Reading mode: Light Dark

24-120mm VR vs. D70 Kit Lens

Go to last post
Just the feedback that I was looking for. I've seen some of your great shots before as I browsed this and the NSLR forums, but didn't relate them back to the 24-120VR. Just too much info to digest I guess.

I agree on the need for a short lens like the 12-24DX later, but for now, I'm pretty sold on the 24-120VR as my walk around lens. Your post certainly helped.

Thanks!!
F. Kamphues said:
On the other hand, the 18-70DX would go well with a 80-200 (non AFS
version) or 70-200VR.

Decisions, decisions...

Check out my samples:
http://www.millhouse.nl/nikon24-120vr.html
http://www.millhouse.nl/nikonafs80-200.html

Regards,

Fred Kamphues
The Netherlands
http://www.fredkamphues.com
flew said:
I'm thinking of getting the Nikor 24-120 VR as a general purpose
lens for hiking and general shooting instead of the 18-70 kit lense
with the D70.

Do any of you have any experience with this lens, and if so, how do
you feel about this as an alternative?

Thanks for your feedback!!
--
Frank Wilson
Huntsville, AL
http://flew.smugmug.com
Looking, listening, learning....
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--
Frank Wilson
Huntsville, AL
http://flew.smugmug.com
Looking, listening, learning....
 
I use a few years old 24-120 f/3.5-5.6D AF with the D100:
http://www.qsl.net/wd6ggw/2004/temp/DSC_1072.html
flew said:
I'm thinking of getting the Nikor 24-120 VR as a general purpose
lens for hiking and general shooting instead of the 18-70 kit lense
with the D70.

Do any of you have any experience with this lens, and if so, how do
you feel about this as an alternative?

Thanks for your feedback!!
--
Frank Wilson
Huntsville, AL
http://flew.smugmug.com
Looking, listening, learning....
Click to expand...
 
F. Kamphues said:
Good choice. The 24-120VR is a very versatile lens, but you will
need a lens at the short end (after a while).
The 12-24DX could be a good addition when you have saved some money.

On the other hand, the 18-70DX would go well with a 80-200 (non AFS
version) or 70-200VR.

Decisions, decisions...

Check out my samples:
http://www.millhouse.nl/nikon24-120vr.html
http://www.millhouse.nl/nikonafs80-200.html
Click to expand...
I'm glad to see your opinion - and the images to back it up. Very nice.

I just went through the same decision agony Frank is experiencing, and decided to buy the 24-120 VR for my D100. It came yesterday. Haven't gotten to try it out yet, but I will over the weekend. My job, unfortunately, clutters all the daylight hours until then.

It's replacing the 28-80 D that I had been using. The 28-80 is going back onto my N80, which my wife will begin using.

I've never been much of a wide angle person. On my N80, the wide end of the 28-80 rarely got used. On the D100, it was almost (but not quite) wide enough. I'm expecting the 24-120 to live on the D100 except for when I need a real telephoto.

I'm hoping my wife will enjoy her camera, and will eventually covet my 70-300G so I can move up to something better on the long end. :-)

Ken Plotkin
 
Please let us know how you like it, and post some shots as soon as you can (to this thread would be great....;-)

Thanks,
Ken Plotkin said:
F. Kamphues said:
Good choice. The 24-120VR is a very versatile lens, but you will
need a lens at the short end (after a while).
The 12-24DX could be a good addition when you have saved some money.

On the other hand, the 18-70DX would go well with a 80-200 (non AFS
version) or 70-200VR.

Decisions, decisions...

Check out my samples:
http://www.millhouse.nl/nikon24-120vr.html
http://www.millhouse.nl/nikonafs80-200.html
Click to expand...
I'm glad to see your opinion - and the images to back it up. Very
nice.

I just went through the same decision agony Frank is experiencing,
and decided to buy the 24-120 VR for my D100. It came yesterday.
Haven't gotten to try it out yet, but I will over the weekend. My
job, unfortunately, clutters all the daylight hours until then.

It's replacing the 28-80 D that I had been using. The 28-80 is
going back onto my N80, which my wife will begin using.

I've never been much of a wide angle person. On my N80, the wide
end of the 28-80 rarely got used. On the D100, it was almost (but
not quite) wide enough. I'm expecting the 24-120 to live on the
D100 except for when I need a real telephoto.

I'm hoping my wife will enjoy her camera, and will eventually covet
my 70-300G so I can move up to something better on the long end. :-)

Ken Plotkin
Click to expand...
--
Frank Wilson
Huntsville, AL
http://flew.smugmug.com
Looking, listening, learning....
 
Richard V Lamprecht said:
Richard V Lamprecht said:
Richard V Lamprecht said:
Have you had a chance to use the 24-120 yet on any of your cameras?
I'd be real interested to hear your assessments.

