Ignoring VR, 24-120VR vrs Kit

[lejazzcat]

Hmmm - i dont have either

But, i have done some research, and this guy seems to know something about lenses. Does he have a bad case of lens lust or what ?!

http://www.naturfotograf.com/lens_zoom.html

http://www.naturfotograf.com/lens_surv.html

His review of the 24-120VR ( switched off) doesnt bode well for it.
Another big issue for those of us still interested in film,is that the kit lens is DX and cant be used on a f4,f5,f6,f100..., the 24-120vr is AF-S and can.

[birddog114]

lejazzcat,
There're many advantages of the 24-120VR in a lower bracket of $$$$.
People can use this lens in both DSLR or their beloved SLR and it's very good for a walkaround lens or if you want travelling light but have the average reach which you want.

[redline]

i too was hit with the vr bug months ago, before the release of the d70.
i didn't really know what the fuss was about so i decided to purchase the lenses for myself after mixed review.

on film the 24-120vr has fall-off blur to the right side of the lenses, this has been one of the the characteristic I have been told to accept. however stopping down after f/8 reduced this effect. on the d70, with the cf this would not have any part of this effect in frame.

for me personally, i perfer the 24-120 to the 18-70 for the reason that i can use it on my film camera as a backup. however i find the weight of the 24-120 to be a little to much on comparasion to the kit lenses, hence i would use it if i had no film camera.

if i didn't have a tripod or a monpod and no vr or my exp. was 3 seconds or more- to much for vr to handle in my opinion. i would usually mcguyer my way out of this problem. use your surrounding for support i.e strap to poles, chairs, or tables

my usual suspects are 18-35, 24-120, 80-200.... covers me for both film wa. st and tele.

[birddog114]

redline,
A "film man" and/ with the DSLR should consider this lens, it's not praised to boost a sale for Nikon but in a reality term, it helps these men to compromise in both challenges, especially at the price which people can afford and make their photography hobby become fruitful.

The 18-35mm on the 35mm (full frame is good) but not real deal on a DSLR, crop factor and other issue, price is more than the 18-70Dx, can be used on the both, not the 18-70Dx.

I like the way it's a walkaround lens or "travel light" and can be used in both format.

[Onyx]

The 18-70 and 24-120 are not naturally competing for the same market. If one were looking for a more comparable focal length range for a lens aimed to be used for similar purposes, it would be between the 24-85 AF-S and the 24-120, which some have reputed to be a 'replacement' of the former.
Both are AF-S, can be used for film, etc. not the apples to oranges 18-70DX with 24-120.

[Catcha]

Bringing up and old thread. I was reading last night on Dpreview in the Nikon lens section about the 24-120 and there seems to be a recurring point mentioned on all the peoples opinions that the photos taken are soft image and not sharp, and if you wanted speed and didn't mind the softness go for it. Had some guy called Frank defending the lens but only 1 person out of how many others.

As a newbie i'm getting quite confused as to if it's good or bad, but having read and the X amount of members here having purchased it and would of done it in favor of the kit lens it makes me wonder......again and again

[birddog114]

Buy it, try it, enjoy it and learn

[MCWB]

Catcha: you're right, wide open it's quite soft. I find stopping down to f/8 or f/11 is the way to go, and produces acceptably sharp pictures.

[Catcha]

but does it give that softer image...i swear after spending an hour on the nikon lens thing reading up on it....those people on there say otherwise.
Then spending about 1/2 on this forum reading up on old post like this, anyway gotta go to work, got a slight headache looking at all this stuff

[Onyx]

Catcha, maybe the members here have lower standards or have less of carefactor for sharpness in lenses.

I had previously tried a head to head comparo with the kit and Birddog's sample of the 24-120. I could not tell a difference with identically converted RAW images in sharpness, contrast, or otherwise. I'm inclined to believe there few if any actual differences in image quality from the two lenses, so it comes down to functionality differences - in focal length range and VR. Although I note the VR tends to show CA more so than the kit. eg. Stubbsy's pic of the week with Gary's portrait. Even at the posted size in the thread, I could notice a purple fringe on the top edge of Gary. This is assuming he took the pic with the 24-120VR that is, I don't know whether this assumption is correct or not.

[stubbsy]

Catcha, maybe the members here have lower standards or have less of carefactor for sharpness in lenses.

