stubbsy
I rest my case please don't get upset but all 4 are shockers even worse than mine you must have the Bangladeshi copy. Welcome member #2 .My 15 year old 70 - 210 would shame a 24 - 120 ,
DSLRUsers.com
A discussion forum - and more - for users of Digital Single Lens Reflex cameras.
Walk around lens comments?Moderator: Moderators
Forum rules
Please ensure that you have a meaningful location included in your profile. Please refer to the FAQ for details of what "meaningful" is.
Loz, I cannot for the life of me see what is wronmg with the images that Peter posted. The fourth is slightly softer than the others, but on my monitor the others, and especially the grapes, are knife-sharp. And I do set very high standards, as you know. Perhaps there's a problem with your monitor? I think that these would prit brilliantly and would be considered highly satisfactory by most people. Again I cannot see why you'd be saying that they're soft. They're not. g.
Gary Stark Nikon, Canon, Bronica .... stuff The people who want English to be the official language of the United States are uncomfortable with their leaders being fluent in it - US Pres. Bartlet
Loz 
I'm not upset - we all have different perceptions of what's sharp and what is not and I guess you and I probably have different standards in that regard, but remember these are jpeg images. Can you post one of your images that indicates what you consider sharp as I think that would be useful. BTW I'm NOT saying the 24-120 produces images as sharp as the 70-200 VR, but then it lacks that price tag too  Peter
Disclaimer: I know nothing about anything. *** smugmug galleries: http://www.stubbsy.smugmug.com ***
quote="gstark"
And who says it's not sharp me is this one of your pranks ? where in #1 is their any thing even 30% sharp take a look at the tree on the left or the white line on the road surely this is a joke  Welcome member #3
Loz, I think Gary posted #1 to indicate the benefits of VR (it's a 1/2 sec exposure hand held) rather than as an example of the lens's sharpness. Peter
Disclaimer: I know nothing about anything. *** smugmug galleries: http://www.stubbsy.smugmug.com ***
how about this 70-210 
Loz,
Peter is correct: that first image was illustrating what one can do with VR. If you're able to duplicate that sort of image, handheld, with a non-VR lens, than I'll dips me hat to you. But I'm curious about this ...
What, precisely, does this mean? How do you evaluate sharpness as a percentage? I have never before seen sharpness expressed in this manner. Referring now to the 70-210 image that you posted ... are you showing this as an example of a sharp image, or a soft one? Looking at it on my calibrated monitor, I see an image that is somewhat soft, with colour balance way, way off. Unless she really does have pink teeth. 
By way of comparisons Peter's 24-120 images make the one you posted look as if it was shot on a 110 Instamatic using expired film. I'm not sure, but I think that the focus point is actually on the subject's back - look at the highlighted hairs on her left shoulder/back And if we look at this image of Mark 
Or moreover, this 100% crop from that image 
even though this was shot at 5/5.6, which is outside of the lens's sweet spot, I'm not convinced that we'd want this any sharper. g.
Gary Stark Nikon, Canon, Bronica .... stuff The people who want English to be the official language of the United States are uncomfortable with their leaders being fluent in it - US Pres. Bartlet
I'm a bit late to this discussion but have a few additional comments to make.
I have had the 24-120 VR now for about six months. As a logical extension to my 12-24 it is great. The two make a great pair. I find generally that the 24-120 is a bit unpredictable. I do have some pretty sharp shots at between 90 and 120 of peoples head and shoulders. I also have quite a few softies. Nearly all the shots I take with the 12-24 are sharp. I think you have to work this lens (24-120) pretty hard to get exceptional shots. I was going to trade mine in this week as I am becoming more interested in using my 50, 1.4 and 85, 1.8 and am contemplating either the Nik 35 f2 or the sigma 30, 1.4 as an all rounder. I think I'll give it another go. As I have also kept my 18-70 Kit, I find this also pairs well with the 70-200. That 28-70 2.8 looks mighty tempting as far as sharpness is concerned but mighty ugly when looking at price. All in all, I think Nikon needs to tempt us with some better alternatives in this most of all used mid range zoom department. Regards Peter Mc Nikon & Olympus
Sorry Loz, but pissing contests are not permitted here. Please do not even contemplate taking that path. We're not discussing winners and/or losers. We're discussing a walkaround lens. If you want to take a 70-200VR as a walkaround, be my guest. Don't forget your <strike>walking stick</strike> monopod, though. Getting back to the point, and first of all, and as I've very clearly stated, the 24-120VR is not a 70-200VR And it costs less than 1/3 the cost of the latter. If you're expecting comparable results from the two lenses, then might I suggest that you share with the rest of us whatever it is that you're smoking? Because your expectaions are simply unrealistic. And I still haven't a clue about what you mean by 30%, and she still has pink teeth. g.
