24-120 VR to replace kit lens?

Have your say on issues related to using a DSLR camera.

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.

24-120 VR to replace kit lens?

Postby stubbsy on Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:11 am

VR lust has me :cry: . 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
Peter
Disclaimer: I know nothing about anything.
*** smugmug galleries: http://www.stubbsy.smugmug.com ***
User avatar
stubbsy
Moderator
 
Posts: 10748
Joined: Wed Dec 08, 2004 7:44 pm
Location: Newcastle NSW - D700

Postby W00DY on Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:28 am

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
Andrew
Nikon D3 and lot's of Nikon stuff!!
User avatar
W00DY
Senior Member
 
Posts: 1541
Joined: Wed Aug 18, 2004 6:44 pm
Location: Sydney - Hills District

Postby pippin88 on Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:39 am

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.
User avatar
pippin88
Senior Member
 
Posts: 1107
Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2005 6:42 pm
Location: Newcastle / Sydney

Postby gstark on Wed Jan 19, 2005 11:16 am

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.
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
User avatar
gstark
Site Admin
 
Posts: 22918
Joined: Thu Aug 05, 2004 11:41 pm
Location: Bondi, NSW

Postby birddog114 on Wed Jan 19, 2005 11:19 am

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!!!! :lol:
If I was you, I'll do the same thing to off load all the stress :D :D :D
Birddog114
VNAF, My Beloved Country and Airspace
User avatar
birddog114
Senior Member
 
Posts: 15881
Joined: Sat Aug 07, 2004 8:18 pm
Location: Belmore,Sydney

Postby gstark on Wed Jan 19, 2005 11:23 am

Right now we're trying to decide which end of Waikiki to stay on. :)
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
User avatar
gstark
Site Admin
 
Posts: 22918
Joined: Thu Aug 05, 2004 11:41 pm
Location: Bondi, NSW

Postby Onyx on Wed Jan 19, 2005 11:47 am

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?)
User avatar
Onyx
Senior Member
 
Posts: 3631
Joined: Sat Aug 07, 2004 6:51 pm
Location: westsyd.nsw.au

Postby timbo on Wed Jan 19, 2005 11:54 am

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?? :roll:
User avatar
timbo
Member
 
Posts: 162
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2004 10:49 pm
Location: Crows Nest, Sydney

Postby MCWB on Wed Jan 19, 2005 12:04 pm

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).
User avatar
MCWB
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2121
Joined: Mon Oct 11, 2004 10:55 pm
Location: Epping/CBD, Sydney-D200, D70

Postby MHD on Wed Jan 19, 2005 12:24 pm

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
New page
http://www.potofgrass.com
Portfolio...
http://images.potofgrass.com
Comments and money always welcome
User avatar
MHD
Moderator
 
Posts: 5829
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2004 8:51 pm
Location: Chicago Burbs

Postby JordanP on Wed Jan 19, 2005 12:58 pm

Mmmm 17-55 DX nice lens :)
Craig
User avatar
JordanP
Senior Member
 
Posts: 1050
Joined: Sat Aug 07, 2004 8:52 pm
Location: Lismore, NSW

Postby birddog114 on Wed Jan 19, 2005 1:10 pm

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
VNAF, My Beloved Country and Airspace
User avatar
birddog114
Senior Member
 
Posts: 15881
Joined: Sat Aug 07, 2004 8:18 pm
Location: Belmore,Sydney

Postby MHD on Wed Jan 19, 2005 1:37 pm

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 :)
New page
http://www.potofgrass.com
Portfolio...
http://images.potofgrass.com
Comments and money always welcome
User avatar
MHD
Moderator
 
Posts: 5829
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2004 8:51 pm
Location: Chicago Burbs

Postby stubbsy on Wed Jan 19, 2005 1:46 pm

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

Cheers
Peter
Disclaimer: I know nothing about anything.
*** smugmug galleries: http://www.stubbsy.smugmug.com ***
User avatar
stubbsy
Moderator
 
Posts: 10748
Joined: Wed Dec 08, 2004 7:44 pm
Location: Newcastle NSW - D700

Postby MCWB on Wed Jan 19, 2005 2:40 pm

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! :)
User avatar
MCWB
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2121
Joined: Mon Oct 11, 2004 10:55 pm
Location: Epping/CBD, Sydney-D200, D70

Postby MHD on Wed Jan 19, 2005 2:43 pm

You should have mugged him ;)
New page
http://www.potofgrass.com
Portfolio...
http://images.potofgrass.com
Comments and money always welcome
User avatar
MHD
Moderator
 
Posts: 5829
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2004 8:51 pm
Location: Chicago Burbs

Postby gstark on Wed Jan 19, 2005 3:12 pm

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.
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
User avatar
gstark
Site Admin
 
Posts: 22918
Joined: Thu Aug 05, 2004 11:41 pm
Location: Bondi, NSW

Postby johndec on Wed Jan 19, 2005 9:30 pm

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 :lol:

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 :shock:

Edit: Mini milestone: 100 posts WOO-HOO !!!!
User avatar
johndec
Senior Member
 
Posts: 1327
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2004 11:24 pm
Location: Sans Souci, Sydney...D200....


Return to General Discussion