is the nikon 24 - 120 as awful as Ken says?

D

Dave Pickett

Messages
992
Name
Dave Pickett
Edit My Images
Yes
I am leaning towards a D700 at some point in the future, and currently have:

50 f1.8, Tamron 90 Macro, Nikon 70-300VR

All of which support full frame. The best lens is the 24-70 f2.8, but at £1150, its just 2 much.

As I see it I could get a 24-120 for about £400 and make do, or get the 24 f2.8 prime. This would give me a decent range of lenses, albeit the zoom would be more convenient.

So is the 24- 120 really that bad in the real world?
 
Save up, sell a kidney and get the 24-70 - usually to be found in good nick second-hand for £900 or thereabouts...
 
Get the Tamron 24-135 SP instead.

Much better lens.

The Nikon 28-105 and the 28-200 AF-G are far better lenses. The 28-200 AF-G is very very good, but hard to find.

You'll probably end up wanting a 28-70 f/2.8 or 24-70 f/2.8 at some point.
 
agreed with both ^^

on another note if you're after a walk about the 18-200 is excellent (within reason)
 
if you're after a walk about the 18-200 is excellent
Click to expand...

but isnt full frame....
 
oh yeah sorry, i just looked at the camera you had in your about me bit, ignore my 2 second memory :)
 
the 24-120 isn't all that bad to be honest. I've got one which came with a D300 I had and it's definitely usable.

Obviously it's no 24-70 but it's a third of the price with a more useful range.
 
depends on what do you photograph . I would sell the 1.8 and get the 1.4 , that would be a cool combo - d700 + 50mm f1.4 .
 
Long ago when I used Nikon the 24-120 VR lens, although slow, was very acceptable in good light, or at least my copy was.
 
You be mental to buy a 24-120 VR for a D700. Not polically correct, but unfortunately true :)

Ken IS right. I tested one against a Tamron 28-75 on a D700 and the 28-75 (cheaper, and constant f/2.8) blows it out of the water.

croppage:

Tamron 28-75 at 28mm:

DSC_3939-full.jpg


Nikon 24-120 @ 29mm

DSC_3944-full.jpg


100% cropage (Tamron 28-70)

DSC_3939-rhcrop.jpg


100% cropage (Nikon 24-120)

DSC_3944-rhcrop.jpg


http://www.andydrakeimages.co.uk/24120VR/DSC_3944-rhcrop.jpg




A D90 or D300 with a Nikon 16-85 VR will murder a D700 with a 24-120 VR - the DX combo will have much much much better edge performance.

Don't buy a 24-120 VR for a full frame Nikon. Its a silly thing to do.
 
Tamron 28-75 at 70mm:

DSC_3947-full.jpg


Nikon 24-120 @ 70mm

DSC_3946-full.jpg


100% cropage (Tamron 28-75)

DSC_3947-rhcrop.jpg


100% cropage (Nikon 24-120)

DSC_3946-rhcrop.jpg
 
Thanks for taht Puddleduck, no dispute Ken IS right on something!!!

Might just go with the 24mm prime at first.....while I'm saving up!

Didnt realise the Tamron was so reasonably priced..........thanks looks like a viable solution
 
Dave Pickett said:
Thanks for taht Puddleduck, no dispute Ken IS right on something!!!
Click to expand...

Edge performance on full frame is a tricky thing to pull off.

The 24-120 VR was designed ages ago (pre-full frame)

In many instances a DX camera with a good lens will outperform a D700 with a mediocre lens.

For example - DX with 12-24 f/4 is better the D700 with new 16-35 f/4 for edge performance (£1000 vs £2500)

DX with 16-85 VR is better than D700 with the 24-120 VR (£850 vs £2000)

So if you are upgrading and what to see the same edge to edge sharpness you see on full frame, you need to get decent full frame lenses. Don't upgrade for improved high ISO alone if you are going to lose a bunch of edge to edge accuity.
 
it really is that bad im afraid, how ever saying that i did come third in the amature photographer monthly comp last month using that lens lol.
 
I would love a D700, but would rather have a D300 and 24-70 than the D700 and 24-120. If the 24-70 is anything like the 70-200VR I have it is a belting lens!!