Gary Stark Nikon, Canon, Bronica .... stuff The people who want English to be the official language of the United States are uncomfortable with their leaders being fluent in it - US Pres. Bartlet
First of all, LOZ I'm not posting to become member #4
OK, that out of the way, I use a Tamron 28-75 as my walk around lens. I own a 24-120VR and it's OK but the Tamron (to my eye) is a much sharper lens. Don't forget if you are looking for a wide to tele setup you can buy a Tokina 12-24, a Tamron 28-75 and a Nikon 80-200 for less than the price of a 70-200VR. All are excellent lenses. If I'm alone in a forest and my wife is not around to hear what I say, am I still wrong ??
Let me rephrase my stance on the 24-120mm VR. I'd rather stick a coke bottle on my D2 then this rubbish.
The sweat spot is very limiting. I don't think showing examples of photos in nice even light at +f8/f11 is anything to crow about. In-fact some of them have been soft. Be a man and show some flash work or some low light WA shots. Your better off using the money to get a second hand 35-70mm f2.8. Andrew
Canon make photocopiers and stick lenses on them....
Believe it or not we actually have a coke bottle or two that could do the trick. At present I can't find a alive link to a shot of the Coke / Nikon Mount.
Just do a search using the keyword "Sigma" If I'm alone in a forest and my wife is not around to hear what I say, am I still wrong ??
The sweat spot? How perspirational. I agree about the even light. That's why I posted a shot from one of the worst possible lighting venues I know, the Empire in Sydney. That's the shot of Mark. I have other shots from the same venue, some softer, many sharper. It's not just low light/fill flash, it's low life too.
And again. your D2Whatever will show faults in just about every lens you own. It's that good. But for an inexpensive WALKAROUND lens, the 24-120VR remains tough to beat. Whether you like it, or not. And finally, we have the coke bottle, complete with a Nikon mount. It's sitting on my dining room table as I type this, and we may even bring it along to the minimeet tomorrow. g.
Gary Stark Nikon, Canon, Bronica .... stuff The people who want English to be the official language of the United States are uncomfortable with their leaders being fluent in it - US Pres. Bartlet
John, Craig's referring to our actual Coke bottle with an F Mount. g.
Gary Stark Nikon, Canon, Bronica .... stuff The people who want English to be the official language of the United States are uncomfortable with their leaders being fluent in it - US Pres. Bartlet
Gary how dose a bit of fun turn into a pissing contest life is not that serious . I find it amazing that those that own the 24-120VR nearly all admit that it is soft or not that sharp or must be used with cotton gloves ect . My precise point is this lens is lacking and for what we pay for it $700 to $1000. Don 't we deserve better or are we just suckers .Now the debate has started on the 18-200 VR this lens will not be in my bag after playing with it either would the 24 -120 VR if I had not dropped my kit lens when on holidays in Japan.
We have all been warned but it looks like another hobby lens is about to take over the VR market. I personally dislike my lens for what I now see as a hobby lens and great for my daughter to use for happy snaps of her friends . One reason I purchased a DSLR was that it had the ability to take sharper shots with changeable lens which was an advantage over my Fuji7500 ? .Some of my old second hand lens piss all over some of the present day lens that I have . As far as describing how sharp a photo is what is wrong with using percentages or is their a technical way of describing softness maybe I should use not very sharp –sort of sharp –or I think I need glasses for this one . The debate will continue LOZ
Gary, I know. Perhaps I was being a little obtuse, but I thought the wink emoticon gave it away I've actually seen the Coke bottle lens, you brought it with you to the Xmas dinner..If I'm alone in a forest and my wife is not around to hear what I say, am I still wrong ??
