Nikon 24-120 F4?

[PhotoWrangler]

Any FX users shooting this lens?

Any input on image and build quality? Personal thoughts or opinions of the lens? Sample images?

 

[manaheim]

A man I know who has more money than god, has every lens and Nikon body known to man and who produces some BEAUTIFUL images ... uses this lens a LOT. I don't know if he does any serious work with it, but every time I see him he has that lens bolted onto his D4 or whatever he happens to be running that day. He says that the IQ and build quality is excellent and that it's his favorite all-around lens.

That is TOTALLY second hand info, but I figured it was worth mentioning.

 

[PhotoWrangler]

hmmmm.... I've always been a 2.8 boy, but I'm seriously thinking about a 50mm 1.4, and this 24-120 as an every day lens.

 

[Patrice]

A friend uses one as his main lens on a D700 and he is very happy with it. There are lots of sources of information and reviews on this lens to be found on the web.

 

[PhotoWrangler]

I am on the web.

 

[Derrel]

Ken Rockwell's review on the web Nikon 24-120mm f/4 VR G

Thom Hogan's review on the web Nikon 24-120mm AF-S VR Nikkor review by Thom Hogan

The DxO Mark review of the lens on the web Tests and reviews for the lens Nikon AF-S VR Zoom-Nikkor 24-120mm f/4G ED - DxOMark

I assume you mean the "new" VR version of this lens, not the cruddy AF-D version.

 

[PhotoWrangler]

I assume you mean the "new" VR version of this lens, not the cruddy AF-D version.

Yes, the one that was released last year was it?

And I don't pay attention to those 'review' sites. They're usually 'reviewed' for pay or donations, and are typically unnecessarily nit picky.

I was just wondering what real world users thought of the lens, but apparently this isn't the place to ask those kinds of questions.

 

[Derrel]

I assume you mean the "new" VR version of this lens, not the cruddy AF-D version.

Yes, the one that was released last year was it?

And I don't pay attention to those 'review' sites. They're usually 'reviewed' for pay or donations, and are typically unnecessarily nit picky.

I was just wondering what real world users thought of the lens, but apparently this isn't the place to ask those kinds of questions.

You're making some very off-based assumptions. Those three reviews will tell you almost everything you need to know about the lens.

Speaking of real-world assessment of lenses, a "real world assessment" of a lens, as opposed to a review from a VERY experienced, very gear-rich, well-learned reviewer like Ken Rockwell or Thom Hogan is that those two men have experience with HUNDREDS of different lenses, and dozens of cameras, and decades of experience, whereas a typical "real-world" reviewer these days is likely to be an enthusiast shooter who has four or five lenses, tops, and maybe five years' worth of experience to draw upon.

Here's the deal: the lens is designed to be an all-in-one travel lens. On the D800, it's not good enough to leverage the sensor. The lens must be stopped down to f/8 to be "decent". It's an f/4 max, so the finder image is dimmer than on better lenses. It's not that good a lens. The DxO Mark MPix resolution numbers place it solidly in the lower end of the Nikkor zooms performance wise, but it has a wide range of focal lengths, and has VR, and it's AF-S. it is nowhere NEAR as good as a 28-70 or 24-70 AF-S, and even the older Nikkor primes, the low-end 24mm and 28mm f/2.8 primes, are better.The 28/1.8-G blows it away. The 35/2 is better at 35mm. The 50/1.8 AF or AF-D or the new 50/1.8 G are all better at 50mm. The 85/1.8 blows its ******* doors off. The 55 and 60mm micro-Nikkors are all vastly sharper, and better.

The 24-120 f/4 AF-S VR is a zoom lens, designed as a zoom lens, designed for utility and convenience, not ultimate performance. Will it take decent pictures? Sure. But the corners are weak on FF. On lower MP count sensors, 16 or 14 MP or 12 MP, sure, why not! On a 24 MP D3200 or D5200 or D7100, I would want a better lens for many uses, like landscapes, but...there is a difference between image quality and the quality of the pictures. In landscape and nature shots, the image quality aspect is very important; in "social" photo situations, the subjects, and the situations, and the "picture" is more of the main concern. So, a personal recommendation from a nature shooter or a landscaper might have a huge emphasis on flare, or the short lengths, whereas a street shooter might be more worried about the focus speed, and so on. The reviewers I listed go over a lot of different things.

In short, the 24-120 VR-G is a utility lens designed for hobbyists and convenience-minded users who want a compact SINGLE-lens solution with average optics, for a reasonable price. It is designed as a "weekender". I know this from all the samples I see in the For Sale case at my local Nikon dealer. I talk to my sales people. I read. I compare test numbers against lenses I own. This design has strengths: VERSATILITY, size, and VR, and price. It has weaknesses too: OPTICS. Aperture.

 

[astroNikon]

Off of Derrel's comments ....

As newbie guy I often convince myself that a lens is better than it actually is. Experience and reading and the realization that a good lens actually costs some good money keeps me from buying mistakes that don't do what I want it to do.

Case in point. I want proper fast Focus in all lighting and background OOF, thus I now only want f/2.8 lens or faster.
Of course for my kids sports I want to buy a Nikon 80-200/2.8 AF-D lens and I start wandering to cheaper versions of NIkon and 3rd party only to snap myself back to reality, and thus to save up for what I need (even though I want something this weekend LOL).

It all comes down to what is it that you are looking for in the lens?
Low light?
DOF control/background OOF? (essentially 2.8 or faster)
or a compromise lens that is good at a lot of things, just not great?

Of course as a non-Pro I want the best at the lowest price. BUT, It is just is not there. Thus I have to realize it costs money to get a nice lens.
But boy, are those nice lenses nice
I certainly would love Nikon 800mm lens but have you seen the price ?


and now that Derrel mentions it ... I figured something else out. Why in my viewfinder sometimes it's fairly dim compared to other lens settings or other lenses. I never correlated the viewfinder dim-ness and aperture which of course lets light in.