I have read mixed reviews about this lens on dx cameras. I was wondering how it performs on fx cameras, D3, D700 and DX3.
I would be using it as a landscape lens. I cannot afford 14-24, 24-70, 28-70 at the moment as i have just bought the D700 and 200mm f2 VR.
Are there better performing zooms at a resonable price ?
As Gregory suggested primes is one option, you can get 20mm, 50mm and 85mm/105mm and you will have a very capable collection.
If you want to stick to zooms then in mid-range 24-85 (afs model) and 28-105 are both very good, I have used them both and was quite happy with them. 24-85 is sharper and faster focusing plus the filter mount doesn't rotate, 28-105 is more distortion free and has a useful 2:1 macro feature. They are both also very good size for walk around kit. If you want a wider zoom 18-35 is quite good, again I have used it was quite pleased with the results.
There is no way I'd put a 24-120mm on a D700. That's widely regarded as one of Nikon's weakest performing lenses made in the past 20 years. As for the old so-called primes, they have problems too. Most are 20+ year old design. Just as cameras have improved over the past 20 years, lenses have improved even more! I had the Nikon 20mm f2.8 AFD and was spectacularly unimpressed with it. Again, one of Nikon's weaker lenses. It had underwhelming image quality even on my D300. You could go for some Zeiss ZF mount lenses. They have great image quality and modern coatings, but you won't be saving any money. As mentioned above, the Nikon 24-85mm and 28-105mm are decent. Consumer grade and not f2.8 though. The Nikon 18-35mm is excellent, but again it's consumer grade, not pro. It's slow. These older consumer grade lenses were made without the modern coatings and lens design to cut down CA. You would get better image quality by buying first class pro lenses and using them on a D300, for about the same dollar amount. Lenses are much more important than cameras.
I am using a used Nikon 28-105. Only $150 and much better (and faster) than the 24-120.
Hopefully Nikon will one day give us an updated 24-120 or something like the Canon 24-105 f/4 IS. Actually today I ordered a new 5dii + 24-105. I am being driven back to the light side...
Nikon really needs to come out with some modern f4 VR lenses like Canon has. I'm baffled that they haven't. What's the sense in making a high performance camera if they can't support it with modern quality lenses?
I tried 3 copies of the 24-120VR and sold them all within 2 weeks.
This lens is likely the worst option in Nikon's lens lineup although the focal length is almost ideal.
I tried the AF-S 24-85G and AF 24-85 as well and now I'm using the 28-105.
As john .s (and probably a lot more) I'm waiting for an acceptable lens. (But I'm not going back!! )
I tried the so-called "prime" route on my D300, to get fast apertures. It just didn't give me the quality I was wanting. Keep in mind that Nikon's single focal lenses are about 20 yr. old design now--no ED, no aspherical elements, old pre-digital lens coatings, etc. The problems I was running into were CA, flare, plus on some of the lenses the image just didn't have the snap & contrast a modern lens will give. That's possibly due to the coatings. Next, none of those (exception new 50mm f1.4G) have AFS. What's the point in buying a D700 with blazing fast focus, and then cripple it with old AFD lenses? Add to that I was always seemingly missing fast breaking shots and exposing my sensor to dust more times than I really liked because I had to change lenses. For me, the old Nikon lenses just didn't work out. If I shot in a studio environment I might have been a lot happier, perhaps. Some of the third party pro f2.8 zooms are definitely worth looking at, although personally I would go cheap on the camera before I ever went cheap on the lenses. The Sigma, Tamron etc. can be a real bargain second hand on eBay. The Sigma 50mm f1.4 gets better reviews than the new Nikon one does. That and the Tamron 90mm f2.8 are outstanding values when bought used.
I have a Sigma 24-70 f2.8. The new one. Great lens. In a few weeks I will probably get a Nikon 85 f1.8. I already have a Sigma 105 macro. Between the three I have the 24-120 beat hands down. Or, I get out the Tamron 24-135 and still beat the Nikon 24-120 into the ground.
As Chris Dees said, the 24-120 MM focal length is almost ideal. Too bad Nikon can't seem to make it work. Tamron's 24-135 made it work far better than Nikon did, though it's still not as good as the 24-70MM, 85MM 105MM combo.
Two23 wrote:
Nikon really needs to come out with some modern f4 VR lenses like Canon has. I'm baffled that they haven't. What's the sense in making a high performance camera if they can't support it with modern quality lenses?
I would suggest saving your $$$ for a while and then getting the 14-24 and 24-70. Both are generally better than any comparable Canon glass, with the exception of the 85L (love that lens). I have been using the 14-24 and the quality of the images it produces is wonderful compared to almost any lens I've owned in the past 20+ years.
phatnev wrote:
Primes on D700 > Primes on any DX body
What kind of fast breaking shots were you missing? Shooting sports? Or Journalism?
I use all AF-D lenses for everything except sports and find that the AF is adequate provided there's no user error. Sports is a completely ball game.
What I was getting at is that once I was taking a shot with 180mm f2.8 on the camera, and suddenly a deer runs right past me 30 ft. away with coyote in hot pursuit. If I had a zoom, I could have got the shot. I might have 28mm lens on, and suddenly a shot pops up that I need much longer lens, and I miss the shot. With zooms, I change lenses a lot less, can shoot much more quickly. I do shoot some local sports (high school football, small town softball) and don't think I could live without the 70-200mm VR, especially for night shots.
)