DSLRUsers.com

What is the optical quality of the 24-120 VR like when compared to the kit lens?

Is there any vingetting like the kit? Is it as sharp and quick?

some one is making positive signs about a job and I think the price (in Poon-birddog dollars) might set the price of this job...

The one factor putting me off the 24-120 is the speed - ie. max aperture. It's been mentioned that it's f/5.3 at 70mm, which on the kit lens is half a stop faster at f/4.5. While the VR will stop handshake, it won't stop motion. So the benefit of longer shutter speeds will be lost where it's most beneficial for me, ie. low light indoors. I don't really perceived it to be more useful as the cheaper and faster 50 primes in the case of low light use.

Plus, while 120mm gives a nice portrait reach, the f/5.6 max aperture again will limit the amount of DOF achievable for portrait shoots. f/2.8 is an incredibly sexy number to me... however there's no chance short of winning lotto I can afford the Nikkor 28-70 (as much as I love that lens!), I'm considering/re-considering the much hyped Tamron A09, (ie. 28-75/2.8) at a third the price of the Nikkor.

At the Bobbin Heads meet, I shot Mikhail's bike with the kit lens (before I dropped it) against the 24-120. Both shot approx wide open or within 1 stop of it (where I normally shoot), I can't tell them apart - even at 100% magnification pixel peeping levels and you know how fussy I am with technicalities and optical performance!

The 24-120 is a seven times zoom. For me, that's bordering on "hyperzoom" territory. If I were to go that route, I'd rather the Nikkor 28-200G f/3.5-5.6 instead. That lens is highly acclaimed for its sharpness (search DPR's Nikon Lens forums for instance). You gain extra reach but its MTF at the long end suggests poor bokeh (sagital and meridonial lines are far apart). Although the 24-120's MTF is only marginally "better" on the bokeh front.

Let's pixel peep together:

Corner of frame, 18-70DX


Corner of frame, 24-120VR


Middle of frame, 18-70DX


Middle of frame, 24-120VR



The shooting settings were similar but not exact. The two images were not taken with intention of a direct comparison, I just did so for the sake of this meaningless test.

18-70 lens at f/8, 56mm, 1/400s.
24-120 lens at f/7.1. 62mm, 1/500s.

Images shot NEF, batch processed with identical settings, saved as "good quality" in Capture, crop-imported to PS with no additional sharpning.

which lense depends on what you shoot if you need the 18mm the kit lense will likely serve you best if you are more of a portriat/walkaround photog the 24-120 will suit you better that is considering the lenses on a 1-1 basis. aslo the thing about VR as Onyx mentioned is that it doesn't give you another stop or two as so many people say it just makes you more stable which can be achieved witha a tripod or mono pod (VR makes it alot easier though) the problem with it is a longer shutter speed is rarely(for me at least) a viable option as generally you get faster glass to get higher shutter speeds to freeze action.

the one thing that the 24-120 gives you is a seamless lineup from 12-120 if you go with the 12-24 to compliment it

Onyx, Good comparison and thoughts. I am/was trying to convince myself/wife that I NEED the 24/120 VR.

Now I'm not so sure. I do like the extra reach the of the 120,and I'm a sucker for gadgets got to have VR.....

Me thinks I need to do some more research.

MATT

The 24-120VR and the kit lens are not the same league and the same construction and same as the purposes to build and have it in your bag.

-The 18-70 is your starter lens which Nikon draws you in the game.

- The 24-120VR is another walkaround lens with extra reach, fast focusing and giving you a VR function to stable you shooting in handholding.

- When you need a longer reach at a economy dollar, the 18-70 could not support you but the 24-120Vr does.

- Longer shutter speed indoor at low light is not a trouble with 24-120VR. Please do a test again this Saturday, handholding with lowlight in between those lenses.

- The 24-120 will be a good companion with the 12-24 + 70-200VR at each end.
- The Nikon 28-200G also has mixed report in many forums, and how much for the 28-70 or 17-55Dx

Hmmm.... all interesting.... I waver frequently between saving money to buy a bigger gun or going for the VR which would replace an already nice lens but give me VR..

Birddog, to me they are in the same leauge - both consumer grade variable aperture zooms, both with AF-S, similar plastic build, similar image quality, etc.

I have no doubt long shutters are achievable in low light with the VR. Its two-stop VR advantage brings exposures on par with shooting f/2.8 glass wide open, at a fraction of the cost of these constant aperture fast zooms - and perhaps this is its main attraction. Plus the extra reach over the 70... but that coverage would be overlapped if the 70-200 or other tele zoom is thrown into one's glass lineup.