I had previously tried a head to head comparo with the kit and Birddog's sample of the 24-120. I could not tell a difference with identically converted RAW images in sharpness, contrast, or otherwise. I'm inclined to believe there few if any actual differences in image quality from the two lenses, so it comes down to functionality differences - in focal length range and VR. Although I note the VR tends to show CA more so than the kit. eg. Stubbsy's pic of the week with Gary's portrait. Even at the posted size in the thread, I could notice a purple fringe on the top edge of Gary. This is assuming he took the pic with the 24-120VR that is, I don't know whether this assumption is correct or not.

Chi. You are correct- taken with 24-120VR

[Catcha]

Although I note the VR tends to show CA more so than the kit. eg. Stubbsy's pic of the week with Gary's portrait. Even at the posted size in the thread, I could notice a purple fringe on the top edge of Gary. This is assuming he took the pic with the 24-120VR that is, I don't know whether this assumption is correct or not.

Sorry still not familiar with the term CA, So if you notice a purple fringe on the edge, does this mean it's not a good lens in that respect. surely a good picture should not have any noticable defects as such ?

[stubbsy]

CA = chromatic abberation which is a bad thing.

Basically it means there are green or purple fringes on the edges of (usually bright) objects which are artifacts of how a lens is made. They are most obvious when the image is blown up REALLY large.

The photo of Gary had a LOT of PP work on it since I took the shot incorrectly (it was VERY dark) and this + jpeg artifacts may account for it in this image.

I can't say I notice CA on my 24-120 VR shots - but then I haven't looked extra close either.

Chi is very much a perfectionist. On matters like this he certainly knows what he's talking about.

[gstark]

Catcha, maybe the members here have lower standards or have less of carefactor for sharpness in lenses.

Some members here probably do; I do not, and I happen to think that the 24-120 is bitingly sharp, and the VR facility just makes the lens so much better.

For best results (and as with any lens) you should not, of course, use the lens wide open, but even wide open, it's capable of producing disgustingly detailed images of just about anything you'd care to look at.

Although I note the VR tends to show CA more so than the kit. eg. Stubbsy's pic of the week with Gary's portrait. Even at the posted size in the thread, I could notice a purple fringe on the top edge of Gary.

Chi, no, that's not CA, it's my aura!

[MCWB]

Chi, no, that's not CA, it's my aura!

I thought I'd oversharpened an image of you once, then I realised it really was your halo!

[gstark]

Sorry still not familiar with the term CA, So if you notice a purple fringe on the edge, does this mean it's not a good lens in that respect. surely a good picture should not have any noticable defects as such ?

CA means Chromatic Abberation. Or Computer Associates, and several other bodies too.

But it depends upon a number of things; if you see the purple fringing on a full crop jpg image, then that would be a cause for concern. Depending upon a camera's firmware and the level of in-camera PP applied, this could also be something that's been introduced, rather than an optical problem.

Peter's mentioned that this image was heavily PP'd (given the subject matter, I can fully understand the need) and within that context, the post processing can easily bring this into being, and so, in this case, no, it's not an issue.

Shoot some high contrast areas, perhaps obliquely through a window or lace terrace towards a brightly lit sky, play with exposures and fineness of in-camera image quality as you go, and see what that turns up.

But IMHO, the 24-120 is probably the bargain buy of Nikkor VR glass.

[birddog114]

We have around 20 members who have the Nikkor 24-120VR and we do all care about the sharpness of the lens and no one complaint about 24-120VR yet.

CA or Non/ Not CA is another topic and also depend on how do you want your photos be, PP as previously posters said may producing CA but not from the original lens itself and not on the D100, D2 or D2x.

[Onyx]

I also recall one of our members redline having a sample of the earlier 24-120VR and noticed right side softness, congruent with observations from other forums.

I agree the 24-120 lens is a bargain - but the 18-70 equally so, given it's cost included with the D70(s) kit.

How does one induce chromatic abberation with a heavily PP'ed image? I've never heard of this phenomena nor have I seen an example of it. AFAIK, CA is a strictly optical/physical phenomenon, caused by the differences in the wavelength of light - blue/violets being shorter wavelength than red. This especially affects with wider angle lenses, and becomes more prominent when shooting heavily contrasting edges (black object with white background or vice versa). The microlenses infront of a digital camera's sensor does all it can to correct it by adjusting incoming rays of light to be as perpendicular to the sensor plane as possible. But how this can be induced by image processing techniques bewilders me.

[stubbsy]

Chi that's why I said you knew what you were talking about

With less expertise in this area than you I considered the heavy PP may have contributed. Thanks for the extra explanation on this one.

