Do I need a 30-110mm VR if I have the FT-1 + 24-120mm f4 VR?

[Jonathan F/2]

I'm currently trying out the V1 and FT-1 + 24-120mm f4 VR from my FF DSLR kit. Surprisingly since it's shooting in the center of the frame, images look very sharp and hold up well at 120mm @ f4 even at further distances. The only downsize is that the setup is bulky, but since I already own the lens there's no need to purchase additional equipment. Saying that, if I do pick up the 30-110mm VR, can I expect similar image performance? The 24-120mm f4 basically gives me a slightly wider and longer 70-300mm in FF terms!

Here's a quick late day sample (in full size) using the V1 and FT-1 + 24-120mm f4 VR and processed in ACR using my custom presets:


Shot from my front porch: Nikon V1 and FT-1 adapter + 24-120mm f4 VR:

 

[cyuill2007]

The 1 Nikkor 30-110mm lens is one of the best in the Nikon 1 series. It will be equal to, or better than, your 24-120mm lens, and will be better operationally with Nikon 1 cameras. (Better AF speed, ability to use all AF points, much more compact.)

My copy, unfortunately, developed a problem with its aperture, and needed to be repaired. I like the lens enough that I put up with the cost of the repair.

 

[PHXAZCRAIG]

The problem with any adapted lens is the autofocus point limitations. One big rectangle in the middle is extremely limiting in some circumstances.

It's not helpful that VR is also constantly active, draining the battery. Turn it off on the side of the lens when not needed.

 

[olyflyer]

If you can stand the bulk and the weight of the 24-120 plus can live with the limitations due to the FT-1 then I agree, you will not need the 30-110. The 24-120/4 is very nice lens even on my D800. I have never tested it on the V1 because I have the 30-110, so I had no reason. Also, one of the reasons I have the V1 kit is to have a kit when I don't want to carry the heavy FF kit or any part of it. ...but sure, in principal I agree with you, if you have the 24-120/4 and the FT-1 already then you don't need the 30-110. On the other hand, if you don't have the FT-1 then I think the money is better spent on a 30-110 then on the FT-1.

 

[Michael Benveniste]

Saying that, if I do pick up the 30-110mm VR, can I expect similar image performance? The 24-120mm f4 basically gives me a slightly wider and longer 70-300mm in FF terms!

From my experience with both lenses, at some focal lengths the 24-120mm might be a smidge better at f/6.3 and below, but I'd expect no difference from f/7.1 and beyond.

Do you need the 30-110mm? The 24-120mm imposes two limitations. The first has already been mentioned -- you're stuck with single point AF. The second arises should you wish to use on-camera flash at close distance; the 24-120mm is large enough that it could cast a shadow into the shot.

And yes, the setup is bulky. Here's a comparison, first in "travel" configuration:









I'm a hobbyist -- I have no true need for any gear at all. But I purchased the 30-110mm despite owning a 24-120mm f/4 specifically for the savings in size and weight. In fact, this is the first time I've mounted the 24-120mm on the FT-1. To me, it was worth the c. $120 I paid for the 30-110mm; let your own use patterns and preferences be your guide.

--
Light travels at 2.13085531 × 10^14 smoots per fortnight. Catch some today!

 

[Paul Pasco]

I have used the N1 system since it’s beginning and have the FT-1. I have tried every lens I own on the adapter whether they AF or not and I have bought a few lenses specifically for use with the FT-1 but none have been total successes. The 30-110s are available so cheap now that even if I had a 24-120 I would still have one. There is an extreme weight and bulk difference as well as the fact that the AF speed is going to be significantly quicker with the native lens. Even though I am mostly a center point shooter, occasionally I want to compose a shot moving the focus point and with an adapted lens you just can’t.

 

[Jonathan F/2]

Thanks for all the replies. This is the 2nd time I've purchased a Nikon 1 kit, but since prices have dropped (though I notice they're going back up) and I'm a better raw editor nowadays, I find the 1 system more interesting. I'm actually considering picking up the 10mm 2.8, so I'm debating if I should get that first over the 30-110mm!

 

[JanMatthys]

Thanks for all the replies. This is the 2nd time I've purchased a Nikon 1 kit, but since prices have dropped (though I notice they're going back up) and I'm a better raw editor nowadays, I find the 1 system more interesting. I'm actually considering picking up the 10mm 2.8, so I'm debating if I should get that first over the 30-110mm!

I'd skip the 10mm pancake lens, the 30-110mm + 18.5mm are the best affordable lenses in the system.

