Nikon 24-120/f4 - good buy?

merv

merv

Messages
1,118
Name
Mervyn
Edit My Images
Yes
Have been reading reports of this lens and not convinced it is one of Nikon's better achievements! It's a lot of dough. Any comments or experiences would be appreciated. I like the versatility of this focal length. Don't know if good buy or not. merv:bang:
 
A hard one,supose to be better than the old 24-120mm VR,have seen some not to bad reviews,the price is a bit high.

Also have a look at the 28-300mm VR as well :)
 
I wouldn't touch it tbh. Any review I've read said it had horrific distortion at the wide end, and optically, it's no better than a kit lens. On a D3s, I would prefer to buy a 24-70 used for the money if you can get one. You don't get that extra bit of reach, but you'd probably still get better quality even cropping down a bit.

Or, another alternative, a pair of primes. Like the 28mm 1.8 & an 85mm 1.8
 
It's a great buy, especially 2nd hand if you can find one. Distortion at the wide end is less than 1% more than the 24-70, and easily fixed with one click in Lightroom. The main issue is vignetting, but again that disappears along with the distortion in Lightroom, so not an issue for me. Colour, contrast and sharpness are superb, even at f4 - I hardly ever stop mine down.

Cagey75 said:
I wouldn't touch it tbh. Any review I've read said it had horrific distortion at the wide end, and optically, it's no better than a kit lens.
Click to expand...

:lol: you need to read better reviews :thumbs:
 
Only borrowed one and found it to be superb, very sharp wide open, very little vignetting and not even noticeable on what i shoot, if you shoot sky for a living you might notice it but otherwise its great, distortion is minimal and much less than more expensive lenses
 
Use mine as a walkabout lens and find it superb, the VR and extra range make it preferable to the 24-70 for me.

Not to be confused with the earlier 24-120 f3.5-f5.6!
 
Not sure exactly which of them I had but I do know that I wasn't 100% happy with it, hence it got chopped in against a Sigma 150-500 OS. Mine came with my D700 as a kit lens. Just before I flogged it on, I bought a Sigma 24-70 since Jessops were offering them at silly cheap prices (£234.88). I have since supplemented the f/2.8 option with another Sigma, a 70-200 which came to me 2nd hand at a decent price from Mifsuds. Knowing Sigma's reputation for less than perfect copies, I tested both lenses before parting with any hard won cash and I'm pleased to say thet both meet my expectations and needs.
 
Nod said:
Not sure exactly which of them I had but I do know that I wasn't 100% happy with it, hence it got chopped in against a Sigma 150-500 OS. Mine came with my D700 as a kit lens. Just before I flogged it on, I bought a Sigma 24-70 since Jessops were offering them at silly cheap prices (£234.88). I have since supplemented the f/2.8 option with another Sigma, a 70-200 which came to me 2nd hand at a decent price from Mifsuds. Knowing Sigma's reputation for less than perfect copies, I tested both lenses before parting with any hard won cash and I'm pleased to say thet both meet my expectations and needs.
Click to expand...

The 24-120 that was bundled as a kit lens with the D700 was the older and inferior 3.5-5.6 vr version. I had one of those briefly and though not as bad reviews seemed to suggest, it did have some serious limitations.

The 24-120 f/4 isn't a lens I've used but I researched it a fair bit when weighing it up against a 28-70 2.8. Reviews were generally excellent and I've since noticed a lot of studio photographers using them which can't be a bad thing.
 
jpw said:
It's a great buy, especially 2nd hand if you can find one. Distortion at the wide end is less than 1% more than the 24-70, and easily fixed with one click in Lightroom. The main issue is vignetting, but again that disappears along with the distortion in Lightroom, so not an issue for me. Colour, contrast and sharpness are superb, even at f4 - I hardly ever stop mine down.



:lol: you need to read better reviews :thumbs:
Click to expand...


I don't need to, as I'm not looking for one ;) Good that you're happy with it, but it wouldn't be for me.

Photozone don't like it much, they're usually spot on:

http://www.photozone.de/nikon_ff/574-nikkorafs24120f4vrff?start=2
 
Cagey75 said:
Photozone don't like it much, they're usually spot on:
Click to expand...

As are the Mansourovs:

I am very impressed by how well the Nikon 24-120mm f/4G VR performs. It is a sharp lens that is very comparable to professional lenses such as Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8G and Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8G VR II, yielding great results throughout its focal range.
Click to expand...

During my lab and field tests, my goal was to see how well it performs against the Nikon 24-70mm lens, since many readers have been asking about it (I also wanted to find out for myself, whether I should be looking at potentially replacing my 24-70mm or adding it to my bag for travel and everyday use). After shooting with this lens for about 3 weeks and capturing over 1,800 images, I can say that the lens exceeds my expectations and I found it to be more useful than my favorite Nikon 24-70mm lens not only due to longer focal range, but also due to Vibration Reduction that is extremely useful for low-light situations. I managed to get sharp images hand-held while shooting at extremely slow shutter speeds of 1/2 seconds at 24mm – try that with the Nikon 24-70mm!
Click to expand...


