DSLRUsers.com

Hi all,

I'm in the market for a walk around lens. Having a hard time deciding between the nikon or tamron. Any comments welcome.

On the list in current order of preference:
Tamron 28-85 f/2.8
Nikon 24-85 AF-S f/3.5-4.5
Nikon 24-85 f/2.8-4
Nikon 24-120 AF-S VR f/3.5-6.3

Cheers,

Pete

I'd auggest the 24-120VR if only because a lot of people seem to replace the kit lense with that one.

Nikon 18-200 vrII.

I have the tamron and find it to be a great lens. but I don't actualy have anything to compare it with as my D200 didn't come with a kit lens
and the Tamron is only 28-75mm lens so you may miss the last 10mm depending on your other lens

have you considered the sigma 24-70 f2.8 EX ? This is my most used lens for PJ stuff and it's tack sharp, has great saturation, and the contrast is ideal.

cheers

Another vote for the 24-120VR, it's beens my walkabout lens since I bought it.
Nice compact size for its zoom range plus VR benefits.
I would love something in the constant F2.8 range but I've no pesatas in the money bag.

I never had the kit lens with my D70 so I can't compare it.

Wide angle is not an issue as I have the tokina 12-24, but a very good point for those that don't have a WA lens.

Terminator, have you had some time & positive results behind the 18-200 vr ? I didn't have this shortlisted as it seems to have more negative comments than positive.

Researched a number reviews and comments on the lenses, but hoping for some comments from hands on experience.

Cheers

24-120 VR vote here

It's lived on my camera since I got it. Has a nice heavy solid feel to it, plus the VR feature. Good alround lens.

xerubus wrote:have you considered the sigma 24-70 f2.8 EX ? This is my most used lens for PJ stuff and it's tack sharp, has great saturation, and the contrast is ideal.

cheers

Honestly I havent heard much about it. The only item I picked up on when i saw it was the odd 82mm filter size.

poiter86 wrote:Honestly I havent heard much about it. The only item I picked up on when i saw it was the odd 82mm filter size.

yes... that is the only down side. i believe the 28-70 f2.8 has a 72mm or 77mm thread and performs well also.

cheers

Have you also considered the 18-200? Seems to be popular. I prefer something nice and wide most of the time, and 24xcrop is not wide enough.

My vote is for the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8

My walkaround is the Nikon 28-105 @ 1:3.5-4.5D. Lightweight, relatively decent focal range, and the added bonus of macro capability.

Yes, the 28-75 is on top of my list at the moment and as for the filter size of 67mm, I already have a 67-77 step up ring, so i was not concerned with that one.

I've used the old nikon 24-85 2.8-4 as well and was happy with the results, but I found the macro focus rang lock too much of an inconvenience. As for the extra wide tele 18-200, I'm tending to steer away from this as I am planning on one of the many lenses available in the 80-200 range.

I'm another 24-120 VR convert. I replaced my kit lens with it over a year ago. This is the lens that spends the most time on my camera and I find it sharp, flexible and a great zoom range and VR is a nice bonus. Only time it comes off is to use my 12-24, 10.5 fisheye or 70-200 VR. I'd say a good 65% of my pics are taken with the 24-120.

Raskill wrote:24-120 VR vote here

It's lived on my camera since I got it. Has a nice heavy solid feel to it, plus the VR feature. Good alround lens.

Raskil, can you let me know a little more about your experience with the 24-120? I've not had any experience with the VR, so I am keen to hear about what you've used it for and comments

Cheers.

xerubus wrote:

poiter86 wrote:Honestly I havent heard much about it. The only item I picked up on when i saw it was the odd 82mm filter size.

yes... that is the only down side. i believe the 28-70 f2.8 has a 72mm or 77mm thread and performs well also.

No, that's not the only downsiode.

24-120 VR is very difficult to go past. Great value and features.

poiter86 wrote:
Raskil, can you let me know a little more about your experience with the 24-120? I've not had any experience with the VR, so I am keen to hear about what you've used it for and comments

Cheers.

The 24-120 is just all round a great lens. Sharp through-out the focal range, with the usual nikkor quality. I haven't tried it in low light, but I cant see any reason why it wont perform.

VR is a good feature that reduces the small amounts of 'lens wobble' that happen when you hand hold. It is more noticeable in longer focal lengths, say 200mm, (on the 70 - 200mm VR) but still noticeable on the 24-120 VR also. It also continues to work if you attach a TC to your lens (but image quality suffers from this anyway).

I have used both a 70-200mm and 70-200VR for sports photos and the difference is substantial. Is it worth $1500 difference? Depends on what you do with your images I suppose.

Thanks for the speedy input everyone ... doesn't anyone do any work around here?

I can hardly talk ... i put it down to research & multi tasking !

I think I can refine my list to the 28-75 or the 24-120. The extra reach, af-s & VR is a good draw card. When it comes down to it, the aperture range is not as big a concern for this type of lens i suppose.

It is intended for all round use and that's what i need. I'm sold on the 24-120 ! Now I just need to figure out where I can get the best deal.

Cheers,

Peter

Raskill wrote:
I have used both a 70-200mm and 70-200VR for sports photos and the difference is substantial. Is it worth $1500 difference? Depends on what you do with your images I suppose.

Raskill, I would have thought that VR is not really a factor for sports photography. After all, all the VR technology in the world won't help blur caused by cars, balls or players moving quickly!

Would definitely help for blur caused by handholding though, at long focal lengths.

I too have used an 80-200 and a 70-200VR, and agree that the VR IS better.. but not "twice the price" better, if that makes sense

Look around on Ebay or, with a few more posts Birdy might be able to help you.....

Raskill, I would have thought that VR is not really a factor for sports photography. After all, all the VR technology in the world won't help blur caused by cars, balls or players moving quickly!