And if we're talking about mixed reports, the 24-120 is the poster child.

Onyx - I am with you on this. After looking at your side-by-side shots I actually saw a little better resolution in the kit lens.

I believe the catch word here is VR - I have taken photos down to 2 secs hand held that are perfectly sharp. Now panning stabilisation is another matter!!

Chris

Onyx wrote:Birddog, to me they are in the same leauge - both consumer grade variable aperture zooms, both with AF-S, similar plastic build, similar image quality, etc.

My 24-120 provides significantly better image quality than the kit lens does.

The extra reach is nice, and I've not yet missed the extra wide angle functionality that the kit lens provides.

And if we're talking about mixed reports, the 24-120 is the poster child.

Actually, I have yet to see a bad report of the 24-120.

Disclaimer: I have just bought a 24-120 VR to replace my kit lens and will soon be the proud owner of a 70-200 VR

For me it comes down to this:

• I already had 12-24 covered with the Nikkor WA
• I wanted hand held stability
• I had the $$$$

So I got the 24-120 VR. If I didn't have the $$$ I'd have probably made do with the kit lens (despite lack of VR) so I could buy the 70-200 which is (for me) far more useful since it adds range rather than replaces.

gstark wrote:

Onyx wrote:Birddog, to me they are in the same leauge - both consumer grade variable aperture zooms, both with AF-S, similar plastic build, similar image quality, etc.

My 24-120 provides significantly better image quality than the kit lens does.

The extra reach is nice, and I've not yet missed the extra wide angle functionality that the kit lens provides.

And if we're talking about mixed reports, the 24-120 is the poster child.

Actually, I have yet to see a bad report of the 24-120.

I can't confirm, as I have never tested the lens in any depth, but I did recieve some bad reports on the lens when I was first buying my gear.

I'm on the fence in terms of the debate and would like to test the lens a bit more as its focal range is very handy. But I can confirm that when I was buying gear 7-8months ago I got more bad & mediocre reports than good. For all I know Nikon may have also sorted out early issues with the lens.

Cheers,

We have more than 15 members of our forums has the Nikon 24-120VR
How many people find this lens is bad? good? have it on your camera more than the kit lens (18-70Dx).

Your contribution!

Me, It's glued on with the D70

Birddog114 wrote:Me, It's permanently on with the D70

Same here.

Even though I've only used mine a few times indoors - I'd say it's a definite improvement over the kit lens (in similar conditions). Crystal clear and sharp.

I'm having a few PC problems at present but when they're sorted I'll post a pic or two.

I believe Nikon did have problems with the early batches of this lens.

Just my 2 cents to add ...

First of all I agree with Onyx. Second, personally I don't need VR on such length. I'm shooting handheld up to 250mm without any problem. So, I won't pay extra money for something that I don't need. BTW, I didn't notice any vignetting on my kit lens even when apperture is wide open

Hlop wrote:Just my 2 cents to add ...

First of all I agree with Onyx. Second, personally I don't need VR on such length. I'm shooting handheld up to 250mm without any problem. So, I won't pay extra money for something that I don't need. BTW, I didn't notice any vignetting on my kit lens even when apperture is wide open

hilop,
you're lucky that you have a steady hands but others are not.

Birddog114 wrote:
hilop,
you're lucky that you have a steady hands but others are not.

Agree. And that's why I added "personally" to my sentence

Mikhail,

Hlop wrote:Second, personally I don't need VR on such length. I'm shooting handheld up to 250mm without any problem. So, I won't pay extra money for something that I don't need.

Sometimes you need it when you don't exect you will. How well do you think you might go, handheld at a half second?

gstark wrote:Sometimes you need it when you don't exect you will. How well do you think you might go, handheld at a half second?

Hmmmm.... Yes, you're right. But again, personally I won't go handheld at a half second. I'll use tripod or monopod

Hlop wrote:

gstark wrote:Sometimes you need it when you don't exect you will. How well do you think you might go, handheld at a half second?

Hmmmm.... Yes, you're right. But again, personally I won't go handheld at a half second. I'll use tripod or monopod

hilop,
what happen if you don't have the tripod with you but you like to capture the special moments at 1/2 second.

Hlop wrote:Hmmmm.... Yes, you're right. But again, personally I won't go handheld at a half second. I'll use tripod or monopod

The problem being, where is your monopod right now?