Thanks!!
Richard V Lamprecht said:
I had the same dilema and I went for the 24-120 VR. I wanted the VR
feature and the extra length. I added the 12-24 DX to get the wide
angle. However, in essence, the 24-120 at 24 is the same as 35mm
film, so thats still pretty wide. The 24-120 is also nicely built.
Click to expand...
--
Frank Wilson
Huntsville, AL
http://flew.smugmug.com
Looking, listening, learning....
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
The URL below has a full review Nikon lenses. The 24-120 certainly
gets the thumbs-up for your needs.
Richard V Lamprecht said:
http://kenrockwell.com/nikon/nikkor.htm#af
Click to expand...
Richard
Click to expand...
The 24-120 is a wonderful lens. Add the 80-400 and you have the perfect combo. I tried the VR 70-200, but found it much too heavy and bulky for it's limited range. The 80-400 is shorter and lighter.

--
D100, VR 24-120, VR 80-400
Tamron 17-35
 
Thanks Jimm,

I'm still researching. Also now looking at the 18-35 and 28-200 combo. It would STILL be nice to only have to carry ONE lens while hiking though.

I appreciate your feedback.
Jimm said:
Richard V Lamprecht said:
Jimm said:
Jimm said:
Have you had a chance to use the 24-120 yet on any of your cameras?
I'd be real interested to hear your assessments.

Thanks!!
Jimm said:
I had the same dilema and I went for the 24-120 VR. I wanted the VR
feature and the extra length. I added the 12-24 DX to get the wide
angle. However, in essence, the 24-120 at 24 is the same as 35mm
film, so thats still pretty wide. The 24-120 is also nicely built.
Click to expand...
--
Frank Wilson
Huntsville, AL
http://flew.smugmug.com
Looking, listening, learning....
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
The URL below has a full review Nikon lenses. The 24-120 certainly
gets the thumbs-up for your needs.
Jimm said:
http://kenrockwell.com/nikon/nikkor.htm#af
Click to expand...
Richard
Click to expand...
The 24-120 is a wonderful lens. Add the 80-400 and you have the
perfect combo. I tried the VR 70-200, but found it much too heavy
and bulky for it's limited range. The 80-400 is shorter and lighter.

--
D100, VR 24-120, VR 80-400
Tamron 17-35
Click to expand...
--
Frank Wilson
Huntsville, AL
http://flew.smugmug.com
Looking, listening, learning....
 
To D70 kit purchasers:

I believe that the 17-70 range is too difficult and therefore too many optical compromises are necessary to make this lens at the price point it is being offered at, and being DX glass, I'd rather pass with the imminent risk of obselescence. Therefore:

I am purchasing the kit and trading for the range. I completely disregarded the 24-120 VR lens choice because of the various luke-warm receptions it has received, but it is really enticing me to consider.

I was completely commited to trading for a sigma 24-70 2.8 but it does not appear that it will allow onboard flash with the lens' pervasive profile. I am not at all keen on collecting DX glass.

So now I am firmly back in the trade market and this lens might be the only viable value-based alternative. The 24-85 is too much of a lateral trade, the sigma is too large for flash and the tamron 28-75 DI is too long at the wide end and finally, the Nikon 28-70...forget about it. If Nikon was to offer the 2.8 preformance at the 24-70 range...I would seriously consider the utility I am currently receiving from some of my more marketable body parts, but that particular purchase necessitates the additional expenditure to aquire the 17-35 just to cover the working range. The versatility and size of the 24-120 VR tend to negate its marginal optical preformance...5X is alot of range for any lens to cover adequately...but beginning at 24mm is a nearly impossible challenge at any reasonable price.

In case this post is lost in the thread, I am reposting it in the Nikon SLR forum, sorry in advance, if this causes anyone unnecessary distress.
flew said:
I'm still researching. Also now looking at the 18-35 and 28-200
combo. It would STILL be nice to only have to carry ONE lens
while hiking though.

I appreciate your feedback.
Jimm said:
Richard V Lamprecht said:
flew said:
flew said:
Have you had a chance to use the 24-120 yet on any of your cameras?
I'd be real interested to hear your assessments.

Thanks!!
flew said:
I had the same dilema and I went for the 24-120 VR. I wanted the VR
feature and the extra length. I added the 12-24 DX to get the wide
angle. However, in essence, the 24-120 at 24 is the same as 35mm
film, so thats still pretty wide. The 24-120 is also nicely built.
Click to expand...
--
Frank Wilson
Huntsville, AL
http://flew.smugmug.com
Looking, listening, learning....
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
The URL below has a full review Nikon lenses. The 24-120 certainly
gets the thumbs-up for your needs.
flew said:
http://kenrockwell.com/nikon/nikkor.htm#af
Click to expand...
Richard
Click to expand...
The 24-120 is a wonderful lens. Add the 80-400 and you have the
perfect combo. I tried the VR 70-200, but found it much too heavy
and bulky for it's limited range. The 80-400 is shorter and lighter.