I find it does help when you're panning, by helping to remove the tiny vertical movements that happen. Your always aiming to get motion blur in motor sports photos, but you want the actual subject to be a sharp as possible. Using a shutter speed of 1/160 - 1/320 you need all the help you can get in removing unwanted movement.

VR obviously won't remove movement in your subject, just in the actions of yourself.

Raskill wrote:
The 24-120 is just all round a great lens. Sharp through-out the focal range, with the usual nikkor quality.

Umm, this lens is definitely not sharp through-out the focal range. I would stay clear of this lens. It promises the world, but delivers an atlas.

Theres been a couple of people post that they weren't happy with theirs, but I can't fault mine (and it's been to africa I think). Maybe Nikon has taken a leaf out of Sigmas QC book?

It is interesting that there have been some significantly differing reports of the 24-120 VR, and the 18-200 VR. Both lenses have had their supported and their detractors. Makes the selection process difficult.

Quality control has been raised, and it may be that early adopters of these lenses when newly released face a riskier proposition than those who wait until the lenses have been in the marketplace for a while.

Would it be a given that this 24-120 all round zoom lens with afs & vr for around $750 has some compromises, in particular sharpness at the ends?

poiter86 wrote:Would it be a given that this 24-120 all round zoom lens with afs & vr for around $750 has some compromises, in particular sharpness at the ends?

Yes.

There is only one other lens that I've used that was as soft or softer then the 24-120mm VR lens; 70-300mm G lens.

The 24-120 VR (certainly my copy) is sharp throughout the range, but you have to stop down a fair bit (f/8-16) to get it so. Some distortion at the wide end, but fine at the long end. I think the choice between the Tamron and the Nikkor basically comes down to whether you do much lower-light stuff or not. If you do, definitely go the Tamron, as it's sharper wider open (and obviously faster). If you're mostly shooting in good light, I'd go with the 24-120 VR for the extra range.

If you're after a 24-120 VR, send me a PM.

The 35 f2 is a nice walk around lens - light, sharp, fast and well priced. I might be the only one who thinks that way

Glen wrote:The 35 f2 is a nice walk around lens - light, sharp, fast and well priced. I might be the only one who thinks that way

I do not disagree with your thinking Glen. Although I have not used the 35 f2, I treat the 50 f/1.8 similarly. For the price & performance it is hard to beat. I especially enjoy it for portraits in low light.

Peter, I agree, the 50 1.8 rates as buy of the century

padey wrote:

poiter86 wrote:Would it be a given that this 24-120 all round zoom lens with afs & vr for around $750 has some compromises, in particular sharpness at the ends?

Yes.

There is only one other lens that I've used that was as soft or softer then the 24-120mm VR lens; 70-300mm G lens.

My experience is considerably different to yours. I have had both lenses and consider the 24-120 VR streets ahead in both build and optical quality when compared to the 70-300 G. That said there wer BIG quality control problems with early versions of the 24-120VR, but these have well and trully gone.

Good to hear the QC issue are resolved in the 24-120 vr. This was one of reasons why it was not higher up on my short list.

I'm getting one. "I'm excited"

Pete

50 posts now, maybe talk to birdy...

No comment LOZ

LOZ wrote:No comment LOZ

Is that a new Sig Loz ?

yep it is for now or untill I get a sharp pix from my 24-120VR bugger you made me comment LOZ

Been waiting for LOZ's input...

MATT


I've taken mine off and gone back to the kit, jsut seems a little sharper.. But I like the 120mm end of the 24-120

Matt do you want to be member #2

No not yet... Cause it still makes me a member of the VR club

So cant give it up just yet.. Maybe when I get the 70-200VR


MATT

Hey Loz, is your antagonism aimed at the 24-120VR only or does it include the non VR variety?

just the fuzzy one

... guess I can't join you then.

phillipb wrote:... guess I can't join you then.

phillipb do you mean their is more than one fuzzy VR out their if so I will extend the society to non voting members .

Loz

I, too was wondering when you'd comment

FWIW, here are some samples taken with mine. I feel these are plenty sharp enough (click a pic to see a much larger version):

24mm f/13


35mm f/4.2
[url=http://stubbsy.smugmug.com/photos/54281480-O.jpg]
[/url]

55 mm f/8


120mm f/5.6

Peter,
You got this lens from Birdy weren't you?

Birddog114 wrote:Peter,
You got this lens from Birdy weren't you?

Of course I got it from you - maybe that's why it's sharp (and I think Loz bought his in Japan - maybe they sell the old soft one's there )

Andrew,

padey wrote:

Raskill wrote:
The 24-120 is just all round a great lens. Sharp through-out the focal range, with the usual nikkor quality.

Umm, this lens is definitely not sharp through-out the focal range. I would stay clear of this lens. It promises the world, but delivers an atlas.

I've had mine for well over a year, and have yet to find fault with it. It rarely leaves my camera, and for the lack of $$$ that this lens costs, it's bloody hard to go past it.

Handheld, 1/2 sec ... (be sure to try this with a 50mm f/1.



And who says it's not sharp?

padey wrote:

poiter86 wrote:Would it be a given that this 24-120 all round zoom lens with afs & vr for around $750 has some compromises, in particular sharpness at the ends?

Yes.

There is only one other lens that I've used that was as soft or softer then the 24-120mm VR lens; 70-300mm G lens.

Wash your mouth out with soap.

The only thing these lenses share is the Nikon name.

The 70-300G is a geniune POS. Maybe worth the $150 you'll pay for one.

The 24-120 is an exceptionally good value walkaround lens.

Yes, it has some compromises. Yes, it's not as sharp as a 70-200 VR. And it doesn't cost $3K either.