Nikkor 24-120MM F3.5-5.6G ED-IF AF-S VR Zoom Lens VERSUS the 70-200 MM F 2.8 G ED-IF AF-s VR Zoom Lens

Thread view:

Enable EMail Alerts

Start New Thread

Thread rating:

Old Man River - 25 Mar 2006 07:03 GMT

Hello, Not trying to start a war.

I currently have the D-70S and the Kit Lens. In addition I have the
80-400MM Zoom VR lens. It's ok, and I took some great pictures with it. I
want something in the middle, or I will get rid of the 80-400 and use the
70-200 Instead.

Was wondering if anyone has and uses the 24-220 lens mentioned above? I
want to purchase a Diopter to use if for macro photography and based on the
review at http://www.naturfotograf.com he does not think it's as good a lens
as the 70-200 VR.

I am asking for your personal experiences and how you have used the lens
(24-120) what issues you have had to overcome and what you did.

The lens sells for around 510.00 US at D and H. Looked on e-bay and could
not find one there.

My girlfriend uses the 24-85 F2,8-4D IF AF Zoom, and that is just a great
piece of glass. Takes excellent pictures. Suppose I could duplicate that
lens and use the 70-200 for the long stuff.

The 24-85 has a macro setting. However, John and Barbara Gerlach, mentioned
in one of their classes that if you have a good 200MM lens, making it into a
macro lens is easier with a diopter, so trying to kill two birds with one
stone. A dedicated macro lens is just that, and I want some flexibility.

Thank you in advance for taking the time to at least read this.

And no, I am not going to change brands and go to Cannon, and no I don't
care about Full Frame sensor now. I need to improve in my photography first
and the better equipment will come later. The D200 is nice, but way more
camera than I can use. Plus I want to see how it evolves down the road for
a year or so first. Thom Hogan and Dpreview reviews are good, but there are
enough small things I don't want to spend the money now.

Sincerely,

Old Man River

Reply to this Message

Guns/Zen4 - 25 Mar 2006 07:27 GMT

I have the 24-120 and covet the 70-200 f/2.8.

The 24-120 is surprisingly sharp sometimes:
http://faczen.smugmug.com/gallery/1248085/1/58516768/Large
http://faczen.smugmug.com/gallery/1248332/1/58523017/Large

It's amazing what you can do with the VR (handheld)
http://faczen.smugmug.com/gallery/1248711/2/60720529/Large
http://faczen.smugmug.com/gallery/1248711/1/58541162/Large

That said, I've heard of people complaining that they've gotten a soft
one

Glenn
Photo gallery at http://faczen.smugmug.com
Reply via the web portal at www.faczen.com
or email usenet at faczen dot ca

> Hello, Not trying to start a war.
>
[quoted text clipped - 35 lines]
>
> Old Man River

Reply to this Message

Paul Furman - 25 Mar 2006 20:05 GMT

24-120MM F3.5-5.6G ED-IF AF-S VR Zoom Lens VERSUS the
70-200 MM F 2.8 G ED-IF AF-s VR Zoom Lens

> I currently have the D-70S and the Kit Lens. In addition I have the
> 80-400MM Zoom VR lens. It's ok, and I took some great pictures with it. I
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> review at http://www.naturfotograf.com he does not think it's as good a lens
> as the 70-200 VR.

They are very different ranges & different quality. I'm not sure if the
24-120 would be better than the kit lens in it's range, it's not as wide
& slower f/stop. Certainly the 70-200 would be better than the 80-400 in
it's range.

> I am asking for your personal experiences and how you have used the lens
> (24-120) what issues you have had to overcome and what you did.
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
> macro lens is easier with a diopter, so trying to kill two birds with one
> stone. A dedicated macro lens is just that, and I want some flexibility.

A dedicated macro is more flexible as it can focus to infinity also. A
'diopter' setup is akward, only working within a few feet range and some
compromise in image quality. I've got a 70-200 VR with a screw-on +2
diopter closeup lens and it is nice but inconvenient. The only good one
available for the 70-200 is a 2-element Canon & it is not cheap. It is
akward to use, I need to keep screwing it on & off for different
conditions. But it is nifty to have 200mm stabilized macro!

The 70-200 VR is big & heavy.

> Thank you in advance for taking the time to at least read this.
>
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>
> Old Man River

Reply to this Message

Old Man River - 26 Mar 2006 09:37 GMT

Thank you for the information. I think based on some additional research,
that I am going to purchase the 70-200 sell my girlfriend the 80-400 for her
N80 and (she will also buy the D70S later when I move up) and down the road
a piece will purchase the same lens she has for my camera. It has the macro
feature but much better appture at 2.8. I don't like the kit lens, but it's
got good glass, it's just does not have the macro feature. I am going to
set up a humming bird feeder and try to take pictures of them so will need
the macro part.

Old Man River.

Reply to this Message