Interesting lens review.
Posted: Tue Feb 15, 2005 12:16 pmDSLRUsers.com
A discussion forum - and more - for users of Digital Single Lens Reflex cameras.
https://d70users.net/
Interesting lens review.
Page 1 of 1
Posted: Tue Feb 15, 2005 12:16 pmPosted: Tue Feb 15, 2005 12:25 pmRegdor, Michael Weber gives great and accurate reviews seen through the eyes of a working professional. I like his reviews, but think he might be a bit harsher on this earlier production run. Later models are meant to be better, but I doubt he will give it another shot. There was talk that before some serial no (410xxx maybe from memory) there were problems. Dont think this lens will ever replace a 28-70 2.8 AFS, but it is half the weight and a third the cost and has VR and has a wider range. I can see why it is popular
Posted: Tue Feb 15, 2005 12:35 pmHe is comparing the 24-120 to a lense that costs 3 times as much, with a constant F2.8 and less zoom range and he wonders why it gets handily beaten in image quality?
Here is my take on it, the kit lense offers better quality than point and shoot (and c&non's kit lense) for $300 dollars, the 24-120 add's some sharpness and VR to the equation for $600 dollars, the F2.8 28-70 has the best glass and costs $1200?
I think it is a worry that some of the 24-120's are soft on the right or left of the frame, that strikes me as a manufacturing fault and nikon should be held responsible for this.
At the end of the day you get what you pay for. No one ever says the 70-300 is a better lens than the 80-200 b/c it has longer reach ....
Here is my take on it, the kit lense offers better quality than point and shoot (and c&non's kit lense) for $300 dollars, the 24-120 add's some sharpness and VR to the equation for $600 dollars, the F2.8 28-70 has the best glass and costs $1200?
I think it is a worry that some of the 24-120's are soft on the right or left of the frame, that strikes me as a manufacturing fault and nikon should be held responsible for this.
At the end of the day you get what you pay for. No one ever says the 70-300 is a better lens than the 80-200 b/c it has longer reach ....
Posted: Tue Feb 15, 2005 12:42 pmHere is my take on it, the kit lense offers better quality than point and shoot (and c&non's kit lense) for $300 dollars, the 24-120 add's some sharpness and VR to the equation for $600 dollars, the F2.8 28-70 has the best glass and costs $1200?
The kit lens 18-70 new from HKG to Australia is about AU$500.00/ The 24-120VR is $650.00 and the Nikon gem AF-S 28-70 is well over AU$2300.00 or Maxwell stock is over AU$3200.00
I think it is a worry that some of the 24-120's are soft on the right or left of the frame, that strikes me as a manufacturing fault and nikon should be held responsible for this.
Yes, it was few among the first released batches and haven't seen a bad report recently with this lens, if you have the choice of 18-70 or 24-120VR which one you'll go for?
Posted: Tue Feb 15, 2005 1:17 pmMy point exactly I did not realise exactly how unfairly critical that review was based on my revised information on the price of the 28-70 F2.8 that it was being compared to. The 80-200 VR is cheaper and would have been a fairer comparison. Although perhaps not zoom range wise.
Between the 18-70DX and the 24-120VR there isn't really a contest for the price difference the 24-120 is superior. For it's price it is extremely good value, with all the sample pictures I have seen offering superb sharpness, or when the VR is switched on some perfectly acceptable candid shots as slow as 1/4th of second.
It's good to hear that the focus left/right issues have all but disappeared in later batch's. I'd imagine something like described in the review would be pretty easy to spot. From whats been said here and in other places around the web i am inclined to believe that the 24-120VR has been improved since batch XXX and still have my heart set on getting one soon.
Between the 18-70DX and the 24-120VR there isn't really a contest for the price difference the 24-120 is superior. For it's price it is extremely good value, with all the sample pictures I have seen offering superb sharpness, or when the VR is switched on some perfectly acceptable candid shots as slow as 1/4th of second.