Or else it's a grab shot. By the time you even think about setting up the 'pod, the opportunity for the shot is long gone.

........ and there was me thinking i'd convinced myself to NOT buy a 24-120 VR for my NZ trip

I did quite a bit of searching online last week - and it seems there's a very much mixed opinion on the lens. After reading all the reviews, I really think the money could be towards other things if you already have a factory lense, and have some sort of telephoto lens. The only reason I would buy this lense is if the colours / contrast were a lot better than the stock lens, but from reviews, they don't seem to be much better at all, if not the same?

Unless, of course, you need VR, then it's worth it for that alone

Note: I'm basing all this after me researching a lot of different forums / websites, and I haven't personally used the lense.

Tommo wrote:........ and there was me thinking i'd convinced myself to NOT buy a 24-120 VR for my NZ trip

I did quite a bit of searching online last week - and it seems there's a very much mixed opinion on the lens. After reading all the reviews, I really think the money could be towards other things if you already have a factory lense, and have some sort of telephoto lens. The only reason I would buy this lense is if the colours / contrast were a lot better than the stock lens, but from reviews, they don't seem to be much better at all, if not the same?

Unless, of course, you need VR, then it's worth it for that alone

Note: I'm basing all this after me researching a lot of different forums / websites, and I haven't personally used the lense.

Once you have or use the lens your mind may changed!

Thats very true - but remember, the criteria for this thread was to ignore the VR... which is what I think the main attraction to this lens is :):) The image comparison from Onyx was very interesting too. Anyway, until I use the lense, i'm back to my hole...

Tommo wrote:Thats very true - but remember, the criteria for this thread was to ignore the VR... which is what I think the main attraction to this lens is :):) The image comparison from Onyx was very interesting too. Anyway, until I use the lense, i'm back to my hole...

The testing from Onyx aren't cover all, if you want to do the real tset then you have to do it with difference setup as lighting, long shutter speed, distance etc....

and back to my earlier question from 15 of 24-120VR owners:

Your contribution!

You have to own it, play with it long or do the real test, than you can judging it or comparison with the kit lens correctly, to hear, look, listen to other says won't give you the right answer.

True, I did preface my comparison as "meaningless", because largely it is.

Gary's comment on the 24-120 providing "significantly better image quality than the kit lens" is a bold statement I'd like to see backed up in a comparison. From my comparo (NB: still meaningless), there isn't all that much difference, even at the measurabating level. IMO neither of them are "bad", it comes down to useability: the extra reach and the VR on the 24-120.

Gary also mentioned he's yet to see a bad report of the 24-120VR, I've read of enough of them to make me a fence sitter... as Craig mentioned, it could be due to earlier samples - but Nikon has neither confirmed nor denied there were any design changes or improvements to this lens in its lifetime.

If you're wanting to handhold down to 1/2 of a sec or whatever - there are better tools for the job (eg. 50/1.4). A f/5.6 lens is not the best tool for this purpose.

Personally I think that this question comes down to what people want from their photography. I did consider the 24-120VR but instead chose to get a 12-24mm. I did this because I wanted the extra perspective that this lens gave.

On the other hand when I shot a pic of Glen with Birdies 200-400VR it was eseential for me to have the VR to get the shot - my creaky hands plus the weight of the lens made the VR a nice feature.

There are always compromises and in that it makes the decision on the 70-200 VR and the 80-400VR a difficult choice. The fixed aperture of the 70-200 is an advantage over the 80-400 but the 400 has greater reach. There is also the price consideration.

In the end it comes down to what the individual wants and that is what makes photography so interesting.

Chris

sirhc55 wrote:
In the end it comes down to what the individual wants and that is what makes photography so interesting.

Chris

TRUE!

Tommo

Not withstanding the evangelising on the virtues of the 24-120 (with which I agree) I'd like to repeat what I said before but be more succinct.

If you don't want the VR stick with the kit lens and spend the $$$ on something you don't have.

I considered the 24-120VR as a walk around lens, just for the extra reach. The range of focal lengths for this lens and the 28-200 would make them serious contenders for a kit where there is no room for other lenses. Hiking or just wanting to travel really light? Take the 24-120 or 28-200, speedlight, a spare battery and CF card, maybe some filters and little else. Seriously though, I simply do not need it. Most of my shooting is done in the 24-50 range and at a pinch I can use one of a couple of other lenses in my bag when something longer is required.
I have the sneaking suspicion that the reason that the kit lens is such good value is by virtue of mass production. Nikon must sell more of these than just about anything else.
I have been convinced that the best VR that my money can buy is a decent tripod. This is something I am holding of on until I really need it - funds are available for the 055 discussed in another thread but I would really prefer a Gitzo 1325 or 1548 with 1321 levelling base. So I have to wait a little longer. Then I can have VR on all of my lenses.