24-120mm - about $700 35-70mm f2.8 - $420 http://cgi.ebay.com.au/Nikon-35-70mm-f- ... dZViewItem beaten. Faster, sharper and half the price. And not a coke bottle in sight. Andrew
Canon make photocopiers and stick lenses on them....
Very tempting what would be the new price ???
When somebody starts talking about winning in a discussion of lenses, I start to become more moderatorly. Don't mention winning, or losing (or right or wrong, for that matter) and I won't mention pissing contests.
Please show me where I've said that it's not soft. I doubt you'll find it, because I haven't. What I have said is that it's sharp, but not of the quality of the 70-700, and for what you do not pay for the 24-120, this is to be expected. Bottom line is that you get what you pay for, and as a light, portable, versatile and inexpensive lens, there's nothing I know of that comes near it.
But despite being asked on several occasions, you continue to fail to provide any evidence of this. Give me a break. Yes, I've seen soft results from mine too, but let me assure of one thing - it ain't the lens that's at fault.
Really? The camera does it all for you? I still contend that the photographer has just a wee bit of input into the process.
I don't recall saying it was wrong to use percentages. I do recall saying that I didn't have a clue as to what you were talking about in that context, and I'm still none the wiser in that regard. If you like, you could certainly talk in absolute technical terms by referring to line pairs per millimeter, but again, that's a lab style of measurement which is great for people who do little other than shoot images of charts and stuff like that. I don't. g.
Gary Stark Nikon, Canon, Bronica .... stuff The people who want English to be the official language of the United States are uncomfortable with their leaders being fluent in it - US Pres. Bartlet
Not as wide. Many comment that the 24-120 isn't wide enough, so your suggestion of the 35-70 falls even further short of the mark in that regard. No reach. 120 is a great length to have on a walkaround, and 70 is, for my needs, way too short. Try again. No VR. The 2.8 on the 35-70 is nice to have, however. But if you think I'm going to buy it from that eBay seller, think again. That's a used lens: what is it's real condition? You haven't got a clue, have you? The reality is that I have a good friend who lives in Gainesville, and while I might call him to see how he is, his photographic knowledge is on a par with that of my cat. Please tell me why I'd take a risk on a second hand, possibly heavily abused lens, when I can buy a new one and have it here in three days through our own resources? But getting back to your suggestion, as you can see, while it has one advantage, it's hardly a valid comparison. Oh yes. Please do NOT use the term beaten in this context. As I've already explained to Loz - and as is stated in our FAQ - pissing contests of any kind are not permitted here. That's a great way to piss off this moderator. g.
Gary Stark Nikon, Canon, Bronica .... stuff The people who want English to be the official language of the United States are uncomfortable with their leaders being fluent in it - US Pres. Bartlet
Even that's less than accurate. Most of the owners of this lens that I've seen make comments on it - or talk about it off-line - seem to be very satisfied. So far you've counted just three users here who are not satisfied, and I can tell you that there's a hell of a lot more than three who own it. Let's now stop this pissing contest and discuss walkaround lenses. Any further pissing type posts will be delieted, and the poster will be suspended. g.
Gary Stark Nikon, Canon, Bronica .... stuff The people who want English to be the official language of the United States are uncomfortable with their leaders being fluent in it - US Pres. Bartlet
John, Since you have both lenses I have been comparing, would you like to add what areas each lens excels at? Or perhaps what you like or dislike about either lens based on your time behind them. Pete
I expect my 50 1.8 will be produce sharper photos than the 24-120 in many situations, however it will also limit my ability to take advantage of circumstances that require different focal length.