Of course it's still a great lens. Catcha - best thing I can say is try the lens. I've retired my 18-70 and use this in preference.

[sirhc55]

I agree with Chi - the only factor affecting this (which I have encountered) is a small amount of CA can be made more visible by the aggressive use of PP’ing

[Catcha]

Chi that's why I said you knew what you were talking about

With less expertise in this area than you I considered the heavy PP may have contributed. Thanks for the extra explanation on this one.

Of course it's still a great lens. Catcha - best thing I can say is try the lens. I've retired my 18-70 and use this in preference.

Damn if only those mini meets were avaliable within driving distance, I might go hunt down ,our some what limited camera stores my area and see if i can play with one if they even have one.

One last question bear with me not suppose to be here but, everyone compares the 24-120 with a kit lens but with the extra zoom factor would it be more comparable to a Nikon 70-300mm G Zoom Lens, comparing it without VR for both.

Because The only thing I can get my hands on it the well shop demo at Harveys for a peak within the stores, My wifes work is using a Canon 300D that comes with the 70-300mm kit lens and she sometimes brings it home and I have a little fiddle with it.

Obviously what I am trying to do is get a feel of what the 24-120 without having it physically avaliable to me, would it be save to assume it's just inbetween the kit and a 70-300mm lens. or am I way out ? without VR its just a normal lens just like any other nikon

[gstark]

Damn if only those mini meets were avaliable within driving distance

You've obviously not yet seen this thread.

It's within easy driving distance.

One last question bear with me not suppose to be here but, everyone compares the 24-120 with a kit lens but with the extra zoom factor would it be more comparable to a Nikon 70-300mm G Zoom Lens, comparing it without VR for both.

That would be an abysmal comparison. The 70-300G is a POS lens, and simply should not be adorned with the Nikkor nomenclature. Don't worry about using a vaseline smeared filter to achieve soft focus with the 70-300G.

Yes, there's a difference in the ranges when comparing the 18-70 with the 24-120 VR, but while you gain some extra reach, you lose a little at the wide end.

Obviously what I am trying to do is get a feel of what the 24-120 without having it physically avaliable to me, would it be save to assume it's just inbetween the kit and a 70-300mm lens. or am I way out ? without VR its just a normal lens just like any other nikon

The three lenses are vastly different. Build quality, the 70-300 is a consumer grade lens, very lightweight, don't even think about dropping one.

The 24-120 is not super pro quality, but it's towards the high end and very sturdy. the 18-70 fits somewhere in between.

[dooda]

 AFAIK, CA is a strictly optical/physical phenomenon, caused by the differences in the wavelength of light - blue/violets being shorter wavelength than red. This especially affects with wider angle lenses, and becomes more prominent when shooting heavily contrasting edges (black object with white background or vice versa). The microlenses infront of a digital camera's sensor does all it can to correct it by adjusting incoming rays of light to be as perpendicular to the sensor plane as possible. But how this can be induced by image processing techniques bewilders me.

No need to flaunt your mastery of Clingon here Onyx...show-off.

[Hlop]

Sorry for bringing old tread up Today (at mini-meet - thanks Birddog) I was given a chance to compare 24-120VR side by side to kit lens and found 3 main advantages of 24-120VR:

Two images were taken with same focal length 50mm and same aperture f/5. Same object was shot and light conditions were same.

1) Strength of optic. Shutter speed for kit lens was 1/800 when for VR 1/1250 in aperture priority mode. At the other scene it was 1/1600 and 1/2000 relatively.
2) VR produces less of CA than a kit lens - I especially selected scene with some contrast details - dark grean leaves with blue sky and white bench backgrounds.
3) VR produces much more pleasant bokeh with the same aperture

I'll probably post images later when I have bit more time

My personal conclusion - 24-120VR is beautiful glass and worth to get it especially for this relatively low price.

[Miliux]

No complaints about 24-120 VR here. Although i do miss the extra wide angle 18-70mm provides.

[stubbsy]

No complaints about 24-120 VR here. Although i do miss the extra wide angle 18-70mm provides.

You're right nexxus, but then that's why you need a 12-24mm

[Miliux]

That's the next lens willing to purchase.

Back to the point. the VR really helped me a lot especially when i take pics at low light situation. I'm a club photographer and obviously the place gets dark and lazers/spotlight just illuminates the scene.

[stubbsy]

Nexxus

So I'd better not mention how awesome the 70-200 VR is then

[Miliux]

For now, no need. I do get access close to the scene (i.e. right next to Djs and the stage) so that means i won't be needing that kind of lens. Ain't a person to take pics of birds either.

