I have been contemplating the 24-120 F4. I currently have a 14-24, 24-70 a 85.1.4 70-300 4.5 and a 105 2.8 in the 24-120 focal range. I would use it shooting PJ stuff as well a sports lens for say end-zone coverage. I do like he idea of covering the whole 24-120 in one lens and it's a bit more compact. I realize
I would not have a real shallow DOF. Iv'e also seen this lens used by Bill Frakes as a portrait lens with pleasing results. Thought I would ask ya'll that actually shoot this lens with your thoughts.
Thanks!
Don
It is a very good walk-around lens. I use it on D800e and I am quite satisfied with it for most occasions. Of course, lenses with this kind of zoom range make some compromises, but comparing it to the Canon 24-105L which I was using before, this lens makes the right compromises.
The VR is strange though, specially at longer length it is not very effective. Maybe one stop, if that.
The 24-120/4 is a very good all-purpose lens, I've been satisfied with my copy. It replaced a lot of Tamron 28-75 / 70-300 VR lens swapping. It has inherent faults that are easily corrected with LR lens profiles.
If you like the idea of covering 24-120 in one lens, I don't think you have many other choices.
Love mine too. Rich, contrasty, sharp everywhere at both ends of the range. For me, fast enough AF to easily capture fast sports. Here's a couple of shots from a country fair, for example. All taken wide open (with my former D7000. Haven't had my D600 long enough to get good samples from this lens yet).
bemyzeke wrote:
It is a very good walk-around lens. I use it on D800e and I am quite satisfied with it for most occasions. Of course, lenses with this kind of zoom range make some compromises, but comparing it to the Canon 24-105L which I was using before, this lens makes the right compromises.
I think you should try this lens before buying it. You might like it: the zoom range is great, the constant f/4 is nice, the VR is useful, the optics seem to be pretty good (for a 5 × zoom). But the mechanical quality is fairly shocking. Among other things, there’s the usual low-end Nikkor play in the focusing ring, even though $1300 is hardly a low-end price.
Not saying it’s a bad lens altogether. In fact, I keep thinking I should get one. But there’s a big difference in mechanical quality between this lens and the 24-70 mm f/2.8.
thus the substantial pricing difference. and yes there can be/is an optical "hit" too but learning and knowing any lenses limitations helps a little. it is a good solid lens that fits many needs.
my almost equivalent in my D7000 is the Sigma 17-70/2.8-4
Yes, the 24-70 mm f/2.8 is about 50% more expensive, and even at that price it’s by no means a ‘perfect’ lens. There are always compromises, no matter how much money you throw at a problem.
I just think Don (the topic starter) should handle the 24-120 mm f/4 before plunking down $1300 for it, since he already owns the 24-70 mm f/2.8 and might have higher expectations than most people.
Then again, people don’t often complain about the play in the focus ring of the 24-120 mm f/4, even though it would drive me nuts in live-view manual focus. It shouldn’t matter when using autofocus.
well I have to say on mine I have no real play in the focus ring that I perceive. I rarely use live view except in macro so this would not be an option there. I guess over the years I've been shooting with the gear that's passed through my hands I tend to be a little less sensitive as long as it works.
The 24-120 mm f/4 has some sort of reduction gear between the focusing ring and the distance scale. The play that I noticed means that when you reverse the direction of movement of the focusing ring, it travels a short distance before starting to move the lens elements and distance scale.
I observed this with several samples over the last couple of years (since the lens came out), but some are probably better than others.
It’s not a deal-breaker, but I was a bit surprised to see this on a $1300 lens. I’m used to that behaviour on cheaper AF-S Nikkors (my 16-85 mm f/3.5-5.6 had a lot of play).
The zoom ring of the 24-120 mm f/4 is also a bit stiff at the wide end, considering the close spacing of the focal lengths. Zooming from 24 mm to 28 mm happens very quickly compared to the 24-70 mm f/2.8.
The focal-length range is extremely flexible, so this lens still appeals to me.
I had one for a little bit and must have had a bad copy. I got a lot of dark corners on night time, flash shots. I ended up selling it. I borrowed one from borrowlenses.com just to see if I wanted to go back to it. I must have gotten a better copy from them because I didn't have the issues with the dark corners on their lens as I did with the one I had. I almost got another one, but decided to go with the 28-300 for now. If it doesn't work out, then I still may get the 24-120.
S Dilworth wrote:
The 24-120 mm f/4 has some sort of reduction gear between the focusing ring and the distance scale. The play that I noticed means that when you reverse the direction of movement of the focusing ring, it travels a short distance before starting to move the lens elements and distance scale.
I observed this with several samples over the last couple of years (since the lens came out), but some are probably better than others.
It’s not a deal-breaker, but I was a bit surprised to see this on a $1300 lens. I’m used to that behaviour on cheaper AF-S Nikkors (my 16-85 mm f/3.5-5.6 had a lot of play).
The zoom ring of the 24-120 mm f/4 is also a bit stiff at the wide end, considering the close spacing of the focal lengths. Zooming from 24 mm to 28 mm happens very quickly compared to the 24-70 mm f/2.8.
The focal-length range is extremely flexible, so this lens still appeals to me....Show more →
it is a clutching mechanism not gearing. my 24-70 is looser then my 24-120 on the focus ring