Not sure where prices are on the 32mm f/1.2 and 70-300 CX but these were close to $1k, they might be under $500 used

 

[day_pass]

I've got a range of FX and DX Nikon glass and an FT-1. I played around with various lenses on the V1 and V2 but ended up sticking to the N1 native glass BUT I had those already.

I guess if you are happy with 24-120 that's fine . I just prefer the full AF options that comes with native lenses - they are not the best or brightest lenses man has invented but they do the job for me.

 

[cyuill2007]

If you need a telephoto lens, get the 30-110mm. If you need a wideangle lens, get the 10mm. I have both of these lenses. The 10mm doesn't get much love in this forum, but I very much like the images I get from my copy of this lens. The 10mm lens has a pancake design. I am able to fit one of my V1s + 10mm lens into one of my Winter jacket's pockets. Kind of like a Nikon 1 version of the Coolpix A.

I think that you would be happy with either of those lenses. But you must decide - wide or tele?

 

[Paul Pasco]

Thanks for all the replies. This is the 2nd time I've purchased a Nikon 1 kit, but since prices have dropped (though I notice they're going back up) and I'm a better raw editor nowadays, I find the 1 system more interesting. I'm actually considering picking up the 10mm 2.8, so I'm debating if I should get that first over the 30-110mm!

If you want the most compact lens for the system, it’s the 10. I have one and like it enough that when it broke I paid to have it fixed.

 

[Parry Johnson]

I'd skip the 10mm pancake lens, the 30-110mm + 18.5mm are the best affordable lenses in the system.

I agree with Jan. The 10mm, although very good and small, is not much smaller than the 10-30, and doesn't have VR. It's therefore my least-used N1 lens. As for the 30-110, it's a beautiful lens and solid performer, and since you'll likely use an N1 camera in better light, you won't need f4 very often. If you want extra reach, try a 70-300 F mount lens -- yes, the CX version would be a dream, but i just can't justify that price.

 

[Jonathan F/2]

So I ended up a 10-100mm non-PD VR instead! I figure I'd have more use from an all-in-one lens. I was tempted to jump on the 10-100mm PD VR deal for $120, but I really wanted the smaller size of the non PD version. Luckily I found a used one in black for a good price! Now I'm wondering if it makes sense keeping the 10-30mm PD VR and replacing it with a 10mm 2.8 instead?

 

[Parry Johnson]

So I ended up a 10-100mm non-PD VR instead! I figure I'd have more use from an all-in-one lens. I was tempted to jump on the 10-100mm PD VR deal for $120, but I really wanted the smaller size of the non PD version. Luckily I found a used one in black for a good price! Now I'm wondering if it makes sense keeping the 10-30mm PD VR and replacing it with a 10mm 2.8 instead?

I think you made the better choice with the non-PD, especially if you do stills more often than video. The extra 0.5 stop might not seem like much, but that sometimes makes our breaks a shot.

As for the 10mm, I rarely use mine, as the 10-30 is so good and has VR. For those times when you do want a nice, smooth video zoom, at least you've already got the PD function with your lens (now that you decided to go without by getting the 10-100). If you're looking at a different lens to go with your current set, why not something really different like the 18mm f1.8 (for a similar price, too).

 

[Jonathan F/2]

So I ended up a 10-100mm non-PD VR instead! I figure I'd have more use from an all-in-one lens. I was tempted to jump on the 10-100mm PD VR deal for $120, but I really wanted the smaller size of the non PD version. Luckily I found a used one in black for a good price! Now I'm wondering if it makes sense keeping the 10-30mm PD VR and replacing it with a 10mm 2.8 instead?

I think you made the better choice with the non-PD, especially if you do stills more often than video. The extra 0.5 stop might not seem like much, but that sometimes makes our breaks a shot.

As for the 10mm, I rarely use mine, as the 10-30 is so good and has VR. For those times when you do want a nice, smooth video zoom, at least you've already got the PD function with your lens (now that you decided to go without by getting the 10-100). If you're looking at a different lens to go with your current set, why not something really different like the 18mm f1.8 (for a similar price, too).

I already have the 18.5mm, so I guess that means I have everything covered!

 

[carlgorski]

If you want a lens thats a fraction of the weight and size. Why have a small camera and throw a big full size lens on it? Price also 30-110's are now a little over a $100.

 

[Jonathan F/2]

If you want a lens thats a fraction of the weight and size. Why have a small camera and throw a big full size lens on it? Price also 30-110's are now a little over a $100.

I picked up 10-100mm non PD VR instead.