nikon 24-120

photogincollege · Dec 1, 2007

http://www.buydig.com/shop/product.aspx?sku=NK24120G

I was wondering what everyone thinks of this lens? Are there any problems with it? i was thinking about going with this and a 50mm 1.8 that way i have a good sharp zoom and a good portrait/depth of field/low light lens. Any advice or comments?

Sw1tchFX · Dec 2, 2007

I have a 24-120 and enjoy it very much, however, it's not wide angle unless I use it on 35mm.

I use the 24-120 when I need to pack light. It is not fast, nor sharp, but has VR, so you can shoot down to about 1/10th of a second hand held if your posture and technique is good.

It's a good walk-around lens, but I would never use it on a paid job.

It worked pretty good when my 17-55 was being fixed and I needed something shorter than 80mm.

I'll post up a few %100 crops form some of the better photos.

photogincollege · Dec 2, 2007

Is the tamron 17-50 sharper, ive hard good things about it.

photogincollege · Dec 2, 2007

ok heres a good question, if you could have any 1 lens plus the 50 mm 1.8, what would it be? this is nikon mount only.

Sw1tchFX · Dec 2, 2007

Here's some shots and 100% crops from the 24-120.

Wamu tower:

100% crop from upper right hand corner (f/9.5 is the sharpest aperture)

Puget sound at 1/8th of a second, hand held, 24mm:

100%:

Mt. Hood (not hand-held, used a tripod f/9.5)

100% crop:

You can see that it's ok, but not great. It's flexible, that's why people buy it. For the same reason people buy the 18-200.

These are all from my D70, so on anything larger than 6mp, it's just going to look worse because most of the time the lens doesn't resolve more detail than what my 6mp sensor can pick up. my 17-55 f/2.8 Nikkor resolves more detail at f/2.8 than the 24-120 does stopped down. 70-90mm f/9.5 is about as good as it gets for it. At 70mm, this thing is already an f/5.6 lens, so it's not quick by any stretch.

Sw1tchFX · Dec 2, 2007

photogincollege said:
ok heres a good question, if you could have any 1 lens plus the 50 mm 1.8, what would it be? this is nikon mount only.

18-200 vr. Might as well be as flexible as possible, right?

I don't' have the 50 f/1.8, I don't need it. But if it were 2 lenses, than my 17-55 and my 80-200.

photogincollege · Dec 2, 2007

ok, heres my situation, im getting some extra money soon, i have 1500 dollars. Im getting a nikon d80 and a 50 mm 1.8 for sure. Id like one more good lens to go with it. What do ya think? In total the 50 mm and d80 i can get for 899. Id like to have some zoom but would be willing to sacrifice some zoom for image quality. Or should i save the 100 dollars from the 50 mm and put it towards one zoom lens?

photogincollege · Dec 2, 2007

Hows the tamron 17-50 2.8? I hear good things about it.

Sw1tchFX · Dec 2, 2007

Just get the 18-70 or 18-135 and than figure out what you need from there. They give alot of flexibility, are sharp (especially the 18-70), and only about $300, so you have another $300 to spend on cleaning tools, bags, tripods, memory cards, filters, flashes, whatever..

I don't know about the Tamron, I use a Nikon camera so I can use Nikkor lenses.

photogincollege · Dec 2, 2007

i went to the store and took a few pics with the 50 1.4, 28-75 2.8, 18-55 kit, and the 24-120 3.5-5.6. I liked the prime and the 28-75 2.8 the others were a bit lacking in quality. Also just some background, ive been doing photography for a few years and am currently in college for photography (hence the name) so im kind of a stickler for quality lol. Do you have any pics with the 18-70?

Sw1tchFX · Dec 2, 2007

photogincollege said:
i went to the store and took a few pics with the 50 1.4, 28-75 2.8, 18-55 kit, and the 24-120 3.5-5.6. I liked the prime and the 28-75 2.8 the others were a bit lacking in quality. Also just some background, ive been doing photography for a few years and am currently in college for photography (hence the name) so im kind of a stickler for quality lol. Do you have any pics with the 18-70?

I'm also a student, also majoring in photography, and the 18-70 and 18-135's have more than enough quality for a student.

i had some 18-70 images from when I borrowed one, but not anymore. They were very sharp and usable images. Sharp enough to be used professionally. I've also used the 18-135 and was sharp too, sharper than my 24-120, but no VR. The 18-135 though has the flexibility that would be worth more than quality, especially for students.

In context, for a student, flexibility is worth more than quality. Trust me. You could easily and competently do your entire portfolio using the 18-135. It's a 28-200 equivalent for 35mm.

If I were in your shoes, Going to get a D80 and 50 f/1.8 for school and had $600 left. I would spend $300ish of that on the 18-135, $180ish on an SB-600, and the rest on misc. accessories. A flexible lens + flash that can be used off camera is (creatively) worth MUCH more than a single zoom such as a 17-50. You can use the SB-600 on location for portraits for example and have two-light portraits. The sun can be the hair light while the SB-600 is your key light!

If you want quality, than just check out school equipment, they should have the expensive stuff anyway.

johnmh · Dec 2, 2007

Used this for years as a carry-around with a D70 on vacations. Flexible and got more than enough good shots with it. Less distortion than with the 18-200 and the VR IS nice to have. Got yeoman use from this lens and carried it all over the place. Eventually added the 70-300 VR for more reach and swapped between them - all I carried until a couple years back. Have since upgraded significantly but can't complain about what I got at the time. My wife had an 18-55 but now loves the 18-200 VR with her D40 - light weight and a good range - so we had a pretty wide range covered between us.

Keep in mind that our use was mainly outdoors - landscapes and wildlife (with increasing kids sports shots), hence the longer reach with the 70-300 - eventually justifying the 70-200 2.8 and converters.

The 24-120 is a decent first lens - readily supplemented by an 18-55 and a nonVR 70-300. Both are relatively cheap but give decent quality for the price (You can probably pick up the 24-120VR, the 18-55 AND the 70-300 nonVR for what you'd pay for the 18-200 VR and the 18-200 has some distortion issues)

It seems like some are taking the 18-55 (about $100) and 55-200VR (about $200) route - which gives you more reach than just the 24-120 for LESS money. You really can live without the VR at the lower end. The 18-55 surprised us - pleasantly - but I have no experience with the 55-200 VR which has the VR at the high end where you'll notice it. However you will be changing lenses more often with the split at 55 - when you won't have to with the 24-120.

Can't speak on non-Nikon lenses, though my son has a nonVR Tamron 18-200 he's happy with. Others may have opinions on better options there for your money.

Buydig has an ok but not great rating on resellerratings.com. Never dealt with them. If you have any local places to check out used lenses, they can also save you $$$.

photogincollege · Dec 2, 2007

lol i hate to ask but any pics of the 18-135, ill probably end up going to the camera store again this week and try both those and see what i think. I think if it is sharp id rather go with the 18-135 and the prime that way if i do need a super sharp lens i can always go with the prime.

Sw1tchFX · Dec 2, 2007

Nikkor 18-135:

http://flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=1360908884&size=o

That's pretty dang sharp if you ask me. Build quality isn't the greatest and has vignetting (easily correctable), but it's sharp and flexible.

http://www.bythom.com/18135lens.htm

photogincollege · Dec 2, 2007

hmm, just saw the review of both on photozone. They look very promising, especially for the price. I like the idea of getting one of them with the prime and the flash.