I would add that taking a great photo is not all about sharpness (not to say sharpness isn't important). I've achieved very sharp results on some portaits & later wished the image wasnt so sharp as the detail took away from the whole composition. I've decided to give the 24-120 a go, but i'm still mighty keen on hearing more hands on info about the tamron 28-75. Thanks for everyones enthusiasm 
Cheers, Pete
Here here, there has certainly been no lack of ethusiasm, or strongly opinionated debate, in this case I think there is no subsitute from playing hands-on with the lenses in question and drawing your own conclusions, as different people and their shooting style suit different lenses
How about a 50 f/1.8? I found that to be a great walk-around lens. Likewise (alternatively) a 35 f/anything. They're small, lightweight, fast and good quality.
Personally I found having a large zoom range at my disposal made me get confused and lose the eye for good shots. I find it more stress-free to walk around with a single focal length, and train my eye on that lens' particular angle of view. Only thing one has to overcome is the anguish of feeling ill-equipped and risking to miss *the* shot. Cheers Steffen.
My walk about lens is the one I am happy shooting with on the day.......
who decided there are rules for walk about lens, as a walk about lens could be just another catch phase or cleaver marketing, one could also say that you wear blue on Monday and green on Tuesday and yellow on Wednesday and so on .......... if you do some research on Photography from the 40's and 50's and 60's you will find that the lens of the day was the standard lens sold with the camera. When Time Life came on the scene, the wide angle was a favourite for a long time, then there was some great pix's of African animals shot with telephoto lens and tele's became the flavour of the day, all primes....... then along came the zoom lens, and the choice that is available today is fantastic, and you choose the one that you are happy shooting with on the day........ Cheers ....bp....
Difference between a good street photographer and a great street photographer.... Removing objects that do not belong... happy for the comments, but .....Please DO NOT edit my image..... http://bigpix.smugmug.com Forever changing
Its the 120 end that realy interested me and joining the VR club
 ,the extra length as the walk around is the big selling point.
I know the 24-120VR cost a 1/3 of the 70-200 as such seems a bargin, but $700-1000 is still a fair amount of money to be handing over. Its all about comprimises. If it wasn't we all would have D2x's with 10-500 vr's wieghing nothing and costing even less. But as an all day tracking around lens that means you dont have to carry all your other gear it may be jsut right.. MAybe.. MATT
I give up. Who? For me, there are no rules. More like parameters. Not too heavy - very important. An acceptable degree of wideness, with 18mm being good, 24 being not really wide enough for my desires, but generally acceptable for everyday shooting, and anything longer, on any Nikon digital body, simply way too long to be even under consideration. A modicum of reach. 70 doesn't cut it for me. 105 is nice, 120 is good. 200 would be sweet. An acceptable element of acuity in the lens. A walkaround is going to be used for a lot of grabs, and absolute knife-edge sharpness that shows every hair on every wart on the inside of your nose is not the deal. But neither is the totally OOF softness of the 70-300G. So, a good degree (but not necessarily super-high) of sharpness would be the goal. Absolute speed is not of the essence: walkaroud sort of suggests that you'll be, um, how can I put this? Ah yes .... walking around. That probably means outdoors, and therefore it suggests that low-light imaging isn't the greatest concern, and thus a lens that is optically slower can be included in the compromise. F/4 would be about the minimum here. Reasonable focus speed and response. Don't want to lose that grab!
Interesting comment. While I guess that "cleaver" marketing is where you get chased around the restaurant by a chef wielding a huge knife I must say that the only time I've seen the term "walkaround lens" used is when talking with other photographers. While it's true that I may have missed it in perusing marketing <strike>crap</strike> media, the fact is that I've seen it used within that context.
Quite correct, but I think that much of that was a product of the technology of the time: until the 60's, how many cameras could even accept interchangable lens? Yes, a Speedgraphic certainly could, but that would hardly be likely to be called a walkaround. And yes, Leicas certainly could, but even today you need to sell a couple of body parts to be able to afford one. What if you expanded your suggested research to include how many zoom lenses were available in that same period, along with their quality and sizes and weight? I'd be very surprised if you found a great deal of ready and inexpensive availability.