--
D100, VR 24-120, VR 80-400
Tamron 17-35
Click to expand...
--
Frank Wilson
Huntsville, AL
http://flew.smugmug.com
Looking, listening, learning....
Click to expand...
 
flew said:
Please let us know how you like it, and post some shots as soon as
you can (to this thread would be great....;-)
Click to expand...
No real shots yet (rain, rain go away!!), but I did do a quick test of VR. Just hand-held from my computer chair, pointed at a bookcase 4 feet away. Here are some 100% crops. Normal in-camera sharpening, incandescent white balance, zero post-processing:

66 mm focal length, f/5.3, 1/8 second, VR off and on:





120 mm focal length, f/5.6, 1/6 second, VR off and on:





The benefit of VR at longer focal lengths is obvious. That VR works is also pretty obvious.

Ken Plotkin
 
Looks like Yves' test shot of the doorknob. Certainly points out the VR advantage well.

Hope it stops raining soon so you can get out and get us some real life samples. It's sunny and warm here. I'm about to go out an take about a 3 mile hike, and try some shots at 28 (the lowest my 828 goes), 42 and 180 to try to see what the D70 shots might look like at some typical settings for the 24-120 and the 28-200.

Thanks for the info!!
--
Frank Wilson
Huntsville, AL
http://flew.smugmug.com
Looking, listening, learning....
 
flew said:
Hope it stops raining soon so you can get out and get us some real
life samples. It's sunny and warm here. I'm about to go out an
take about a 3 mile hike, and try some shots at 28 (the lowest my
828 goes), 42 and 180 to try to see what the D70 shots might look
like at some typical settings for the 24-120 and the 28-200.
Click to expand...
Here are some samples:

at 24 mm:



at 48 mm:



at 120 mm:



All shot in P mode, normal sharpening, large fine jpg. Modest custom curve (JTP all-in-one), zero compensation. Sunshine WB. Adobe RGB color space, which I did not change to sRGB. Despite the sunshine, the colors today were pretty much the way they look in Explorer - spring is not quite here. The only post-processing I did was to resize.

Been going through cognitive dissonance looking at my 24 mm originals, trying to decide whether or not there is any of the much-discussed left side softness, but try as I might I don't think I see any...the grass in the 24 mm and 48 mm shots looks pretty similar on both sides. I need to find a nice brick wall.

I've found that I can blow things up to 100% on the screen (the traditional 36"x24" blowup by which we judge digital sharpness), apply some USM, and get sharp results. I don't think I was ever able to do that with my other lenses - if there was much cropping, the final result was always blurry.

While I was been poring over today's take (about 50 shots) trying to assess sharpness, I noticed a couple of other things. First, the exposure is right - none of the traditional D100 underexposure. No blown highlights, histogram nicely centered. With the inexpensive lenses I've been using, exposure was always a little dim. I also had some into-the-sun shots with a fair amount of glare, but no noticable flare. I'm beginning to understand why people talk about there being more to a lens than lines per inch sharpness.

Looks like a keeper. The wide end is definitely wide enough for my tastes (I am not a wide angle person) and the long end with VR ought to prove useful. I shot a couple of airliners (oops..is TSA monitoring? I mean I photographed a couple of airliners) at 120 mm that had to be expanded to 300% to fill the window. USM and color noise reduction couldn't really save them, but for the one with VR on at least I could see that I was approaching the pixel limit.

Now I just need to figure out how I can score a 70-200 VR (plus a teleconverter or two) for the long stuff and I'm set for life. :-)

Ken Plotkin
 
flew said:
I appreciate you remembering me. Any chance that I could get to
some the originals??
Click to expand...
They're really too big to do electronically (3 MB each).

I can snail-mail you a CD with a bunch of them. e-mail me. If the link from my profile doesn't work, I'm kplotkin at cox dot net.

I realized I made one blunder in this tryout - using P mode. I should have used A mode, gotten more depth of field, and let the VR take care of shutter speed.

I think somewhere along the line I said these were snapshots. :-)

The trip to the park was triple purpose. There was a landscape photo show in the Atrium - that's the cool building in the first shot. My wife wanted to see what real photographers can do. Second, our daughter will be getting married in the Atrium in August, so my wife wanted to do additional recon, logistics, whatever. Taking the camera and snapping some pics was the third purpose, and #2 sapped my mental energy.

Ken Plotkin
 
Ken Plotkin said:
flew said:
I appreciate you remembering me. Any chance that I could get to
some the originals??
Click to expand...
They're really too big to do electronically (3 MB each).

I can snail-mail you a CD with a bunch of them. e-mail me. If the
link from my profile doesn't work, I'm kplotkin at cox dot net.

I realized I made one blunder in this tryout - using P mode. I
should have used A mode, gotten more depth of field, and let the VR
take care of shutter speed.

I think somewhere along the line I said these were snapshots. :-)

The trip to the park was triple purpose. There was a landscape
photo show in the Atrium - that's the cool building in the first
shot. My wife wanted to see what real photographers can do.
Second, our daughter will be getting married in the Atrium in
August, so my wife wanted to do additional recon, logistics,
whatever. Taking the camera and snapping some pics was the third
purpose, and #2 sapped my mental energy.

Ken Plotkin
Click to expand...
--
Frank Wilson
Huntsville, AL
http://flew.smugmug.com
Looking, listening, learning....
 
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