Nikon 24-120/f4 - good buy?

Gary Coyle said:
Wow, how on earth did they manage that
Click to expand...

I know,it was a good price as well £611.42,took it back to my local shop,got a full refund,but they couldnt explain how the wrong lens got into the box,maybe someone got a nice surprise when they brought the cheaper lens :)
 
Phil Young said:
Whereas I've found this to be exceptionally good - matching the sharpness of my old tamron 90mm...
Click to expand...

I didn't get on with it, found it terrible for CA at 200mm and soft wide open. I also prefer a heavier zoom.

And Phil, thanks for the advice, I'll use it if you promise to also, how's that ;) You're as guilty as anyone at rabbiting on a bit. :lol:
 
Cagey75 said:
I didn't get on with it, found it terrible for CA at 200mm and soft wide open. I also prefer a heavier zoom.

And Phil, thanks for the advice, I'll use it if you promise to also, how's that ;) You're as guilty as anyone at rabbiting on a bit. :lol:
Click to expand...

I didn't expect you not to turn on me.

Sigh...
 
simonblue said:
I know,it was a good price as well £611.42,took it back to my local shop,got a full refund,but they couldnt explain how the wrong lens got into the box,maybe someone got a nice surprise when they brought the cheaper lens :)
Click to expand...

Thats a stonking price not often Jessops have any bargains. Did they not offer to replace it for you?
 
Phil Young said:
I didn't expect you not to turn on me.

Sigh...
Click to expand...


That wasn't turning on you Phil, just being honest. You can continue to drag it on if you like. I only have to look at any thread you create or post in for long winded discussion. People in glass houses and all that ;) Just don't go thinking you're any better when dishing out your advice.
 
Phil Young said:
I didn't expect you not to turn on me.

Sigh...
Click to expand...

Don't let him rile you up Phil. I for one have noticed a change in your posting style in recent times and it's only to be comended. :thumbs:

It's a much nicer place whenever everyone can get along.
 
Cagey75 said:
Someone is lying then :D

That sounds good. And for the price, you couldn't go wrong I guess.
Click to expand...

Nah. Reviews are utterly pointless unless they test several copies otherwise it's just a review of one example.
 
Ill agree with Dean on this, some reviewers do get bad copies just like the rest of us. Generally though if most of the reviewers slate a lens and come to the same conclusion its not good news.
 
twist said:
Ill agree with Dean on this, some reviewers do get bad copies just like the rest of us. Generally though if most of the reviewers slate a lens and come to the same conclusion its not good news.
Click to expand...

That's also true.
 
I wonder how many review copies of each lens are available to the press? If it's only one, then if it's a bad copy (or a reviewer breaks it and doesn't fess up!), all others after will find the same fault(s) If there are 2 review copies and one suffers, 1/2 the reviewers will get the bad copy.
 
I wouldve thought each reviewer get sent their own copy, perhaps if its pre release there will be limited numbers available.
 
twist said:
I wouldve thought each reviewer get sent their own copy, perhaps if its pre release there will be limited numbers available.
Click to expand...

I know a guy that rights a well known photography blog.

When he gets glass to test he gets to keep them normally for 8 weeks before returning them. They are all usually sent out at around the same time so most reviewers would get get there own copy I would have thought.
 
The 24-120 is 708g the 24-70 is 902g, not a huge difference in weight. The 24-120 looks overpriced and the reviews not stellar. I'd stick with the 24-70 and get something else.
 
The common denominator here on this forum is the people that give off the most stink and agro on threads tend to say they know everything about gear but have absolutely **** poor images.. The offenders know who they are as they realise they're not that good at taking pictures so they dribble over the technical mumbo jumbo on review sites.. Also the crap talkers that say they've used every lens under the sun when the closest they've got to them is a review site.......
 
TonyNI said:
The common denominator here on this forum is the people that give off the most stink and agro on threads tend to say they know everything about gear but have absolutely **** poor images.. The offenders know who they are as they realise they're not that good at taking pictures so they dribble over the technical mumbo jumbo on review sites.. Also the crap talkers that say they've used every lens under the sun when the closest they've got to them is a review site.......
Click to expand...

