Reading mode: Light Dark

Why I Highly Recommend the Nikon 24-120mm f/4G ED VR AF-S NIKKOR Lens

Go to last post
tektrader said:
Thought I would report back on my 24-120 purchase which was prompted in part by this thread.

It arrived yesterday and I quickly put it on the camera. I was expecting it to be not even close to comparable with the 24-70 f2.8. To my surprise its actually very good. In fact so good I am starting to suspect there is something wrong with my 24-70 f2.8.

Think I will have to send it in to Nikon for a service..........

I started to think before hand that I should have bought the new Sigma 24-105. Now I am glad I didn't. This lens is quite good enough for a travel lens. In fact quite good enough full stop.

Lets see what happens when I micro focus adjust it tomorrow. It may get even better.

I may even sell the 24-70 if this measures up nicely.........

Surprised a bit as I thought it would be a lot lighter than the 24-70, It really is so close in weight to the big lens it really doesn't matter.
Click to expand...
BINGO! ;)
 
Intriguing...are you think of getting it and would look forward to the feedback if you do...lighter is better
 
fad said:
Great work indeed.

But just to add my 2 cents, I have just switched to the 24-70 after many tens of thousands of mostly street shots with the 24-120.

I am liking the results so far. Having f2.8 is good for night and DOF. IQ is irrelevant to street work, strictly speaking, but it's nice to have it, to have less distortion, better resolution in the corners and so forth. It allows me to speak with greater clarity and creative control.

Getting the Otus (just for curiosity) has, I think, helped me move in this direction. There are very subtle characteristics in its images that have a way of becoming quite compelling over time. It requires one to think carefully about very small changes in PP that have obvious esthetic repercussions. So the brain starts to change.

For years I favored the 24-120 and only used the 24-70 when I was shooting event like indoor situations. It's strange how our perceptions of these things change over time.
Click to expand...
I'm just the opposite, I have all the Nikon primes as well as the holy trinity for f/2.8 zooms. I am intrigued by the 24-120/4 and am seriously thinking about getting one. I never had an f/4 zoom so I will be exploring uncharted territory. From all the images on the net, and especially Benjamin's, I think this lens will work perfectly for me. My feeling is the 24-120 will be more of a nice general purpose convenience lens that will satisfy my needs when I only want to carry one lens and not all that heavy crap. Of course, there's no substituting a nice f/1.4 prime for night work.
 
Hi Benjamin.

I own the Nikon 24-120 f4g. I purchased it used for a very reasonable sum of money. I first used it on a d7200 and, was absolutely blown away by the image quality. I also own the Sigma 35 1.4 Art. This is also a very nice lens. As i look at the Sigma, and the Nikon. I do not see much of a difference. There are, also websites that you can look on, to see what images the lens produce. I look at Juza, and it has all camera bodies and lenses, that were made. Now my point of this. What is wrong with people and their constant complaining of lenses. I look at my Sigma lens, as being like hard liquor. And my, Nikon as a bottle of fine Champagne. My Nikon lenses give me a certain look that other lenses do not. And that is using, " D" lenses as well. And when i look at a lens on a website. I don't look for the sharpness of it. But the overall rendition of the skin tones and the other colors involved in the image. All you folks, stop your damn complaining about your lenses. Did you not buy them to take images? After all what do you want from a lens? If it gives you a good image, the be satisfied. It is not about the lens, but about composition. There is a whole world out there go and enjoy it. And what you have. Oh! And by the way, Benjamin. Really liked your magazine images that you did. Be well sir.
 
willCacknackle said:
Hi Benjamin.

I own the Nikon 24-120 f4g. I purchased it used for a very reasonable sum of money. I first used it on a d7200 and, was absolutely blown away by the image quality. I also own the Sigma 35 1.4 Art. This is also a very nice lens. As i look at the Sigma, and the Nikon. I do not see much of a difference. There are, also websites that you can look on, to see what images the lens produce. I look at Juza, and it has all camera bodies and lenses, that were made. Now my point of this. What is wrong with people and their constant complaining of lenses. I look at my Sigma lens, as being like hard liquor. And my, Nikon as a bottle of fine Champagne. My Nikon lenses give me a certain look that other lenses do not. And that is using, " D" lenses as well. And when i look at a lens on a website. I don't look for the sharpness of it. But the overall rendition of the skin tones and the other colors involved in the image. All you folks, stop your damn complaining about your lenses. Did you not buy them to take images? After all what do you want from a lens? If it gives you a good image, the be satisfied. It is not about the lens, but about composition. There is a whole world out there go and enjoy it. And what you have. Oh! And by the way, Benjamin. Really liked your magazine images that you did. Be well sir.
Click to expand...
Well, thank you! I appreciate that!
 
Is there a manual how they (nikon) calibrate a lens? I can’t imagine they take the whole thing apart. Other than that, Nikon charged me about €89 just to look at a faulty VR once, acclaiming it needed a VR replacement costing another 300. ( the thing was only about €800 worth new)


At some point I had the guts to disassemble my lens only to find out some astray particles blocked the mechanism from time to time. Since the cleaning it performs flawless, even for a 13y old lens. What a service….not. It took me a good evening, without the skills of an engineer (although it helps that I’m trained to assemble scientific instruments)
 
Neither worked for me. My type of photography couldn't be any more different than the OPs and obviously his copy worked for him

I wish Nikon would come up an updated AF-P version. As it is, after each time I sold a copy of my 24-120 f/4 I'd go back to shooting with a 24-85 G which always worked for me, while being cheaper and lighter
 
I purchased a used D750 body and debated on the new 24-85G and the 24-120G. After reading reviews I ended up with the 24-85 and am very pleased. It is a good walk around lens. I am debating my next choice to go longer or a fast prime. Peace.
 
Been rocking 24 120f4 for 7 years...still very good images...wish they'd come out with afp or e version but highly unlikely..
 
Mine since 2010, never let me down. Very decent pics.
 
I’d say most all lenses produced these days are pretty good

sigma 85 1.4 art:

0039fc85ff69496e981f87df14c3f27b.jpg

c400a3bc1e594c3fbcc0d971d0fa817f.jpg

-

70-200 2.8 E FL is the most prime like zoom ever made:

69b251a19d0347ed87a619f8986e145b.jpg



-
I am the copyright owner of my work. Please don’t take or alter my images.
 
Last edited:
Don89 said:
I’d say most all lenses produced these days are pretty good
Click to expand...
Agreed - but that was probably a little less true in 2014, when this thread was started :-)
 
I know…. Others recently responded…

and I’m a slow typer. Went as fast as I could but couldn’t find the space key.

--
I am the copyright owner of my work. Please don’t take or alter my images.
 
Last edited:
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