Having said all of that, it would be very hard to go past Birddog's d70/24-120VR package. I have been considering getting a backup body.
Must resist, must resist......

Gotta go. There is a Markins M20 waiting for me at the PO.

Cheers

Matt

Given the merits of both lenses though, would one get the 24-120 instead of the kit lens (if you didn't already have the kit lens)?

From what I've read on this forum, the answer seemed to be 'yes' on most cases... Is this correct?

I'm going to be getting the D70 in the next few weeks, however I am undecided between the kit and paying a bit more for the 24-120 (which I don't mind paying for, IF its worth while...).

Thanks in advance for any other thoughts you may have!

wile_E wrote:Given the merits of both lenses though, would one get the 24-120 instead of the kit lens (if you didn't already have the kit lens)?

From what I've read on this forum, the answer seemed to be 'yes' on most cases... Is this correct?

I'm going to be getting the D70 in the next few weeks, however I am undecided between the kit and paying a bit more for the 24-120 (which I don't mind paying for, IF its worth while...).

Thanks in advance for any other thoughts you may have!

Yes, as said I go for the 24-120VR instead of the kit lens

As would I... especially at the prices being offered...
However that is not my quandry... It is weather to replace the kit with the VR...

I have the choice...

The devil says "Go on... The 24-120 is at a price where it will not take much saving to afford"

While the angel says "no no no... You have a lens of good optical quality at those FL's, save my son, be strong and save for a longer lens to replace your G-type"

Wile_e,

Get thyself down to Briddog's for one of the Saturday meets.

Grab someone's D70 (ask nicely first, of course) and have a good and serious play with both.

Then see what you think.

Onyx, I probably won't have a chance to do a side by side comparison between the kit lens and the 24-120 until I get back from HNL, but if you have a look at some of my musician images, compare those that are pre-August with later shots. That's about the timeframe that I bought the VR, and if you come in close on the faces of some of the musos, the difference in acuity is quite noticeable.

Of course, what you'll find posted are just rough JPGs, but the differences are significant and very noticeable on the full frame crops of these images.

MHD wrote:As would I... especially at the prices being offered...
However that is not my quandry... It is weather to replace the kit with the VR...

I have the choice...

The devil says "Go on... The 24-120 is at a price where it will not take much saving to afford"

While the angel says "no no no... You have a lens of good optical quality at those FL's, save my son, be strong and save for a longer lens to replace your G-type"

MHD,
I'll get them to marry each other and they're perfect couple.

Thats an excellent idea Gary.

Birddog, is it okay for x1 extra tomorrow (or the meet after on the 5th of Feb)? I seem to remember penciling myself down for an upcoming meet...

wile_E wrote:Thats an excellent idea Gary.

Birddog, is it okay for x1 extra tomorrow (or the meet after on the 5th of Feb)? I seem to remember penciling myself down for an upcoming meet...

Yeah! welcome!

Birddog114 wrote:Yes, as said I go for the 24-120VR instead of the kit lens

Then buy a 12-24 to cover the wide end, a 70-200VR for tele, maybe a 105 macro and the kit is complete except for the mandatory 50/1.8 (or 50/1.4).

Cheers

Matt

matt, you know that is EXACTLY my thoughts on the whole lens lust bug...!!

oh yeah, i'd prob add an 85mm as well (have heard good things about that lens).

Now, to find a bank with VERY laxed security guards and a balaclava... Expensive business this, the whole camera/lens/accessories thing. I can only imagine the extra costs associated with film as well (the film, developing etc etc). Wow. How do you guys do it?

Interesting discussion guys! I shot a whole heap of comparison pics between the 18-70 DX and 24-120 VR a while a go, I'll see if I can dig them out tonight. My basic conclusion was that there wasn't a helluva lot of difference between the two in terms of image quality at the same focal length. This could be due to the subjects though, not sure (brick walls ).

