Best Travel Zoom ever

[The_Hammerhead]

After testing this lens I was surprised how sharp this full ranged zoom is. There is no other useful travel zoom for Nikon FX cameras. Forget the Nikkor 28-300mm VR it is miles away comparing to the 24-120 mm F4 VR. Forget the cheaper 24-120 mm F 3,5-4,5 VR it is disappointing at all.

It is a little heavy but this is the tribute to good quality and best performance. In case I need more range I would choose another lens for example the Nikkor 70-200 mm F4 VR. Maybe in the future they will find a way to built a 10-300 mm F 1,0 zoom with perfect performance. Until then we have to make compromises.

 

[sweebrew]

After testing this lens I was surprised how sharp this full ranged zoom is. There is no other useful travel zoom for Nikon FX cameras. Forget the Nikkor 28-300mm VR it is miles away comparing to the 24-120 mm F4 VR. Forget the cheaper 24-120 mm F 3,5-4,5 VR it is disappointing at all.

It is a little heavy but this is the tribute to good quality and best performance. In case I need more range I would choose another lens for example the Nikkor 70-200 mm F4 VR. Maybe in the future they will find a way to built a 10-300 mm F 1,0 zoom with perfect performance. Until then we have to make compromises.

I used to be a 24 -120 defender. I recently got a 2k monitor and better understood the complaints about the lens. In regards to a reference point, I have never used or examined files from the 28 -300. My first travel lens was the 24 -85. It was decent, but I would never use it again if the 24 -120 was available.

What I will say is that the 24 -120 is a great snap shot lens. I often travel with it because of the reach and colors/contrast. I find it to be pretty good for pictures taken in the 3' to 20' range, but would not use it for landscape or city-scape type pictures if I cared about fine detail. So in regards to travel, it depends on what is important. I would probably still take it for the convenience, but I think more about when to use it.

As for the 10 - 300 F1.0 zoom, it would make the 800 mm look cheap.

 

[RandyB]

As for the 10 - 300 F1.0 zoom, it would make the 800 mm look cheap.

Plus, you'd need an observatory to mount the dam thing...

 

[johnchap2]

I like the 24-120/4, and mine is quite decent in producing images with good IQ. However, given the widely ranging comments about the lens it seems that there is a wider then should be variation in the quality between samples.

I relegate mine to low light and after dark situations and rely on my Nikon 28-300 as my primary walk-around lens for the longer focal lengths. I am willing to sacrifice a few pixels to gain in flexibility to frame the images as I see them.

 

[NikonShoot3r]

I owned mine for 5 yrs and still going strong. Either that or my 70 200 2.8vr2

 

[bjn70]

As for the 10 - 300 F1.0 zoom, it would make the 800 mm look cheap.

Oh yeah! 12" diameter objective!

I've toyed with buying a "travel" lens, or more like a "walk around", easy to carry lens, to supplement my Tamron 24-70 f2.8. The 24-85 is lighter, the 24-120 doesn't save much weight and does add some range but I'm not sure how much that would help. The Tamron 35-150 gives enough added range to maybe be useful since I had contemplated carrying a 70-200 on one body. For the 35-150 to be useful I would be carrying another body with an 18-35. I've read a lot about the 24-120 and concluded that it really is a worthwhile lens if you want to carry only one lens.

 

[JohnnyLuddite]

To the extent to which everything's a compromise, this lens is a very good one for many purposes. I once saw it described as a utility vehicle, and I think that's a reasonable analogy. It's not the Bentley of a 105/1.4, but it's very capable and very useful for its range and price.

My tolerance for weight and intimidation factor while travelling is very limited, but I would pack it if taking Fx.

My view is that it's my One Lens, and basically other lenses have to do something extra around it.

Personally, my biggest gripe with it (I think I have a reasonable copy) is that at 120mm or so, e.g. for portraits, where you're looking for decent transitions in the background, it can get busy - particularly with things like backlit leaves, which makes the quality of the bokeh less attractive for me.

I've reviewed my use across the range of focal lengths and found that it's fairly evenly spread and I do find both the 24 and 120 end valuable, so to that extent the range is useful to me. I'd not want it longer, that's a different lens I feel.

 

[jassyou]

do you mean that 28-300 is better than 24-120?

 

[JMD-70]

I just picked up a used copy from local photog,...and I was quite surprised at how fast it snaps to focus!

Well worth the $$$ invested,...wish I have bought it much earlier!!!!!