8 stayed in my bag. On my D750 (in quiet/continuous mode with spot metering and 3D focusing) the 24-120 focused quickly and consistently. Handheld at pretty slow shutter speeds, the sharpness exceeded my expectations and only a handful missed the mark.

Given this price and the optical range of this lens, that's pretty hard to beat.

If I was a professional lugging a variety of lenses on shoots, or doing studio work, I would probably choose other lenses. My biggest complaint is the bokeh, which is meh. However, for this amateur, this lens is getting more than its share of use.
Click to expand...
Until you get an AFS-18-35 ! my walk around lens now for outdoor use.
Click to expand...
+1

It really is a matter of preference. I have tried to like "normal range" zooms but with little success. I've had the 24-85G, the Sigma 24-105 Art, and the best I can say is "meh". They're not bad, but they do not thrill. For the last couple of years I've preferred a two-lens kit: the 18-35G for most shots and the 70-200 f/4G when the 18-35G is just too short.

But that's just me. I suspect that a majority simply prefer a one-lens solution. For me, that lens doesn't exist.
 
gatorowl said:
It really is a matter of preference. I have tried to like "normal range" zooms but with little success. I've had the 24-85G, the Sigma 24-105 Art, and the best I can say is "meh". They're not bad, but they do not thrill. For the last couple of years I've preferred a two-lens kit: the 18-35G for most shots and the 70-200 f/4G when the 18-35G is just too short.

But that's just me. I suspect that a majority simply prefer a one-lens solution. For me, that lens doesn't exist.
Click to expand...
It's not about having a one-lens solution. I have both of the lenses you have, as well as the 24-120. The 24-120 performs better than the other two lenses in the 35-70 range, and that is where I mainly use it.
 
thelenspainter said:
gatorowl said:
It really is a matter of preference. I have tried to like "normal range" zooms but with little success. I've had the 24-85G, the Sigma 24-105 Art, and the best I can say is "meh". They're not bad, but they do not thrill. For the last couple of years I've preferred a two-lens kit: the 18-35G for most shots and the 70-200 f/4G when the 18-35G is just too short.

But that's just me. I suspect that a majority simply prefer a one-lens solution. For me, that lens doesn't exist.
Click to expand...
It's not about having a one-lens solution. I have both of the lenses you have, as well as the 24-120. The 24-120 performs better than the other two lenses in the 35-70 range, and that is where I mainly use it.
Click to expand...
I don't see a disagreement here.

The two lenses mentioned perform better 18-35mm and above 70mm, which is where I take most of my shots. The 50mm prime and 24-85mmG (and the Sigma 24-105 when I had it) are my least-used lenses. There are occasionally shots in the 55-70mm range that I miss out on, but that's rare (I'm usually comfortable cropping shots from the 18-35mm liberally when needed). This may not work for you--using a mid-range zoom definitely doesn't work for me--so it really is a matter of style/preference.
 
buybuybuy said:
Docking half a star for bokeh? With a lens that slow, I'd have thought bokeh would be the least of one's concerns...
Click to expand...
1 stop compared to trinity zooms? Distance to subject would be more of a factor than 1 stop.
 
Andrew 3 said:
buybuybuy said:
Docking half a star for bokeh? With a lens that slow, I'd have thought bokeh would be the least of one's concerns...
Click to expand...
1 stop compared to trinity zooms? Distance to subject would be more of a factor than 1 stop.
Click to expand...
That's a huge difference. Think of the $$$$ involved in going from f/4 to f/2.8 across the lens lineup. e.g., 300 f/4 to 300 2.8. or 200 2.8 to 200 f/2. or 35 1.8 to 35 1.4.

Also, have you seen how challenging it can be to focus on landscapes at dusk with an f/4 lens? When I mount my 10-stop ND on my lens and turn on LV, I set the aperture to 2.8 and can still focus on stuff. At f/4, markedly less so!

Fact is, stops matter. It's why the RX 100 III ships with an f/1.8 lens and such a limited zoom range (24-70), when they just as easily could have made it slower and longer.

If you're shooting a fast-moving sport at close/medium distances indoors where the versatility afforded by the focal range and VR outweighs the increased noise, then you'd choose the 24-120 over the 24-70.