It's good to hear that the focus left/right issues have all but disappeared in later batch's. I'd imagine something like described in the review would be pretty easy to spot. From whats been said here and in other places around the web i am inclined to believe that the 24-120VR has been improved since batch XXX and still have my heart set on getting one soon.
Posted: Tue Feb 15, 2005 1:34 pmIt's not the only review that's critical of the 24-120. Even Thom Hogan is unsure in his review (performance reported as merely "adequate", considering it's focal range). Read here
Yes it has VR, yes it has a longer reach, but it's NOT sharper (on a good sample that doesn't suffer from left/right frame softness) and not superior to the kit lens, because firstly it's incomensurable with the kit lens. When considered next to the AF-S 24-85G, then the comparison becomes more apples to apples. Optical properties swing strongly in favour of the 24-85 by all accounts. Ignoring cost differences, 24-85 is superior to the 24-120 that supposedly superceeds it. But nobody today would consider the 24-85 when the 24-120 represents better value. And that's its main attraction - a value lens due to having the VR.
Yes it has VR, yes it has a longer reach, but it's NOT sharper (on a good sample that doesn't suffer from left/right frame softness) and not superior to the kit lens, because firstly it's incomensurable with the kit lens. When considered next to the AF-S 24-85G, then the comparison becomes more apples to apples. Optical properties swing strongly in favour of the 24-85 by all accounts. Ignoring cost differences, 24-85 is superior to the 24-120 that supposedly superceeds it. But nobody today would consider the 24-85 when the 24-120 represents better value. And that's its main attraction - a value lens due to having the VR.
Posted: Tue Feb 15, 2005 2:14 pmHopefully this doesn't start a war, Onyx you have flately stated that the Kit lense and 24-120 offer no difference in sharpness. I am going to have to in my humble opinion disagree with you. I have had a chance to use both lense's down at my local shops, which in my work clothes and after showing my visa card (little did they know it's a cashlink direct debit card not really a credit card) I have been able to take them both outside the shop and take some photo's with each.
I liked them both to tell the truth but after reviewing the images on a PC in shop I came to the conclusion that the 24-120 produced consistantly sharper images, the 18-70DX was very sharp but not as often as the 24-120 (Yes i took a number of photo's). I just found getting a razor sharp image out of the 24-120 was easier than the 18-70, this in my mind makes it a sharper lense, at least more likely to capture the shot you really want at just the right time.
Does this sound right to you?
I have never used the 24 -85 so cannot comment on it.
I liked them both to tell the truth but after reviewing the images on a PC in shop I came to the conclusion that the 24-120 produced consistantly sharper images, the 18-70DX was very sharp but not as often as the 24-120 (Yes i took a number of photo's). I just found getting a razor sharp image out of the 24-120 was easier than the 18-70, this in my mind makes it a sharper lense, at least more likely to capture the shot you really want at just the right time.
Does this sound right to you?
I have never used the 24 -85 so cannot comment on it.
Posted: Tue Feb 15, 2005 7:38 pmyraen69 wrote:Hopefully this doesn't start a war, Onyx you have flately stated that the Kit lense and 24-120 offer no difference in sharpness. I am going to have to in my humble opinion disagree with you. I have had a chance to use both lense's down at my local shops, which in my work clothes and after showing my visa card (little did they know it's a cashlink direct debit card not really a credit card) I have been able to take them both outside the shop and take some photo's with each.
I liked them both to tell the truth but after reviewing the images on a PC in shop I came to the conclusion that the 24-120 produced consistantly sharper images, the 18-70DX was very sharp but not as often as the 24-120 (Yes i took a number of photo's). I just found getting a razor sharp image out of the 24-120 was easier than the 18-70, this in my mind makes it a sharper lense, at least more likely to capture the shot you really want at just the right time.
Does this sound right to you?
I have never used the 24 -85 so cannot comment on it.
I did a similar thing last week, and from my limited shots, I felt that the kit lens was slightly sharper than the VR - The kit lens felt to me that it "fitted" the D70 better.
But ultimatelly, I think it is people who have or have had these lenses and used them everyday who will be able to give us a much better overall assessment of the lenses