How could you ever prove they didn't use the lens though?
 
Phil Young said:
I might be way off the mark...but the older 28-105 is a great lens, pick up for £150 leaving a lot of money for more lenses... would it be too much of a compromise??
Click to expand...

Yes the 28-105 f3.5 / f4.5 D, available used for around £100 - £150, absolute bargain if you ask me.
 
Gary Coyle said:
Youve only to look at my itrader feedback to see ive owned every lens under the sun and most of them 3 times :lol:
Click to expand...

You'll never have people owning or using as many of the lenses, particularly the more obscure exotic and expensive lenses, as a reviewer gets though. A good reviewer puts them through tests most owners either don't have time for or an interest in.
 
What I want to know is did Merv ever buy the D4 he was after? :bang:
 
Phil Young said:
I might be way off the mark...but the older 28-105 is a great lens, pick up for £150 leaving a lot of money for more lenses... would it be too much of a compromise??
Click to expand...

Not familiar with that lens Phil any linkage?
 
gramps said:
It's what the O/P wants ... the whole reason for his post!
Click to expand...

I once went into a steak house to order a fillet until it was suggested I try a ribeye.

Valued that suggestion.

Point is: often there is a more appropriate solution that opens up better/more options, even if you thought you had it sussed.
 
Last edited:
Soda Farl said:
Not familiar with that lens Phil any linkage?
Click to expand...

You'll have to Google it as at work but it's an older afd lens. Very very good for the money as a walls out its perfect - covers the most used ranges I guess but also close focuses to magnify up to 1:2.

Not much slower than the 24-120 @ 4.5 and for the £700 saved, that could buy a really nice something...
 
Phil Young said:
I once went into a steal house to order a fillet until it was suggested I try a ribeye.

Valued that suggestion.

Point is: often there is a more appropriate solution that opens up better/more options, even if you thought you had it sussed.
Click to expand...

You stole a ribeye.

Nice one......:thumbs:
 
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...

Well, it all depends what you are comparing it with.

The 24-70 is a bit sharper, but has far less range and at least as much CA and of course, no VR. Plus its heavier and quite a bit more expensive.

I did also try the 24-85D F2.8-4 and it was nowhere near as good and if you want to buy primes to cover the same range it would cost a fortune.

Similarly the 28-300 is not as sharp, though you would not expect it to be.

I have also had much more success with it than I ever did with a 16-85 DX lens on my D90 which ironically got great reviews. It was even worse on my D7000.

Of course, all reviews compare lenses against an absolute benchmark. Like all wide range zoom lenses the 24-120 is a bit of a compromise, so you should take that on board. It's not equally sharp at all focal lengths, but a lot better than no lens at all and manages to achieve decent contrast with good flare resistance at all focal lengths. I read all the reviews, but in real life usage a lot of the objections really don't seem to matter.

Between 30 and 60mm where you tend to use it most, its actually a very decent lens even by absolute standards. You can see a bit of sharpness drop off as you go longer but it's still useful. At 24 there is quite a lot of distortion and CA, but its symmetrical and easily corrected (and still better than the 24 F2.8 D).

It's comparable with the Canon 24-105 for IQ, which is to say good enough to be useful, but needs work in PP, but all of the distortion, CA and corner shading can be dealt with in Lightroom with a single click.

In summary I have a lot of shots printed quite large (13X19") which look extremely good from both a D700 and a D600, and when I am travelling it's a useful enough range to cover just about anything I'm likely to do. The only alternative which is likely to achieve visibly better quality at that print size across the same range is a kit consisting of primes or at least two far more expensive zooms.
 
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...

You mean they don't say the sun shines out of their arse lol

Lens reviews don't take into account the camera. A lens ok on a 40d might not be as good on a 50d etc

Personally I don't take lens reviews as gospel but where there is smoke there is fire.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top