Apart from extenuating circumstances such as that,...who knows? I know I'd rather not have a lens that suffers from night blindness--where landscape phtoography is concerned.
 
Last edited:
buybuybuy said:
Andrew 3 said:
buybuybuy said:
Docking half a star for bokeh? With a lens that slow, I'd have thought bokeh would be the least of one's concerns...
Click to expand...
1 stop compared to trinity zooms? Distance to subject would be more of a factor than 1 stop.
Click to expand...
That's a huge difference. Think of the $$$$ involved in going from f/4 to f/2.8 across the lens lineup. e.g., 300 f/4 to 300 2.8. or 200 2.8 to 200 f/2. or 35 1.8 to 35 1.4.

Also, have you seen how challenging it can be to focus on landscapes at dusk with an f/4 lens? When I mount my 10-stop ND on my lens and turn on LV, I set the aperture to 2.8 and can still focus on stuff. At f/4, markedly less so!

Fact is, stops matter. It's why the RX 100 III ships with an f/1.8 lens and such a limited zoom range (24-70), when they just as easily could have made it slower and longer.

If you're shooting a fast-moving sport at close/medium distances indoors where the versatility afforded by the focal range and VR outweighs the increased noise, then you'd choose the 24-120 over the 24-70.

Apart from extenuating circumstances such as that,...who knows? I know I'd rather not have a lens that suffers from night blindness--where landscape phtoography is concerned.
Click to expand...
My reply was about the impact of 1 stop on bokeh, nothing more. In the context of people or portraits, yes, 2.8 could be better but I find the background blur of f4 acceptable. In those situations I'd say camera to subject and subject to background distances concern me more than 1 stop for bokeh.

I don't disagree that stops matter. All of your points are very relevant.
 
Last edited:
Andrew 3 said:
buybuybuy said:
Andrew 3 said:
buybuybuy said:
Docking half a star for bokeh? With a lens that slow, I'd have thought bokeh would be the least of one's concerns...
Click to expand...
1 stop compared to trinity zooms? Distance to subject would be more of a factor than 1 stop.
Click to expand...
That's a huge difference. Think of the $$$$ involved in going from f/4 to f/2.8 across the lens lineup. e.g., 300 f/4 to 300 2.8. or 200 2.8 to 200 f/2. or 35 1.8 to 35 1.4.

Also, have you seen how challenging it can be to focus on landscapes at dusk with an f/4 lens? When I mount my 10-stop ND on my lens and turn on LV, I set the aperture to 2.8 and can still focus on stuff. At f/4, markedly less so!

Fact is, stops matter. It's why the RX 100 III ships with an f/1.8 lens and such a limited zoom range (24-70), when they just as easily could have made it slower and longer.

If you're shooting a fast-moving sport at close/medium distances indoors where the versatility afforded by the focal range and VR outweighs the increased noise, then you'd choose the 24-120 over the 24-70.

Apart from extenuating circumstances such as that,...who knows? I know I'd rather not have a lens that suffers from night blindness--where landscape phtoography is concerned.
Click to expand...
My reply was about the impact of 1 stop on bokeh, nothing more. In the context of people or portraits, yes, 2.8 could be better but I find the background blur of f4 acceptable. In those situations I'd say camera to subject and subject to background distances concern me more than 1 stop for bokeh.

I don't disagree that stops matter. All of your points are very relevant.
Click to expand...
My apologies. I get your point.

Somebody else said to stop the lens down to f/5.6 to achieve good bokeh, so I guess it must be a very subjective thing.
 
I don't know if it's a matter of some getting bad samples of this lens, but I've been very pleased with mine, including sharpness. Sure, it doesn't compare to the 85 f\1.8 G or sme other primes. And for certain kinds of shooting I'll carry 2 DF bodies and a prime on each. But when I want to carry one body and leave the lens bag at home, this is my choice. I just shot an outdoor art fair downtown. I was extremely pleased with the results, even wide open .
 
Good point.

I get really nice bokeh with my 58 1.4G even stopped down to f4. As you said, it's all about subject to background distance.
 
It isn't on my D750 *all* the time, but for those times I just want a single "walkaround" lens, it's great. I'm very satisfied with the results I get from it.





a11b0f97730147a193eafa79ca0f84e1.jpg
 
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