Nikor 24-120 F4

[mothergoose]

Bhimaprasad Maiti wrote:

Does it have any matching Nikon converter or Third party.Pl. post photos.

 

[RicAllan]

painterdude wrote:

Thanks for the response. In looking at on line shots with this cam ..I notice a quite a bit of fringing with high contrast areas- tree limbs against a bright sky. Has this been your experience?

g

 

[RicAllan]

Tepacca wrote:

Did you consider 24-85mm?

In my case, I had (and sold) the 24-85. It didn't quite have the reach I wanted for (my shooting as) a walk-about lens (and certainly didn't even stretch much past my 24-70 focal length wise to give up f2.8.....

 

[leerob]

I'm thinking of buying 28-300 for D800. Does anyone have an experience with it? Any comments?

 

[TypeMRT]

I sold my Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 to get this lens because the Tamron needed to be stopped down to f/4 anyway. Now it's my main lens. I also carry the 50 & 85 f/1.8 for low-light and light-weight scenarios. I'm happy with the compromise of zoom, weight, and price compared to the f/2.8 zooms. I'm not a pro so the extra cost isn't worth it for my travel, event, or family shots.

 

[Glen78]

I own this lens and use it for a majority of my shooting. It is the perfect lens for general and family photos and a great pair with the D600. The focal range is just right for most situations, the contrast and rendering is very nice, and f/4 is plenty for most situations. It also has VR which means for still shots it can have even better low light capabilities than the 24-70.

If I lost this lens or broke it I would absolutely go out and buy another copy immediately. That is the best endorsement I can give.

 

[johnnymcclung]

leerob wrote:

I'm thinking of buying 28-300 for D800. Does anyone have an experience with it? Any comments?

The 24-120 f/4 is the better lens. The 28-300 focuses slower, is heavier and larger. The 24-120 provides sharper, more contrasty images.

 

[RhysM]

It's too "meh" to warrant the price tag of £900/$1200. It's double the costs of the 24-85VR II, the constant F4 isn't a big enough difference to warrant the price and the 85-120 range is least sharp of all, so again doesn't warrant the price premium over the 24-85.

 

[CSLee]

I have both 24-120F4 and 28-300, i end up keep the 28-300, my 28-300 is more sharper ....

i sold the 24-120F4 and bought the 24-70F2.8...

 

[Devendra]

if you can get it for 800 then thats a bargain for what you can get away with..

full



100% crop of the above

 

[Ernie Misner]

The 120mm reach is definitely nice. I love mine for an all around lens. The VR works astoundingly well on mine also. With good technique and medium apertures you can coax gallery prints out of it easily if necessary.

 

[Rich Rosen]

painterdude wrote:

Am looking for an all rounder lens for my 800. Don't need huge zoom but would like some wide angle. Am looking at the Nikor 24-120 F4. For those who have and use this lens with the D800 what has been your experience?

 

[Cliff Fujii]

I've owned one for about 6 months now and really like the results I get from the lens and the D800. I have heard that some examples of this lens has CA issues. I would buy one and take high contrast images with it involving point source light. If you don't get CA, you've got a good lens.

 

[Dr Bob]

painterdude wrote:

Thanks for the response. In looking at on line shots with this cam ..I notice a quite a bit of fringing with high contrast areas- tree limbs against a bright sky. Has this been your experience?

g

 

[whoosh1]

I tried to like it and had it for nearly an year on full frame cameras - especially as a lighter weight alternative for occassions the 24-70 2.8 was too big and longer range. However when the 24-85 VR was introduced I compared it (on a D800) and found in my unscientific testing as well as everyday pictures (low light or otherwise) I could see no difference between my 24-85 vr and my 24-120 f4 vr. In the same conditions I could see difference between my copy of 24-70 2.8 and my copy of 24-85 vr. So just did not see the advantage of the 24-120 f4 as it was not much lighter than 24-70 and really not much more range compared to 24-85.

Range for 24-85 is 84 degrees to 28.5 degrees i.e. total of 55.5 degrees.

Range for 24-120 is 84 degrees to 20.5 degrees i.e. total of 63.5 degrees.

So the range difference is not as much as it seems between the 2 lenses at first glance. Considering this - not much more range, not quite lightweight I sold it (same price as I paid - I had bought it in earlier discount).

As a bonus you can get the 24-85 at a firesale brand new from a D600 owner who bought a kit for a little over $350.

What about alternatives I said (other than 24-85 vr) - not exactly the same (but in my opinion way better image quality) 28 1.8g + 50 1.8g + 85 1.8g. Second preferred alternative (at least in my opinion) even though needs 2 lenses - better to go with a wide zoom + telezoom and in this the cool one (costlier though) 16-35 f4 + 70-200 f4; the cheap but reasonably OK the new 18-35 and 70-300 vr. All these in my opinion are better bang for the buck than 24-120 f4. However you may have come here just for a validation for your choice of 24-120 f4 and you have received plenty of that in this thread - its upto you whether to consider the non conforming voices like me.

 

[Franglais91]

I have the 24-85VR as well and I'm very satisfied with it.

- I have the 28-70 f2.8 which is better but HUGE.

- I thought seriously about the 24-120VR but performance drops off after 85mm and I don't need the longer focal lengths so much anyway

- the 24-85VR is pretty small. On the D800 it fits into the same bag as my D300+16-85 which is just what I wanted

 

[coentje]

I own a Nikon 28-105 AF. It's an old gem. The standard lens for the Nikon f100.

On my d600 it's slow. Despite it's unbeatable macro 1:2 i'm going to buy one of those two. The Nikon or the Tamron. I can't decide yet, so i keep my 28-105.

Some sites say that the tamron is better than the Nikon 24-70 (dxomark).

The prices of the two are the same.

Koen

 

[JacquesC]

The 24-120 f/4 lens is my most-used lens. It gets far more use than my 24-70 f/2.8 simply because it has a very convenient zoom range and I'm quite happy with the results I get on my D700 and also on a D800.

Here's a shot recently taken in a friend's studio where I used this lens on a D800 - look at it at 100%:


Shot with a D800 + 24-120VR f/4

--
Jacques
apple-and-eve.com

 

[Shotcents]

I found the 24-85vr to be slightly better, especially at 85mm and I did not care for the 24-120 softness at the long end. Sample variation appears to effect this lens quite a bit.

The 24-85vr is MUCH smaller and lighter and has about the same performance. At 85mm an above I want more control over DOF anyway so out comes the 85mm prime or the 70-200 VRII.

The 24-120 F4 is really expensive for slow glass, and big...and heavy. It's a lens I just don't see much sense in, but that's why we have choices.

Robert

 

[painterdude]

thanks Robert and all the rest of you guys for your comments. I am truly looking at the best bang for the buck vs IQ I can get. Quite frankly I have been blown away by the capability of what should be only average IQ lenses like the 70-300YR. Even @ 300mm where it is supposed to be quite soft its not so bad IMHO..Example:

Anyways ..so what I am getting is the 24-120F4 has some softness/weight/price issues for some relative to other options ..ie the 28-85.

The comments given will now direct my testing of lenses..Thanks for everything you guys have added.

all the best

graeme

--

Welcome

skylightvistas.weebly.com