With a VIP Media Privilage pass, i can get close to the action.

Oh, here's what i took last weekend.

Club Photo - Steve Hill

[Hlop]

That's the next lens willing to purchase.

Back to the point. the VR really helped me a lot especially when i take pics at low light situation. I'm a club photographer and obviously the place gets dark and lazers/spotlight just illuminates the scene.

VR is helping you with hands shaking - it won't help if subject moves. But 24-120 has higher quality glass than a kit lens. It's about 1 stop (not sure) faster with the same aperture, light and subject. So, combination of VR and high qulaity optic definetely helps

[MHD]

Thanks for that comparism!

I'm still agonising over what to do... The 24-120VR is just so affordable.... But would my hard earned be better spent on something that will not be replaced in future (ie a 24-120VR would eventually be replaced by a 28-70/2.8 while something like a 12-24DX has no replacement in the exact same focal range

[KerryPierce]

Thanks for that comparism!

I'm still agonising over what to do... The 24-120VR is just so affordable.... But would my hard earned be better spent on something that will not be replaced in future (ie a 24-120VR would eventually be replaced by a 28-70/2.8 while something like a 12-24DX has no replacement in the exact same focal range

Well, you could get the Sigma 18-50 f/2.8 EX for the same price as the 24-120. It's a very sharp, very versatile lens. Then for the low light stuff, you can bump up the ISO while you're using the 18-50 on your new Feisol monopod.

[birddog114]

Thanks for that comparism!

I'm still agonising over what to do... The 24-120VR is just so affordable.... But would my hard earned be better spent on something that will not be replaced in future (ie a 24-120VR would eventually be replaced by a 28-70/2.8 while something like a 12-24DX has no replacement in the exact same focal range

Well, you could get the Sigma 18-50 f/2.8 EX for the same price as the 24-120. It's a very sharp, very versatile lens. Then for the low light stuff, you can bump up the ISO while you're using the 18-50 on your new Feisol monopod.

The Kit lens 18-70Dx can be used instead of the Sigma 18-50 f/2.8, and low light stuff can be also used on tripod, the Sigma 18-50 f/2.8 does not have the same range as the kit lens or the Nikkor 24-120VR.

[Hlop]

Kerry,
What you're saying is right but you forgot about long end. IMHO, 50mm isn't long enough for regular "walk around" lens. It's nice to have f/2.8 but 120mm on the other hand.... Decisions, decisions, decisions .....

[MCWB]

ie a 24-120VR would eventually be replaced by a 28-70/2.8

Would it though? I've been thinking along the same lines, but I think I'd still keep my 24-120 VR, as it's just so versatile as a walkaround lens. The extra 50 mm at the telephoto end really comes in handy sometimes, as of course does the VR.

[KerryPierce]

Okay, here's what I really think, and what I went through while building my lens collection.

Instead of the kit lens, I bought the Nikkor 35-70 f/2.8d, the 12-24 Sigma and the 70-200 f/2.8 Sigma. All of these are excellent lenses that I still use. I did not buy the 24-120vr, because of all the negative stuff I read about it on DPR.

I carried those 3 lenses every day, for about a month. They're heavy and it seemed like I never had the right lens on the camera when I needed it, so I was always fumbling to change lenses.

Then I bought the 24-120vr, the 50 f/1.4 and the 80-400vr and those were carried in my bag almost every day, for the subsequent 7 or 8 months. When winter hit hard, I took out the 80-400 and then bought the Sigma 18-50.

Now, I'm back to carrying the 80-400 in the bag, with the other 3 lenses. IMO, those 4 lenses are the absolute best lenses to have, for a walk around bag. I could do without the 18-50 and the 50, if I couldn't afford them, but the other 2 will never be replaced, in my daily carry bag, unless newer models come out. I love both of those lenses and many of my most favorite shots came from them.

There are lots of lenses that are sharper than the 24-120, but none that I've seen have the versatility necessary for a walkaround lens, IMO.

[stubbsy]

Kerry

With the 24-120, 50 prime and 80-400 don't you find you're missing the wide end a little? I've seen quite a range of images from you and know you take quite a diverse range of shots so this is a bit of a puzzle to me. I'd add the 12-24 back. But that's me (hell I have Nikon glass )

[KerryPierce]

Kerry

With the 24-120, 50 prime and 80-400 don't you find you're missing the wide end a little? I've seen quite a range of images from you and know you take quite a diverse range of shots so this is a bit of a puzzle to me. I'd add the 12-24 back. But that's me (hell I have Nikon glass )

Hi Peter,

I now carry the 18-50 as well as the 3 you mentioned. It's a little smaller and lighter than the 12-24 and is what I've been using for my impromptu landscapes.

