DSLRUsers.com

VR lust has me . I'm almost certain I'll buy a 70-200 VR next month (finances permitting), but actually have $$$ to buy a 24-120 VR now.

I'm thinking that this makes the kit lens obsolete since I already have a 12-24 DX for the wide end. Can anyone who has the 24-120 VR shed any light on this ie are there any times when you've needed the kit instead of the VR

Cheers & TIA

I have sold my kit lens for $300 since buying the 24 - 120 VR... Makes the purchase VERY cheap.

My every day lens is now the VR and i wouldn't have it any ohter way

W00DY

The 24 - 120 VR sounds like a fairly superior lense. VR being the most obvious big bonus, but also a greater reproduction ratio. Except the kit lense has a smaller minimum focussing distance.

I might consider doing this (sell kit lense and grab this), especially because I find myself working more at the 70mm end of the Kit lense.

I've yet to sell the kit lens, and I've yet to buy myself the 12-24DX.

It's only a matter of time, and I have yet to miss the kit lens since the 24-120VR became an almost permanent addition to the front of my D70.

gstark wrote:I've yet to sell the kit lens, and I've yet to buy myself the 12-24DX.

It's only a matter of time, and I have yet to miss the kit lens since the 24-120VR became an almost permanent addition to the front of my D70.

Gary hi,
I knew your reserved funds for the 12-24Dx now gone into HNL!!!!
If I was you, I'll do the same thing to off load all the stress

Right now we're trying to decide which end of Waikiki to stay on.

gstark wrote:Right now we're trying to decide which end of Waikiki to stay on.

I would suggest the dry side.

(or is it too soon to make jokes of this nature?)

I've just purchased the 24-120 VR (thanks birddog!) to replace my 18-70 that somehow developed a crack on the outer lens and the VR definitely gives it the edge as an all-rounder. Despite not opening up as much as the 18-70 at the 70mm length (f:1/5.3 compared to the kit lens at 4.5) the sharpness afforded by the VR makes it a no-brainer. It's only marginally bigger than the 18-70, so weight isn't much of an issue either.

I've yet to get the 12-24 as I've just stretched everything to get the 70-200 AF-S VR as well, but think it's only a matter of time... now who wants to buy my only slightly less than perfect kit lens??

Go for it Stubbsy. I'm constantly impressed with the low light shots I get with the 24-120 VR that wouldn't have been any good with the kit lens. If you already have the 12-24 DX the 24-120 VR will be a great partner, then the 70-200VR completes the party.

Since getting the 24-120 VR I have only used the kit lens for comparision purposes. I haven't gotten around to selling it yet, but it should fetch $300 or so, so it's an absolute no-brainer. You lose 18-24 but gain VR, and you have the 12-24 for wide stuff anyway. Go by the Nike mantra: just do it.

Timbo: the 24-120 VR's max aperture is at 120 mm (f/5.6). To compare apples to apples you'd have to compare them at 70 mm, in which case (IIRC) their max apertures are identical (or pretty damn close to it).

If I could afford it that is what I would be doing...

However if I had even more money I think I would be buying the 17-55DX over the 24-120VR

The Kit lens, while a very nice lens, is definately replaceable

Mmmm 17-55 DX nice lens

JordanP wrote:Mmmm 17-55 DX nice lens

the 17-55 is three time cost of the 24-120VR and it's not comparable with!
I'll have the 10.5 Fisheye/ 17-55dx and 28-70 AF-S/2.8 for all of members to try on this picnic day on-site.

Birddog114 wrote:the 17-55 is three time cost of the 24-120VR and it's not comparable with!

I know... But its ok to dream

Thank you all for your comments. I've just taken the plunge and emailed birddog with an order for the lens.

Cheers

MCWB wrote:To compare apples to apples you'd have to compare them at 70 mm, in which case (IIRC) their max apertures are identical (or pretty damn close to it).

I just checked, and you're absolutely right timbo, the max aperture at 70 mm is f/5.3. my Sony!

Yeah you're not wrong guys, the 17-55 DX is a damn impressive piece of kit! I was in a group photo this morning, and checked out the photographer's equipment: D1X + SB800 + 17-55 DX. Impressive to say the least!

You should have mugged him

Onyx wrote:

gstark wrote:Right now we're trying to decide which end of Waikiki to stay on.

I would suggest the dry side.

(or is it too soon to make jokes of this nature?)

Never too soon, but you just want to be careful when tempting a person with my sense of humour with jokes that tend towards the darker side oif good taste. Bottom line is that if you're going to start something, you'll need to be prepared to finish it, and not be surprised at where the ride takes you along the way.

Stubbsy,

I know where you are coming from, I'm suffering from the same ping-pong lens lust....

I also want a 24-120, but I also want an 80-400 (or 70-200 plus TC). However the real world (and she who must be obeyed) dictates that I can only get one at a time

I'm going the opposite way to you, get the big gun first, then the 24-120. My reasoning? The 18-70 is a pretty good lens and VR is more useful for for longer lenses. Also, after paying for the big lens the 24-120 won't feel so painful

Edit: Mini milestone: 100 posts WOO-HOO !!!!