Anyone else ditched the 24-120VR ?

LeeD · Sep 15, 2003

I did the unthinkable today. After going through several samples of the 24-120VR with no success of a sharp one, I said enough is enough and finally ditched the 24-120VR for the AFS24-85. Out goes blurry right-sides, soft edges, and wobbly front lenses. It just seems to me Nikon has done itself a disservice this time by releasing products way before they're matured, probably in the hope of keeping up with Canon. AFS coupled with VR is probably too much to handle.

Just one man's unfortunate experience ...

ResIpsaLoquitur · Sep 15, 2003

I returned mine because of right side softness and a general mediocre performance. I now wait delivery of a "proper" lens, a Nikkor 85mmF1.4. I'll use this along with a 50mmF1.4, 17-35mmf2.8 AF-S and 80-400VR plus macro lenses.

RIL

LeeD said:
I did the unthinkable today. After going through several samples of
the 24-120VR with no success of a sharp one, I said enough is
enough and finally ditched the 24-120VR for the AFS24-85. Out goes
blurry right-sides, soft edges, and wobbly front lenses. It just
seems to me Nikon has done itself a disservice this time by
releasing products way before they're matured, probably in the hope
of keeping up with Canon. AFS coupled with VR is probably too much
to handle.

Just one man's unfortunate experience ...

LeeD · Sep 15, 2003

Do you have any problems with the 80-400VR ? Just wondering if it's VR+SWM or just VR that's giving us all the problems.

Regards.

ResIpsaLoquitur said:
RIL

LeeD said:

I did the unthinkable today. After going through several samples of
the 24-120VR with no success of a sharp one, I said enough is
enough and finally ditched the 24-120VR for the AFS24-85. Out goes
blurry right-sides, soft edges, and wobbly front lenses. It just
seems to me Nikon has done itself a disservice this time by
releasing products way before they're matured, probably in the hope
of keeping up with Canon. AFS coupled with VR is probably too much
to handle.

Just one man's unfortunate experience ...

Click to expand...

Mike Roden · Sep 15, 2003

LeeD said:
Do you have any problems with the 80-400VR ? Just wondering if
it's VR+SWM or just VR that's giving us all the problems.

I know you didn't ask but, the 70-200VR (SWM) is one of the two best Nikon lenses I've ever owned or used. I find VR very usefull and the focusing speed and accuracy is wonderful.

LeeD · Sep 15, 2003

I was under the impression that there were some problems with the 70-200VR too. My mistake.

Regards.

Mike Roden said:
LeeD said:

Do you have any problems with the 80-400VR ? Just wondering if
it's VR+SWM or just VR that's giving us all the problems.

Click to expand...

I know you didn't ask but, the 70-200VR (SWM) is one of the two
best Nikon lenses I've ever owned or used. I find VR very usefull
and the focusing speed and accuracy is wonderful.

TPA Photoman · Sep 15, 2003

Nope.....this lens produces top quality images for me and is extremely versatile given its range. Images are tack sharp, colors are brilliant, and results are consistent. Other than a few early adopters, what I have seen is that a lot of folks complaining about this lens just don't know how to use it. Classic example...the complaints about the "lens wobble". It is SUPPOSED to do that.

Shot my last two studio sessions with it, and it does a great job (in and out of the studio).

Those who give it up are missing out on a great lens.
--
Tim Kriebel
Digital Photo Magic
http://www.tkdpmagic.com

Joel Rosen · Sep 15, 2003

I initially thought the lens was a dog, but I persisted. In my hands, they do require some post processing. I found that with this lens converting raw via Capture gave significantly better images. I find that the images are sharp and the color is great. Some complain the lens is slow to focus, but I have not found that.

It is a great travel lens beacuse of its extendes range over the 24-85. I had one of those and I am happy I got the 24-120VR.

Here is a shot taken on Satuday:

Tim Kriebel said:
Nope.....this lens produces top quality images for me and is
extremely versatile given its range. Images are tack sharp, colors
are brilliant, and results are consistent. Other than a few early
adopters, what I have seen is that a lot of folks complaining about
this lens just don't know how to use it. Classic example...the
complaints about the "lens wobble". It is SUPPOSED to do that.

Shot my last two studio sessions with it, and it does a great job
(in and out of the studio).