As I prefer the 70-200 and my 50mm 1.4, I cant justify the 24-70, but I do have the 28-75 2.8 Tamron which you should get second hand for around £200-£230. It is a decent lens and in terms of value for money better than the Nikon. In a test or close cropping I am sure the Nikon will be better, but I think we are talking fractions.
 
Cambsno, just out of interest, doesn't the fact the 24-70mm on a DX body is effectively 36-105mm (and not very wide really) bother you? It's interesting just how many folk on here who sacrifice wide-angle coverage on DX bodies by fitting a high-end 24-70 for better IQ.
 
alexkidd said:
on another note if you're after a walk about the 18-200 is excellent (within reason)
Click to expand...


Ignoring the fact that it's not a ff lens, Rockwell rates this average piece of consumer glass as "a miracle" and "[FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]the world's best portrait lens", so take anything he says with a rather large pinch of salt.....[/FONT]
 
specialman said:
Cambsno, just out of interest, doesn't the fact the 24-70mm on a DX body is effectively 36-105mm (and not very wide really) bother you? It's interesting just how many folk on here who sacrifice wide-angle coverage on DX bodies by fitting a high-end 24-70 for better IQ.
Click to expand...

for example - i don't need wide angle + don't care etc.
 
Starastin said:
I need 70mm more than wide. 50mm wouldn't be enough. but it's just me.
Click to expand...


Understand now :)

I like that idea but for me I just can't drag myself away from 17mm for 'impact' shots' for the mags.

I wonder if we'll ever see something akin to a 24-70mm f/2.8 at any point from the major manufacturers, but with a wider end (i.e. 17/18mm) but still with that reach you get from 70mm (so 17-70mm f/2.8). Probably encroaches on existing lenses that are key sellers and the other problem would probably be getting the highest possible optical performance from such a long zoom range while maintaining f/2.8 throughout. Nice thought though..... :)
 
If it wasn't so hard I think that at least 3rd party guys would make it , as they need to be remarkable to stay in the game.
 
intotherainbow said:
me too, but until I got my siggy 10-20... :wave::wave::wave:
Click to expand...

of course I would love to have a good wide. but even then , i would use it 3 times a year so it's not worth it for me to buy one. I'm not much of a landscape guy. and for shooting people 10-20 is like having the huge clown sunglasses , fun for couple of minutes then it's just a dust collector.
 
specialman said:
Cambsno, just out of interest, doesn't the fact the 24-70mm on a DX body is effectively 36-105mm (and not very wide really) bother you? It's interesting just how many folk on here who sacrifice wide-angle coverage on DX bodies by fitting a high-end 24-70 for better IQ.
Click to expand...

I did have the 17-55, but found I was not using it often below 24 or so, and often needed more than 55, hence the change. Most of my stuff is portraits and I prefer a prime - 50mm. At times I would like wider, but 95% of the time its fine.
 
Flash In The Pan said:
Ignoring the fact that it's not a ff lens, Rockwell rates this average piece of consumer glass as "a miracle" and "[FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]the world's best portrait lens", so take anything he says with a rather large pinch of salt.....[/FONT]
Click to expand...

i'm not going off what rockwell says, i'm going from personal use.

i think considering the range it covers and for the price it's great, it's not a pro lens but it's definately acceptable to anyone who's not pixel peeping imho. :)
 
Flash In The Pan said:
Ignoring the fact that it's not a ff lens, Rockwell rates this average piece of consumer glass as "a miracle" and "[FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]the world's best portrait lens", so take anything he says with a rather large pinch of salt.....[/FONT]
Click to expand...

Pinch of salt or a whole mine full?

The 24-120 VR isn't the best lens in the world but it sure as eggs is eggs isn't the worst, either! My D700 came as a kit with one (for an extra £150 or so over body only price) and tided me over until I could afford a 24-70 f/2.8 (Sigma - still can't afford a Nikkor!) which is certainly a better lens. When I traded the 24-120 in against another lens, I actually got more for it than I had paid, so it had been a good investment!

Back to Ken - if you know enough to weed out the bovine excrement from his "advice", you probably know enough not to need the advice in the first place!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top