I know this is all 'neglecting VR', but IMHO it's one of the best things about the lens. In terms of VR vs *pod, I'm the sort of bloke that simply can't be arsed carrying a *pod around, I'd much rather the VR to help me out. I use the VR function a lot, and take many pics that simply wouldn't be possible with the kit lens, and that I would have missed if I had to set up a *pod to do so. Onyx has a very valid point that in low light fast lenses are great, but one of the 24-120 VR's strengths is that it's an all-rounder. You can't have a 50 /1.8 or 1.4 attached as a walkaround lens (well you can, but this brings its own restrictions). I think versatility is the word, and the reason the 24-120 VR is so useful for my photography, but if you already have fast primes and/or good flashes then the situation does change somewhat.

wile_E

So far I have managed to stay well away from the lens lust bug. It really seems to affect Sydney siders the worst that have come into contact with Birddog. Fortunately I am geographically isolated from this disease.

Honestly, I have very little interest in zooms. The only one that I want to add to my kit is the 70-200. The rest are primes and I am quite happy to use the kit lens for those occasions where I am feeling to lazy to change lenses, let my feet do the zooming, or I do not have the room to zoom with my feet.

There is only one more prime to add to my collection. You guessed it.. 85/1.4. Maybe I will get a 14 or 16 mm prime somewhere down the track, but that is not exactly high priority.

In the meantime, I am more concerned about a set of legs. I just shot down to the PO and picked up my M20 - the first part of my VR system. AUD660 later incl GST. Do I feel that I got my monies worth. Hell Yes!!!

Cheers

Matt

mattco6974 wrote:wile_E

So far I have managed to stay well away from the lens lust bug. It really seems to affect Sydney siders the worst that have come into contact with Birddog. Fortunately I am geographically isolated from this disease.

Honestly, I have very little interest in zooms. The only one that I want to add to my kit is the 70-200. The rest are primes and I am quite happy to use the kit lens for those occasions where I am feeling to lazy to change lenses, let my feet do the zooming, or I do not have the room to zoom with my feet.

There is only one more prime to add to my collection. You guessed it.. 85/1.4. Maybe I will get a 14 or 16 mm prime somewhere down the track, but that is not exactly high priority.

In the meantime, I am more concerned about a set of legs. I just shot down to the PO and picked up my M20 - the first part of my VR system. AUD660 later incl GST. Do I feel that I got my monies worth. Hell Yes!!!

Cheers

Matt

Nice Markin 20 head huh? I got one and it's on my G 1227G, you can't take it with you without the leg! poor Matt

Birddog,

Real nice head. Don't worry, I'll get them legs soon enough. It may take a few weeks, but it will happen. You have been a bad influence. I was originally going to settle for something far more affordable, but you saw fit to ruin my plans for me. At least you have not infected me with LLD.

Hopefully I will see that 50/1.4 on Monday.

Cheers

Matt

Not withstanding the ...'ignore the VR' aspect of this thred. Let me just say with the little experience I have had with the 24-120 I would definitley say that the lens is far better than the kit len because it has VR.

Not that VR is the solution to all problems, but it is a fantastic function to have on a lens. Given the choice of owning either lens when I purchased my D70 - I would have gone for the 24-120VR without blinking.

Other tools that can negate the VR ... to some extent .... are, a faster lens (f2.8 or lower), or a tripod - both of these have advantages and disadvantages in themselves and neither come standard with the kit lens.

If I was faced with your quandry Scott I would be looking at the difference in $$ after selling (recouping) the kit lens. Find the difference between that and the fantastic price you can get here for the 24-120VR. Then even assuming the lenses are equal in quality what would you pay to get VR functionality and the extra length? The only other cost I see outside the $$ difference is the wider end between 18 & 24 if that is an issue.

Oh, and of course, this is just my personal opinion

OK, I'll own up to being one of the recent 24-120 VR purchasers. I agree with many others that one simply cannot ignore the added advantage of the VR when comparing the two lenses. I'm getting to know the ins and outs of VR and love it! The low light advantages with still or slow moving subjects are obvious, particularly towards the longer end of the focal length.

It's marginally longer and heavier than the kit lens, but for a general purpose lens I think it's much more useful. Just do it!

After reading this thread I've decided that I'm going to wait for the f:2.8 18-120 VR

phillipb wrote:After reading this thread I've decided that I'm going to wait for the f:2.8 18-120 VR

PhillipB
Me too! one day soon and 85/1.4 AF-S

phillipb wrote:After reading this thread I've decided that I'm going to wait for the f:2.8 18-120 VR

Now that would be worth waiting for.

Cheers

Matt