Those who give it up are missing out on a great lens.
--
Tim Kriebel
Digital Photo Magic
http://www.tkdpmagic.com

Kathy_in_MD · Sep 15, 2003

I purchased one - returned it due to the right side focus issue.
I recieved the second one and returned that due to a soft focue issue.
I took the money and purchased a Tamron 28-75 2.8 di. Excellent lens.

I still have my trusty 24-135 Tamron SP for travel and a 80-400VR if I need the VR functions.

I never questioned Nikon's quality control....well not that much anyway.

Now.....I am a bit concerned and will most likelly be overly cautious with future purchases.

Kathy

LeeD said:
I did the unthinkable today. After going through several samples of
the 24-120VR with no success of a sharp one, I said enough is
enough and finally ditched the 24-120VR for the AFS24-85. Out goes
blurry right-sides, soft edges, and wobbly front lenses. It just
seems to me Nikon has done itself a disservice this time by
releasing products way before they're matured, probably in the hope
of keeping up with Canon. AFS coupled with VR is probably too much
to handle.

Just one man's unfortunate experience ...

Sion Stanton · Sep 15, 2003

LeeD said:
I did the unthinkable today. After going through several samples of
the 24-120VR with no success of a sharp one, I said enough is
enough and finally ditched the 24-120VR for the AFS24-85. Out goes
blurry right-sides, soft edges, and wobbly front lenses. It just
seems to me Nikon has done itself a disservice this time by
releasing products way before they're matured, probably in the hope
of keeping up with Canon. AFS coupled with VR is probably too much
to handle.

Just one man's unfortunate experience ...

--
cheers Sion
Cape Town , South Africa

ResIpsaLoquitur · Sep 15, 2003

No, none. I own sharper lenses, but the 80-400VR is still pretty sharp, and a bargain considering the cost of viable alternatives.

I really don't like massive long lenses on cameras. I thought of the 70-200VR, but realised I'd harldy ever use it at less than full stretch, and then it does not go far enough.

RIL

LeeD said:
Do you have any problems with the 80-400VR ? Just wondering if
it's VR+SWM or just VR that's giving us all the problems.

Regards.

Mike Roden · Sep 15, 2003

There have been a lot of people around here having problems with these lenses. So far I have not and the lens performs well beyond my expectations. To answer your origional question, no, I don't think the problems are a result of VR and SWM. My guess would be there are quality control issues.

LeeD said:
Regards.

Mike Roden said:

LeeD said:

Do you have any problems with the 80-400VR ? Just wondering if
it's VR+SWM or just VR that's giving us all the problems.

Click to expand...

I know you didn't ask but, the 70-200VR (SWM) is one of the two
best Nikon lenses I've ever owned or used. I find VR very usefull
and the focusing speed and accuracy is wonderful.

Click to expand...

mchabbi · Sep 15, 2003

I am one of the early adopters. And I have used tons of Nikon lenses in the past several years.

TPA Photoman said:
Other than a few early
adopters, what I have seen is that a lot of folks complaining about
this lens just don't know how to use it. Classic example...the
complaints about the "lens wobble". It is SUPPOSED to do that.

I was the first guy to post the question with wobble concerns... I have a dozen lenses and I dont see this much wobble in them... If it wobbles too much one or the other side of the lens will not be sharp depending on the side it has tilted.

Otherwise my lens is sharp enough for me for general shooting. And I love the VR and AFS.
--
Mahendra Chabbi

Negative287 · Sep 15, 2003

First of all, I don't know what this wobbly stuff is but my lens certainly doesn't do anything like that...

second, I think there were some bad samples in the first few shipments that Nikon has now ironed out because I bought mine about a month after it was released and mine has been excellent.

I think if some people revisited the lens they'd get a good appreciation for what it is capable of... Please also consider some of these lenses could still be around so it isn't out of the question that someone might still buy a bad lens.

LeeD said:
I did the unthinkable today. After going through several samples of
the 24-120VR with no success of a sharp one, I said enough is
enough and finally ditched the 24-120VR for the AFS24-85. Out goes
blurry right-sides, soft edges, and wobbly front lenses. It just
seems to me Nikon has done itself a disservice this time by
releasing products way before they're matured, probably in the hope
of keeping up with Canon. AFS coupled with VR is probably too much
to handle.

Just one man's unfortunate experience ...

