Nikkor 24-120mm VR?

Sw1tchFX · Dec 9, 2006

I'm seriously considering buying a 24-120 VR for a walk around lens. If Im in the middle of downtown Seattle, it's a real pain in the butt to change lenses if needed, and I really feel uncomfortable doing it in the middle of the street because of all the people.

The 18-200mm is impossible to get, and Im thinking that this will be able to be a lens that I can fit on my D70 and generally do anything, It's also got VR so if I don't have my tripod handy, Ill still be ok as long as the exposure is above 1/30th. Should I sell my 35-70 f/2.8 and use the money to buy the 24-120? I really really like my 35-70 because it's the sharpest lens I got, but I don't know how Im going to find almost $500 to buy the 24-120 otherwise. Ive locked in a seasonal position for a 2nd job, but that money is for other people.

Does anyone have one of these, and will you tell me whether or not I should get it as a walk-around lens, or just keep switching out what Ive got in the middle of the streets?

fmw · Dec 9, 2006

The 18-200 is on Ebay every day. You can get one any time you like. Personally, I wouldn't buy a 10X zoom made by anybody. That has to have some serious issues. The 24-120 is quite slow. I had one back in the film days and found the speed at the long end to be so difficult that I relegated the lens for use only at events with flash. Perhaps the VR would make it viable. But looking at your lens collection, why would you want it? You have better zoom lenses than that one already. It sounds like you're buying a lens just to buy lens, not because it contribute to your photography.

Sw1tchFX · Dec 9, 2006

I'm thinking of buying it because If I need to go in the city to shoot an assignment, It's a royal pain in the butt to have to stop everything that i'm doing, take my camera bag off my back, open it, change lenses, close everything back up, sling it back on, and then start shooting again. I also hate looking obvious becuase then I become a target, and I know a few people who have been shooting and get their gear stolen right out of their hands. And walking around with an f/2.8 lens is not exactly subtle.

With the 24-120, I could just go out on assignment with that and my D70 only and be much more flexible than if I took only one of my other lenses (usually the 35-70). I could also do near twilight shooting without a tripod so again, i'd be more flexible and I could get more pictures made instead of spending the time to set up one of my tripods.

Now for something that needs speed, longer telephoto, or extra wide, than it's the 18-35, 35-70 and 80-200 all the way.

I can also use the 24-120 on AF 35mm bodies (eventually getting an N80 for when I do 35mm film in school. compared to my D70, my FE is too slow, for the city unless I really want to take my time. You can't use the 18-200 on 35mm.

fmw · Dec 9, 2006

JIP · Dec 9, 2006

Yeah but it still does not make sense if you have a 35-70 2.8 why you would ever want to buy a cheaper lens just for convenience.

Sw1tchFX · Dec 10, 2006

That's exactly why i'm buying it. It's alot more flexible to walk in the middle of a crowded city with a 24-120 than it would be with a 35-70 or any of my other lenses. There will be times when the 24-120 just won't cut it and that's why I got my other lenses to make up for it. I just REALLY want something that I can use as a general purpose walk-around lens that I can 'put in my pocket' and cover a decent area.