And that is the point. And the OP was looking for pointers that would help guide him in making his decision, having already narrowed his choices down to about 4. And looking at my earlier quoted parameters, yes, I think that the 18-200 looks to be a very suitable lens for a walkaround, at least on paper. The results I've seen so far suggest that it's adequately sharp, and at some point in the future I'm looking forward to enjoying at least a short evaluation period with one to determine if it's got what it takes to kick my 24-120 off the nose of my D70. g.
Gary Stark Nikon, Canon, Bronica .... stuff The people who want English to be the official language of the United States are uncomfortable with their leaders being fluent in it - US Pres. Bartlet
Pete, I don't really have time today but I'll take and post some comparison shots tomorrow. If I'm alone in a forest and my wife is not around to hear what I say, am I still wrong ??
I see no point taking photos that you don't want to keep. 'sharp' is a subjective term, as what others consider sharp is clearly not what I consider sharp. For the 24-120mm, your talking at least f8 to be sharp. With the 50mm f1.8, you're sharp at f2.8. With the 35-70mm, your sharp at f4. 24-120mm at f8 is fine in great light, terrible when your walking around in the evening, or inside or require flash work. I took the fam to underwater world today. Inside, low filtered light, moving objects. VR - no value with moving targets that I want to be in focus, f8 is too slow and f4 pushing it in terms of ISO and sharpness. I've owned two 24-120mm lenses, 12months ago. Neither was any good. I think the ideal walk around lens is a myth. You take a lens that you expect to use. Sometimes WA, sometimes telephoto, sometimes portrait or sometimes fast glass. ATM there is no one lens that does it all. In my experience, the 24-120mm VR isn't it. The specs look good, but i think any photographer will get more out of a 35-70mm f2.8 and/or 50mm prime. Not only are they hands down sharper, but they will give any photographer room to develop low-light/flash techniques. anyway, that's just one man's opinion. (someone pass me the f-mount coke bottle  )Andrew
Canon make photocopiers and stick lenses on them....
with say a 50mm prime, your feet are your greatest asset....... if you are too close walk back a bit ....... if you are too far away walk a little closer....... this will also work with zoom lens.......
Cheers ....bp....
Difference between a good street photographer and a great street photographer.... Removing objects that do not belong... happy for the comments, but .....Please DO NOT edit my image..... http://bigpix.smugmug.com Forever changing
Do you see any point in setting up an image library? No, you probably don't either. "Damn, I know I've an image of exactly that and I have it here somewhere ... "
You're quite right. And what you consider to be sharp I might consider to be obtuse. But what you consider sharp is of as little importance as what I consider to be sharp in this thread, because the lens being discussed is not going to be for your use.
Whoopdy bloody do. Very interesting, but somewhat irrelevant. The OP is looking to purchase, by virtue of what was stated in the original post, a lens that satisfies certain parameters, probably including, by that orignal poost, the facts that he wants a lens that is wider than 35 and longer than 70. You continue to fail to address those two fundamental facets of what appears to be essential needs here. At which point will either of the lenses you are suggesting meet these two primary focal length requirements?
How nice. About 30 of us got together today and had a good time meeting, talking photography, playing with some new toys, and enjoying each other's company. Families were welcome, too. We all had a good time at our respective events, it would seem. I'm pleased for all of us.
You have already made your point that you don't like the 24-120. Once was enough. I've already made a blanket warning in this thread that that this sort of discussion is not welcome. Is there some part of that message that you are failing to comprehend? Please take this as your personal and final warning to remain on topic, and discuss which lenses you believe might be beneficial to the OP as his choice of walkaround lens.
Excellent. Some people believe that so too is the G-Spot. In the latter instace those people would be incorrect. MAny would agree that on the former point, you, too, might be wrong, but they too would be incorrect: what you think is exactly that. What you think. And based upon this comment of your's, and my request (above) that all further discussion in this thread remain on-topic, it is quite clear that you should take no further part in this thread.