Kathy_in_MD · Sep 15, 2003

"First of all, I don't know what this wobbly stuff is but my lens
certainly doesn't do anything like that"

Humm....a proven product...tested and all. Want to sell it Pete?

Seriously, I have not ruled out this lens yet Pete. But after trying 2 with no joy, I will be VERY cautious the next time I try a sample - maybe in 3 months or so. I really wanted to test this lens head-to-head against the Tamron 24-135 (my current travel lens). I still wonder where the two I returned finally went and if they were repaired.

Kathy

Pete Perry said:
second, I think there were some bad samples in the first few
shipments that Nikon has now ironed out because I bought mine about
a month after it was released and mine has been excellent.

I think if some people revisited the lens they'd get a good
appreciation for what it is capable of... Please also consider
some of these lenses could still be around so it isn't out of the
question that someone might still buy a bad lens.

LeeD said:

I did the unthinkable today. After going through several samples of
the 24-120VR with no success of a sharp one, I said enough is
enough and finally ditched the 24-120VR for the AFS24-85. Out goes
blurry right-sides, soft edges, and wobbly front lenses. It just
seems to me Nikon has done itself a disservice this time by
releasing products way before they're matured, probably in the hope
of keeping up with Canon. AFS coupled with VR is probably too much
to handle.

Just one man's unfortunate experience ...

Click to expand...

Negative287 · Sep 15, 2003

Kathy,

Try calling Bromfield Camera in Boston... I don't know if they test the stuff or what but I have never gotten a defective item from them! Even if the consensous was that there were more bad items then good on the market.

As for selling it? Well you'll have to buy the camera as well because it isn't leaving that body any time soon!

Kathy Sunny16 said:
Humm....a proven product...tested and all. Want to sell it Pete?

Seriously, I have not ruled out this lens yet Pete. But after
trying 2 with no joy, I will be VERY cautious the next time I try a
sample - maybe in 3 months or so. I really wanted to test this
lens head-to-head against the Tamron 24-135 (my current travel
lens). I still wonder where the two I returned finally went and
if they were repaired.

Kathy

Pete Perry said:

second, I think there were some bad samples in the first few
shipments that Nikon has now ironed out because I bought mine about
a month after it was released and mine has been excellent.

I think if some people revisited the lens they'd get a good
appreciation for what it is capable of... Please also consider
some of these lenses could still be around so it isn't out of the
question that someone might still buy a bad lens.

LeeD said:

I did the unthinkable today. After going through several samples of
the 24-120VR with no success of a sharp one, I said enough is
enough and finally ditched the 24-120VR for the AFS24-85. Out goes
blurry right-sides, soft edges, and wobbly front lenses. It just
seems to me Nikon has done itself a disservice this time by
releasing products way before they're matured, probably in the hope
of keeping up with Canon. AFS coupled with VR is probably too much
to handle.

Just one man's unfortunate experience ...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Jim Kaye · Sep 15, 2003

I like this lens and seem to have one that's OK (as I've posted elsewhere), but I feel like I'm still getting to know it and just happened to re-read an intriguing sentence in the Instruction Manual (p 17) under the heading, "Focusing, zooming, and depth of field:"

"...Due to the optical characteristics of this lens, as the lens is focused closer, the focal length decreases."

If it had said "...the depth of field decreases" I would have read right past this. But I have owned about a half-dozen different zoom lenses over the 30-odd years I've been an amateur photographer (including most recently the Sigma 15-30, which I also like very much -- the 24-120 VR is my first Nikon zoom) and I don't recall ever having read something like this about the other lenses nor about zoom lenses in general in any of my other reading.

Does anyone see any practical significance of the special "optical characteristics" mentioned above? In particular, could this have any possible relation to the unsharpness some users have noted with at least some samples of this lens? (Doesn't seem likely to me since focusing distance isn't changing during the static brick or gravel test exposures most people have reported.)

Something else I've wondered about is whether people with really unsharp samples of this lens have noticed whether it is an issue only when the VR is turned on, or only when it is turned off, or both. There is clearly an element in this zoom that moves in a plane perpendicular to the lens axis when the VR is activated (I can see it "jump" slightly through the front of the lens when I press the shutter partway to activate VR and autofocusing when the VR function is turned on). Is it possible this zoom might function better when this movable element is allowed to do what it was designed to do (ie, when VR is turned on) than when this element is not actively controlled by the VR circuitry (and might potentially be able to move on its own in such a way as to diminish optimal focusing)?