Review
 
Someone is lying then :D

That sounds good. And for the price, you couldn't go wrong I guess.
 
Cagey75 said:
Someone is lying then :D

That sounds good. And for the price, you couldn't go wrong I guess.
Click to expand...
Why do people continually diss a certain lens when theyve never owned or used one is totally beyond me, some folk just seem to jump on the interweb bandwagon thing just for the sake of it, where are all these bad reviews you speak of, in your head, or actually on the internet, more likely a case or the odd bad copy as happens with every lens produced.
 
Why do people jump on other people just pointing out the reviews they have actually read? Seriously, your post is a bit pointless and completely irrelevant. I was giving the OP a heads up that there are bad reviews out there. They are free to go read dozens if they wish. You only borrowed one, you didn't use it for long ... stick to your own advice please. You're just another one of those imposing your view types.
 
Last edited:
Martyn... said:
I would not take too much notice of Photozone, they can be a bit hit and miss, their reviews of some of the Zeiss lenses is laughable.
Click to expand...
They dont like the Nikon 16-35mm f/4 VR slating it for poor corner sharpness wide open yet mine is superb across the whole frame.
 
You know best Gary, I'll come to you next time I'm buying a lens. Maybe you can borrow one and let me know how it is? .... You expected the OP to go by your minimal use of the lens, and you're attacking me for pointing out a bad review? It's not the only bad one I've read btw, I just used that as example. Should we never go by reviews? For most of us it's the only way to judge lenses before we buy. I'm an hour drive from the nearest camera store, I have to rely on reviews. I doubt they're all makey-uppy internet muck like you make out.
 
Last edited:
Cagey75 said:
I was giving the OP a heads up that there are bad reviews out there.
Click to expand...

Not really, you trashed it ...

Cagey75 said:
I wouldn't touch it tbh. Any review I've read said it had horrific distortion at the wide end, and optically, it's no better than a kit lens.
Click to expand...

and even the review you quoted did not support your extreme opinion.
 
That review pretty much says it's not great. I thrashed it as I personally wouldn't have it. I still wouldn't, even after the review you posted. I gave the OP 2, yes 2 alternatives. So "extreme" opinion or not, it was still helpful. Showing selective positive reviews and simply disregarding negative ones, is not. One or two bad reviews is enough for me to steer clear. I wouldn't like to BS someone and say it's amazing and have them waste their money.

But, it's the usual problem on here, anyone that has an opinion outside of yours, jump on it, make sure it's not heard ... so typical of this place. Carry on ... defending a piece of glass :D
 
Last edited:
Cagey75 said:
But, it's the usual problem on here, anyone that has an opinion outside of yours, jump on it, make sure it's not hear ... so typical of this place. Carry on ... defending a piece of glass :D
Click to expand...

That's just not so ... simple question, have you ever used one ... answer No!
Have I used one, has Gary used one ... answer Yes!
Who's best placed to give a considered opinion? :shrug:
 
And the reviewers? OP should take your word over theirs? Gary borrowed one. That could mean he had it on his camera for 5 minutes for all we know. As soon as I saw the name of the lens, that review, and others I've read in the past sprang to mind. Why do you think I read those reviews in the past? Because I was asking the same question ;) I don't slate a lens for the craic ... as I said, I have to go by reviews. The people who review them test them extensively, not just fire off a few shots and look at the LCD and go "that's grand, give it 5 stars"

Many people have used the Sigma 70-200 and will have you believe it's amazing. But I had one and hated it. I went by forum recommendations [not on here] with that one. I wish someone had told me it was horrible and soft wide open, though it was fine stopped down beyond f/4, I bought it as a 2.8 lens [100 sigma owners will now attack me perhaps] but I have no reason to lie! It's not my money OP will be spending.
 
Last edited:
Cagey75 said:
You know best Gary, I'll come to you next time I'm buying a lens. Maybe you can borrow one and let me know how it is? .... You expected the OP to go by your minimal use of the lens, and you're attacking me for pointing out a bad review? It's not the only bad one I've read btw, I just used that as example. Should we never go by reviews? For most of us it's the only way to judge lenses before we buy. I'm an hour drive from the nearest camera store, I have to rely on reviews. I doubt they're all makey-uppy internet muck like you make out.
Click to expand...
You could of course rely on first hand user reviews from guys on here or use Fred Miranda user reviews, be careful as you will need to dismiss some folk though who like to lambast equipment even though they have no experience of it, theyre easy to spot though, just look for locked topics. :thumbs:
 
You're very defensive of this lens Gary. Is it your favourite? Oh wait, you don't own it either :p

I wouldn't mind lads, but after a positive review was shown to me here, I did say "someone is lying" - I'm willing to believe it's fine, for some. I don't go read one review and decide. I read tonnes of reviews if I'm after a lens. So i am already well aware of FM forums. They're not always to be believed either.
 
If you're not actually going to get involved in the discussion, then why bother posting? That is spam. My posts were helpful to the OP, not my fault the usuals have to force their opinions.
 
merv said:
Have been reading reports of this lens and not convinced it is one of Nikon's better achievements! It's a lot of dough. Any comments or experiences would be appreciated. I like the versatility of this focal length. Don't know if good buy or not. merv:bang:
Click to expand...

