Nikkor 24-120

Thread view:

Enable EMail Alerts

Start New Thread

Thread rating:

Dps - 25 Nov 2004 11:47 GMT

Hi all,

I was given a nikkor 24-120 from a friend to use and keep if I like it. The
lens is brand new, he only used it for a couple of rolls. He gave it up a
couple of years ago as he says that it's optical performance is mediocre. I
used the lens yesterday, but yet didn't have the results to check for
myself. I really like this lens since I got it on my camera, and I like the
focal length range. Does anyone have and care to share experiences with this
lens?

Thanks a lot

Dimitris

Reply to this Message

I.Reject.Spam@my.isp - 25 Nov 2004 13:43 GMT

Archived from "Dps" <servis*REMOVE THIS*@deslab.ntua.gr> on Thu, 25 Nov 2004
13:47:33 +0200:

>Hi all,
>
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
>
>Dimitris

I have that lens, AF-S VR. I have found it to be less than satisfactory.
Compared to other Nikkor lenses I agree its performance is mediocre. OTOH,
if you are just using it for snapshots, hey, its fine. And... if your friend
is donating it to you, the price is certainly right. ;)

Reply to this Message

Dps - 25 Nov 2004 13:54 GMT

Thanks for the answer,

> I have that lens, AF-S VR. I have found it to be less than satisfactory.
> Compared to other Nikkor lenses I agree its performance is mediocre. OTOH,
> if you are just using it for snapshots, hey, its fine. And... if your friend
> is donating it to you, the price is certainly right. ;)

Well, the one I am having is NOT the VR, it is the older version (with the
keep-your-own-hands-steady system ;-) ) I'll probably give it a try with a
couple of rolls, and compare it with my other lens at common focal lengths.
It is discouraging o know that what people say about this one is true... it
is certainly a handy lens... I would buy a tamron 28-75/2.8 anyway....

Reply to this Message

TAFKAB - 25 Nov 2004 15:05 GMT

> Thanks for the answer,
>
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
> it
> is certainly a handy lens... I would buy a tamron 28-75/2.8 anyway....

The older one is sharper at wide angles than the new one, but the new one is
sharper at tele angles. Either one is a good lens, but not comparable to
Nikon's pro lenses, like the 28-70 2.8 or the 35-70 2.8. But, it can produce
nice results as long as you know it's limitations. Here's a link to a
review:

http://www.ferrario.com/ruether/articles.html#24-120

The gentleman who writes these reviews is, from what I can see, pretty
objective. I've got the new one, and really like it for the VR function.

Reply to this Message

Michael Benveniste - 26 Nov 2004 14:15 GMT

>Well, the one I am having is NOT the VR, it is the older version (with the
>keep-your-own-hands-steady system ;-) ) I'll probably give it a try with a
>couple of rolls, and compare it with my other lens at common focal lengths.

I had one up to a couple of months ago and decided to trade for the VR
version.

The old one's an "f/8 and be there" lens, literally and figuratively.
It can put a lot of shots in the can, but doesn't get sharp until it's
stopped down 1.5 stops or so. I used mine the main lens of a
lightweight hiking/tourist kit and found it to be a reasonable
compromise in that role.

Signature

Michael Benveniste -- mhb-offer@clearether.com
Spam and UCE professionally evaluated for $419. Use this email
address only to submit mail for evaluation.

Reply to this Message

Scott Schuckert - 25 Nov 2004 14:59 GMT

> Does anyone have and care to share experiences with this
> lens?

I tried one for a while, then went back to my 35-105 (internal focus
model). The 24-120 wasn't awful, it just wasn't...right. And the huge
diameter was awkward to hold.

Legend has it, however, that this lens has more than the usual
sample-to-sample variation, so look carefully at your results.

Reply to this Message

nick c - 30 Nov 2004 01:29 GMT

>>Does anyone have and care to share experiences with this
>>lens?
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> Legend has it, however, that this lens has more than the usual
> sample-to-sample variation, so look carefully at your results.

As as general purpose lens, it's a keeper. I would not be without mine
and I have many lenses to draw upon for different occasions.

Reply to this Message

Dps - 26 Nov 2004 14:54 GMT

Thanks a lot guys, I roughly got an idea on what tolook for and what to
expect. I'll test the lens and compare it to others as soon as I can. I'll
post the results if anyone wants to see.

Thanks again!!!
-- dimitris

Reply to this Message

Ken Rosenbaum - 29 Nov 2004 21:53 GMT

> Thanks a lot guys, I roughly got an idea on what tolook for and what to
> expect. I'll test the lens and compare it to others as soon as I can. I'll
> post the results if anyone wants to see.
>
> Thanks again!!!
> -- dimitris

I just got back from a Thanksgiving trip to Washington, D.C., where I
carried the newly acquired 24-120 first version attached to my N8008s on a
walking tour of the capital. I shot three rolls, and was very impressed with
the results. Distortion was minimal. Of course, at 24mm and tilting up, I
got the usual converging at the tops of the buildings. Nothing unexpected
there. The lens was positively spectacular for the inside shots I took of
family, mostly grandkids. It will be my first choice from now on for an
all-purpose travel lens when I want to travel light. The hood also appeared
to help, since it was bright and sunny, and there is no flare anywhere in my
shots. The sharpness in my 4x6 shots was no worse than any of my primes, but
I admit this isn't a scientific test. When I blow up a shot or two to 11x14,
I'll get a better idea, but it all looks darned good under a loupe.
Ken

Reply to this Message