I'm not saying there haven't been defective units sold or that quality control isn't a legitimate issue -- just curious about other potential (and possibly additional) explanations for the problems people have had that might relate to the design of the lens itself.

Jim Kaye

Kent J · Sep 15, 2003

You will want to marry the 85 f/1.4. After many lens returns, I have settled on your arsenal (except the 60mm instead of the 50mm)

Happy shooting!

-Kent

ResIpsaLoquitur said:
RIL

LeeD said:

I did the unthinkable today. After going through several samples of
the 24-120VR with no success of a sharp one, I said enough is
enough and finally ditched the 24-120VR for the AFS24-85. Out goes
blurry right-sides, soft edges, and wobbly front lenses. It just
seems to me Nikon has done itself a disservice this time by
releasing products way before they're matured, probably in the hope
of keeping up with Canon. AFS coupled with VR is probably too much
to handle.

Just one man's unfortunate experience ...

Click to expand...

Negative287 · Sep 15, 2003

It's funny that you should note that because when I took the following shot and brought it home I thought, "hmm, this must be close to the 24mm end" only to realize looking at the Exif it was a 52mm focal length.

Jim Kaye said:
I like this lens and seem to have one that's OK (as I've posted
elsewhere), but I feel like I'm still getting to know it and just
happened to re-read an intriguing sentence in the Instruction
Manual (p 17) under the heading, "Focusing, zooming, and depth of
field:"

"...Due to the optical characteristics of this lens, as the lens is
focused closer, the focal length decreases."

If it had said "...the depth of field decreases" I would have read
right past this. But I have owned about a half-dozen different
zoom lenses over the 30-odd years I've been an amateur photographer
(including most recently the Sigma 15-30, which I also like very
much -- the 24-120 VR is my first Nikon zoom) and I don't recall
ever having read something like this about the other lenses nor
about zoom lenses in general in any of my other reading.

Does anyone see any practical significance of the special "optical
characteristics" mentioned above? In particular, could this have
any possible relation to the unsharpness some users have noted with
at least some samples of this lens? (Doesn't seem likely to me
since focusing distance isn't changing during the static brick or
gravel test exposures most people have reported.)

Something else I've wondered about is whether people with really
unsharp samples of this lens have noticed whether it is an issue
only when the VR is turned on, or only when it is turned off, or
both. There is clearly an element in this zoom that moves in a
plane perpendicular to the lens axis when the VR is activated (I
can see it "jump" slightly through the front of the lens when I
press the shutter partway to activate VR and autofocusing when the
VR function is turned on). Is it possible this zoom might function
better when this movable element is allowed to do what it was
designed to do (ie, when VR is turned on) than when this element is
not actively controlled by the VR circuitry (and might potentially
be able to move on its own in such a way as to diminish optimal
focusing)?

I'm not saying there haven't been defective units sold or that
quality control isn't a legitimate issue -- just curious about
other potential (and possibly additional) explanations for the
problems people have had that might relate to the design of the
lens itself.

Jim Kaye

dnelms · Sep 15, 2003

I bought the first one in our area. I spent a day and a half with the lens. That was enough for me. It was not sharp period vr or not. I had the older24-120. The new lens was not as sharp and not even close to my 28-105. I need this lens and will try again soon.
--
dnelms

LeeD · Sep 16, 2003

=)

Kent J said:
Happy shooting!

-Kent

ResIpsaLoquitur said:

RIL

LeeD said:

I did the unthinkable today. After going through several samples of
the 24-120VR with no success of a sharp one, I said enough is
enough and finally ditched the 24-120VR for the AFS24-85. Out goes
blurry right-sides, soft edges, and wobbly front lenses. It just
seems to me Nikon has done itself a disservice this time by
releasing products way before they're matured, probably in the hope
of keeping up with Canon. AFS coupled with VR is probably too much
to handle.

Just one man's unfortunate experience ...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Anyone else ditched the 24-120VR ?

Leading Member

Senior Member

Leading Member

Leading Member

Leading Member

Well-known member

Leading Member

Forum Enthusiast

Well-known member

Senior Member

Leading Member

Forum Enthusiast

Negative287

Guest

Forum Enthusiast

Negative287

Guest

Senior Member

Senior Member

Negative287

Guest

Well-known member

Leading Member

Similar threads

Keyboard shortcuts