I hope your keeping well Merv.

I don't own one of these but a mate does and I have used it on many occasions. I could be wrong but I thought you had a 24-70? So this would duplicate a lot of the range you already have covered. It's a very handy focal length for days out etc. were you don't want to be carrying a lot of gear around. It's super sharp, the VR is superb, and while it does suffer from a little bit of distortion as someone else said it's an easy fix in lightroom.

Not sure if it would be a wise investment or not though if you already have the 24-70.
 
Last edited:
Cagey75 said:
If you're not actually going to get involved in the discussion, then why bother posting? That is spam. My posts were helpful to the OP, not my fault the usuals have to force their opinions.
Click to expand...

:lol:
 
Suggesting 2 primes instead, or the 24-70, not helpful? hmmm ...

Cagey75 said:
On a D3s, I would prefer to buy a 24-70 used for the money if you can get one. You don't get that extra bit of reach, but you'd probably still get better quality even cropping down a bit.

Or, another alternative, a pair of primes. Like the 28mm 1.8 & an 85mm 1.8
Click to expand...

Anyone would think I just came in and said the lens was muck :D if you're going to be selective with the quoting, at least quote the positives ;)
 
Last edited:
Soda Farl said:
Not sure if it would be a wise investment or not though if you already have the 24-70.
Click to expand...

This was my concern but for me the addition of VR was a strong attraction and as a result of changing I get more keepers than I did with the non-VR 24-70.
Also the additional range from 70-120 gives me much more flexibility on 'walkabout' where I just want camera and a single lens.
 
gramps said:
This was my concern but for me the addition of VR was a strong attraction and as a result of changing I get more keepers than I did with the non-VR 24-70.
Also the additional range from 70-120 gives me much more flexibility on 'walkabout' where I just want camera and a single lens.
Click to expand...

Did you get rid of the 24-70 Gramps after getting the 24-120VR?
 
VR isn't always a saver. I had the 55-200vr, albeit just a kit lens, and found it not-very-good at all. I would hope that this lens is far superior to that, for the money.
 
The VR is tremendously useful, coupled with the range it makes for a superb all-rounder if you don't want to be luggng a bagful of primes and zooms around. All but one shot in this gallery was with the 24-120, without VR the shots inside Notre Dame and several inside the Louvre wouldn't be possible.

http://www.jpwilliamsphoto.com/galleries/travel/paris-2012/
 
To my knowledge; the varied aperture version is one of their worse lenses but the f4 is very good. Having said that, for £800 isn't there a very good f2.8 "walkabout lens"??

Cagey75: just a suggestion - there is no need to defend yourself so profusely. If you happen to say something that isn't quite correct people will value your input more if you just ash "maybe it is a better lens than the review gives credit for" or something to that nature...its really annoying to keep seeing threads going the same way, underneath all of this petty bickering and defending, there is a good conversation to be had with lots of good advice.
 
jpw said:
The VR is tremendously useful, coupled with the range it makes for a superb all-rounder if you don't want to be luggng a bagful of primes and zooms around. All but one shot in this gallery was with the 24-120, without VR the shots inside Notre Dame and several inside the Louvre wouldn't be possible.

http://www.jpwilliamsphoto.com/galleries/travel/paris-2012/
Click to expand...

Some nice shots there John. Do you feel there is any you would of missed if you had not had the VR?
 
Phil Young said:
To my knowledge; the varied aperture version is one of their worse lenses but the f4 is very good. Having said that, for £800 isn't there a very good f2.8 "walkabout lens"??

Cagey75: just a suggestion - there is no need to defend yourself so profusely. If you happen to say something that isn't quite correct people will value your input more if you just ash "maybe it is a better lens than the review gives credit for" or something to that nature...its really annoying to keep seeing threads going the same way, underneath all of this petty bickering and defending, there is a good conversation to be had with lots of good advice.
:thumbs:

Phil Young said:
Whereas I've found this to be exceptionally good - matching the sharpness of my old tamron 90mm...
Click to expand...

Me too, the 55-200vr for the money is an excellent wee lens.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
gramps said:
I did, Steve (Bristolian) had it from me and it's his favourite walkabout now :lol:
Horses for courses!
Click to expand...

Still my fav lens 24-70mm,i did buy the 24-120 from jessops online very good price,but when it arrived it was the older model in the F4 box :(

In the end stuck with my 28-300mm VR,which is a great lens as well :)
 
Soda Farl said:
Some nice shots there John. Do you feel there is any you would of missed if you had not had the VR?
Click to expand...

Cheers Tommy, most of the interior shots in the cathedral (candles, windows, statues etc.) were well past hand-holdable shutter speeds (1/2 second in some cases at fairly long focal lengths). Same with the evening/night shots, it certainly has its uses. If you look at the one in the Louvre of the people going up the stairs towards the Winged Victory, you can see motion blur in the people but the sculpture is pin-sharp - good demonstration of the kind of shots you couldn't get without VR.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top