I generally carry the 12-24 when I go out specifically for landscapes and such, but the 18-50 is so sharp that I don't mind being limited to 18mm in most cases. Most of my stuff with the 12-24 was around 15mm.

[MHD]

ie a 24-120VR would eventually be replaced by a 28-70/2.8

Would it though? I've been thinking along the same lines, but I think I'd still keep my 24-120 VR, as it's just so versatile as a walkaround lens. The extra 50 mm at the telephoto end really comes in handy sometimes, as of course does the VR.

Yes that is a good point... 120 is getting quite long... and Hlop's affirmation of the optical quality of this lens is starting to sway my convictions...

Might have to have a serious play and test of this lens next time I make it to sydney... Is there a meet on next weekend ? Or is everyone heading north?

[birddog114]

Might have to have a serious play and test of this lens next time I make it to sydney... Is there a meet on next weekend ? Or is everyone heading north?

MHD,
Meet will be at Nelson Bay with sunset, sand dunes, pano, long zoom perhap with 400/ 600mm AF-S.
I have few members and partners registered.

And me! Yes, I'm dedicated to Nikkor not Sigma, the 24-120VR is more range than the 18-50, if I need more wider, than the 12-24Dx is my answer, smaller size than its competitor and its best with CPL filter.

[MHD]

No worries... Can not make it all the way to nelson I am afraid...

I am in Sydney to make an expensive purchase... and no its not lenses ...
http://www.chariotcarriers.com/

we're getting the Cougar (well at the moment... our minds change quite often!)

[birddog114]

No worries... Can not make it all the way to nelson I am afraid...

I am in Sydney to make an expensive purchase... and no its not lenses ...
http://www.chariotcarriers.com/

we're getting the Cougar (well at the moment... our minds change quite often!)

Don't spend too much monies for those, two years after, it stays in the garage.
We've been down that down that road and bought the expensive ones but look: if you proposed to have a second child or third then it will pays off otherwise, invest in the Nikkor lens instead of.

[Hlop]

Just got 24-120VR today - thanks Birddog!

Before I tried it I was thinking of it as an abstract thing I might want in the future but when I tried it I decided to get it ASAP. BTW, when you trying to compare 24-120VR and kit on Maxwell's site they look pretty much the same except VR an different zooms but really they are different

Now, I have to save for Sigma 30 f/1.4 again!

[birddog114]

Just got 24-120VR today - thanks Birddog!

Before I tried it I was thinking of it as an abstract thing I might want in the future but when I tried it I decided to get it ASAP. BTW, when you trying to compare 24-120VR and kit on Maxwell's site they look pretty much the same except VR an different zooms but really they are different

Now, I have to save for Sigma 30 f/1.4 again!

You'll enjoy with the new toy.

[Hlop]

You'll enjoy with the new toy.

I certainly will - thank you again  BTW, is there any advise like "Use one or two stops down from wide opening for the best results"? Or something similar for this particular lens?

[birddog114]

You'll enjoy with the new toy.

I certainly will - thank you again  BTW, is there any advise like "Use one or two stops down from wide opening for the best results"? Or something similar for this particular lens?

Hilpo,
it depends on how do you shoot and what the lighting is, you'll experiment it and your way in handholding photography.

[Glen]

Mikhail, looking forward to hearing your opinion of this lens

[Hlop]

Mikhail, looking forward to hearing your opinion of this lens

Here is a brief comparison at the bottom of the page: http://www.d70users.net/viewtopic.php?p=73714

I just finished shooting with kit and 24-120 before you arrived to Birddog's last Saturday.

Also, during next week I'll be shooting a lot in Singapore and I'll defenetely select some images to show

[gstark]

You'll enjoy with the new toy.

I certainly will - thank you again  BTW, is there any advise like "Use one or two stops down from wide opening for the best results"? Or something similar for this particular lens?

Mikhail,

Pretty well every lens will perform at its best stopped down somewhat. My experience is that 1 - 2 stops down from wide open on this lens is very sweet.

[MCWB]

BTW, is there any advise like "Use one or two stops down from wide opening for the best results"? Or something similar for this particular lens?

IME the 24-120 VR is acceptably sharp from f/8, and it's at its best at f/11.