Absolutely. What is being sought is a satisfactory, for the OP - not foryou, nor for me, but for the OP - compromise. Your thoughts, like mine, at the end of the day are of no significance at all. Likewise, neither are your, nor my, standards. The only thing that matters here is what the OP wants. Get over it! g.
Gary Stark Nikon, Canon, Bronica .... stuff The people who want English to be the official language of the United States are uncomfortable with their leaders being fluent in it - US Pres. Bartlet
As promised, I've taken a couple of test shots under identical conditions with both the Tamron 28-75 and the 24-120VR. Both photos are 100% crops of this picture:
Both were taken within a couple of minutes off each other and both lenses were set to a 50mm focal length, f5.6 and 1/1250th. I used a tripod so I turned the VR off in the Nikon lens (as recommended). There is no PP whatsoever, just whatever the in camera settings happened to be. Energypolice will be happy..
The Tamron 
The Nikon 
To my eyes the grain of the wood is more defined in the Tamron image. If I'm alone in a forest and my wife is not around to hear what I say, am I still wrong ??
I agree the Tamron image definitely looks sharper in that type of comparison. The benefits of the VR off the tripod vs the 2.8 would be interesting, but similarly subjective. Appreciate your comments John. Cheers Pete
if you compare the shadow detail of both lens, the Tamron appears to be more defined or sharper because this lens has more contrast than the Nikon lens, the difference in the shadow detail shows this very well....... Nikon.... lots of shadow detail......Tamron loss of shadow detail and more contrast which gives the appearance of a sharper lens due to the added contrast.
Cheers ....bp....
Difference between a good street photographer and a great street photographer.... Removing objects that do not belong... happy for the comments, but .....Please DO NOT edit my image..... http://bigpix.smugmug.com Forever changing
johndec... very interesting...
I'd be interested to see a similar crop of the wood from the top or bottom of the frame as well... Cheers, John
Leek@Flickr | Leek@RedBubble | Leek@DeviantArt D700; D200; Tokina 12-24; Nikkor 50mm f1.4,18-70mm,85mm f1.8, 105mm,80-400VR, SB-800s; G1227LVL; RRS BH-55; Feisol 1401
What's also interesting is that the detail in the palm frond on the RHS is greater (sharper) in the Nikon compared to the Tamron. Additionally I have to say though that when it comes to softness/hardness there's really bugger all difference between these two images. So on this test either both are soft or both are sharp
Peter
Disclaimer: I know nothing about anything. *** smugmug galleries: http://www.stubbsy.smugmug.com ***
Ask and you shall receive
Tamron 
Nikon  If I'm alone in a forest and my wife is not around to hear what I say, am I still wrong ??
The Tamron is certainly sharper there to my eye. However that's at f/5.6, for maximum sharpness with the 24-120 VR you should stop down to f/11. So in that sense, whilst a valid comparison of the lenses' relative abilities at f/5.6, it's not the best case scenario for both lenses. I'd be interested to see a comparison of the 24-120 VR at f/11 vs the Tamron wherever it's sharpest. LOL at the energypolice call!
Fair call Trent, but like any comparison there is going to be what ifs and variables that can be tried. For me the bottom line is that if you need to take the Nikon to f11 to get it as sharp as the Tamron at f5.6, then your shutter speed is going to go from say 1/500 to 1/125. Sure VR helps at the photographers end, but then you have to start worrying about subject movement.
If I'm alone in a forest and my wife is not around to hear what I say, am I still wrong ??
For the pixel peepers
Both lenses at 200% from the bottom centre of the image.
Tamron 
Nikon  If I'm alone in a forest and my wife is not around to hear what I say, am I still wrong ??
Thanks for the pixel peep John. Tamron is sharper looking at that detail. I'd still be happy with the sharpness of the 24-120 VR shown here (no surpise there) and go for it over the Tamron as a walk around lens though for reasons Gary's already mentioned - a much more accommodating zoom range. Horses for courses eh
Peter
Disclaimer: I know nothing about anything. *** smugmug galleries: http://www.stubbsy.smugmug.com ***
|
- Mods Database • The team • Delete all board cookies • Reset blocks • All times are UTC + 10 hours [ DST ]
