Best Nikon mid zoom?

Gary Coyle said:
Pointless reply as the OP clearly states he's not looking for an f/2.8 lens and is looking to save weight, onother one who might do well to read what the OP's requirements are.
Click to expand...
He says "prefer not to" which is not the same as "will not" so if enough people recommend a 2.8 then he "may"
So not pointless in my opinion.
 
Gary Coyle said:
Overpriced, overweight, over rated Kodiak
Click to expand...

so why did have three of them !!!!!
you would have thought once bitten twice shy sounds like to me you just like to hear yourself talk looking for an argument
like a child in the playground.
 
holty said:
so why did have three of them !!!!!
you would have thought once bitten twice shy sounds like to me you just like to hear yourself talk looking for an argument
like a child in the playground.
Click to expand...
The first one was overpriced, the second overweight and the third overpriced.
Simples :D
 
holty said:
so why did have three of them !!!!!
you would have thought once bitten twice shy sounds like to me you just like to hear yourself talk looking for an argument
like a child in the playground.
Click to expand...
Get you big boy, You need to chill out, FYI I tried to get an acceptable copy but never did, too much CA, not sharp in the corners, de-centreing issues, ive also owned 8 Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 lenses and 6 different Nikon 16-35mm f/4 lenses and all were excellent copies, I don't keep expensive lenses sat in cupboards and tend to buy as I need them then pass them on when not needed.
I bet you got a good copy first time round

here's way too much snobbery with some Nikon glass.
 
Last edited:
Gary Coyle said:
Get you big boy, You need to chill out, FYI I tried to get an acceptable copy but never did, too much CA, not sharp in the corners, de-centreing issues, ive also owned 8 Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 lenses and 6 different Nikon 16-35mm f/4 lenses and all were excellent copies, I don't keep expensive lenses sat in cupboards and tend to buy as I need them then pass them on when not needed.
I bet you got a good copy first time round

here's way too much snobbery with some Nikon glass.
Click to expand...

Gary i can see where your coming from now :snaphappy:

cheers
 
there you go again im talking to Gary and you stick your oar in
as we say inScotland speak only when your spoken to :banana::banana:
 
holty said:
there you go again im talking to Gary and you stick your oar in
as we say inScotland speak only when your spoken to :banana::banana:
Click to expand...
You talking to me?
Ok, do one! :)
Why don't you follow your own advice? Gary wasn't talking to you. :banana::banana::banana:
 
Last edited:
andyscott said:
Thats probably best on his site.
Click to expand...

TBH as I'm finding more reviews the 24-120 doesn't seem well thought of - the VR even more than the previous version - and used prices seem to reflect that too (found a VR on LCE for £150 tonight).

KR does say some silly things, but a lot of his views on lenses seems to make sense and match up with stuff I'm seeing elsewhere too.
 
ancient_mariner said:
TBH as I'm finding more reviews the 24-120 doesn't seem well thought of - the VR even more than the previous version - and used prices seem to reflect that too (found a VR on LCE for £150 tonight).

KR does say some silly things, but a lot of his views on lenses seems to make sense and match up with stuff I'm seeing elsewhere too.
Click to expand...

Did you snap it up especially at that price if the condition was OK of course, I've had a look and can't find it for £150 in any of there stores ?
 
ancient_mariner said:
TBH as I'm finding more reviews the 24-120 doesn't seem well thought of - the VR even more than the previous version - and used prices seem to reflect that too (found a VR on LCE for £150 tonight).

KR does say some silly things, but a lot of his views on lenses seems to make sense and match up with stuff I'm seeing elsewhere too.
Click to expand...

I doubt that will be the new one though. There are several versions of the 24-120.
 
ancient_mariner said:
TBH as I'm finding more reviews the 24-120 doesn't seem well thought of - the VR even more than the previous version - and used prices seem to reflect that too (found a VR on LCE for £150 tonight).

KR does say some silly things, but a lot of his views on lenses seems to make sense and match up with stuff I'm seeing elsewhere too.
Click to expand...
Reviews are always best taken with a pinch of salt. As I've stated earlier in the thread, they're generally dependant on the quality of the sample tested.
 
minnnt said:
This one?http://www.lcegroup.co.uk/Used/Nikon-AF-S-24-120MM-F3.5-5.6-VR_131799.html

The new F4 AF-S is the one people are recommending and it is a very nice lens with great range.
http://www.lcegroup.co.uk/Used/Nikon-AF-S-24-120mm-f/4G-ED-VR-_134644.html
Click to expand...

Thanks for pointing that out.

Trying to choose Nikon lenses is not at all easy on a limited budget - so many variations, and not all good. Got an offer on an old manual 28mm that I'm waiting to hear back about.
 
There is nothing wrong with the F4, it's a really versatile lens.


Media City UK by David Raynham, on Flickr


Media City UK by David Raynham, on Flickr


Media City UK by David Raynham, on Flickr


Media City UK by David Raynham, on Flickr


Media City UK by David Raynham, on Flickr


fun in the sun by David Raynham, on Flickr

Like i said, i sold mine and put the money towards the Nikon 24-70mm F2.8. I haven't noticed any real difference in IQ, they're both very close but i prefer the build quality of the 24-70 and the fact is offers F2.8. Lack of VR didn't really concern me at these kind of focal lengths.
 
minnnt said:
How much are you wanting to spend mate?
Click to expand...

If that was to me, I've picked up a used 50 1.8 AFS and 35-105 D for about £170 combined. Half wish I'd gone for the 24-85 VR, but that would have been the limit for a while. If my offer on a 28 3.5 AI doesn't come off then I'll pick up a Nikkor 70-210 4-5.6 (about £60-70) and look for a budget 24 prime or possibly a vivitar/cosina/Tokina 19-35 (£50-75).

Not much, relatively, is the answer then. ;)
 
Then of course theres the excellent Tamron 24-135mm, superb range, very contrasty and super sharp, ive owned a few of these and are great value, built like a tank as well, the one ive got now i picked up from Dale Photographic for £175.
 
Have you thought about using a Nikon 18-55 DX VR they are very light, cheep and have VR you will still get 25MB images from the D810. Image quality is pretty good when stopped down. I paid £50 for one used and use it in hazardous conditions where I wouldn't wan't to trash a Pro lens, eg. photographing welding, grinding or anything with a lot of airborne grit.
 
ah5168 said:
Have you thought about using a Nikon 18-55 DX VR they are very light, cheep and have VR you will still get 25MB images from the D810. Image quality is pretty good when stopped down. I paid £50 for one used and use it in hazardous conditions where I wouldn't wan't to trash a Pro lens, eg. photographing welding, grinding or anything with a lot of airborne grit.
Click to expand...

arent they only compatible with DX cameras though (that is they throw an image circle smaller than full frame even if they do fit , which they might not) ? - the D810 is a FF camera , so there isnt a great deal of point of putting a lens on it that can only be used in crop mode if it fits at all..
 
big soft moose said:
arent they only compatible with DX cameras though (that is they throw an image circle smaller than full frame even if they do fit , which they might not) ? - the D810 is a FF camera , so there isnt a great deal of point of putting a lens on it that can only be used in crop mode if it fits at all..
Click to expand...

Nikon FF cameras will reduce the size of the image to match APS-C when fitted with an APS-C lens AFAIK. They will work, but waste the advantage of that FF sensor.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top