I was able to get a refurbished 24-120 f/4 a while back. I had read some pretty good reviews on the lens (http://photographylife.com/reviews/nikon-24-120mm-f4g-vr) and so I bought it thinking that I could just return it if I was not happy with it. Well, I found that I could not return as I liked it A LOT!! It is a bit expensive, but, it is on my D600 most all of the time.
I bought and returned the 24-70 because I found that I needed a slightly longer reach, and the absence of VR turned out to be a deal breaker for me, however the IQ was absolutely stunning on the 24-70
Chestnut wrote:
I have the 16-85, but no DX body currently... and haven't had a real chance to shoot with the 24-120 too much yet. I do love the 16-85, which is why I also bought the 24-120. I hope the 24-120 on the DX is as good as or better than the 16-85 on DX
I used the 16-85 on my D7000, and the 24-120 on the D7k as well as a D600.
I never bonded with the 16-85. It was sharp, but seemed hollow and soulless to me. I have no technical idea why, just stating my personal reaction to it. I loved the size and build but ultimately kept shelving it in favour of other lenses.
I really liked the 24-120/4. Rich colours, nice rendering, fast AF, excellent VR. It was a very satisfying lens that saw the bulk of my use.
But Ken is NOT writing to you, or anyone else on this site. His target audience is the soccer moms and football dads out there. He is reaching the 90%+ who are NOT obsessed with 'perfect' photographs.
runamuck wrote:
But Ken is NOT writing to you, or anyone else on this site. His target audience is the soccer moms and football dads out there. He is reaching the 90%+ who are NOT obsessed with 'perfect' photographs.
Please, don't get me wrong, I still like to read Ken's reviews, but I learnt how to read between the lines.
It's a great lens and a hell of a deal with the instant rebate deal! I very seldom use the 24-70 2.8, but leave the 24-120 f4 on a D800 as I use it very often. I dislike the vegnetting, but deal with in in post.
Javier Munoz wrote:
There is not such a thing as a soulless lens ...they are tools. However I have seen quite a bit of examples of soulless photographers.
Pick whatever adjective you want. I think you get my drift; the analogy is just descriptive and not intended to be literal. The point being, lenses have very different characters, a fact that I suspect you know quite well. I preferred the characteristics of the 24-120. It obviously does not have a soul, though one (not me) might argue long into the night whether any photographer, or living thing, has a soul either.
I like the 24-120 when (a) I don't need or don't want to use the large aperture of the 24-70 f/2.8 or (b) I do need or do want to have VR. The longer FL range is an added bonus but the lens is not a,ways as sharp as the 24-70.
It seems to me that the lens sharpness varies somewhat with aperture and focal length and shooting distance. Most tests use a single shooting distance that may be different from the distance used in other tests, hence the inconsistency between test results.
The 24-20 VR generally gives quite serviceable results but is too cheap for us to expect stellar results all the time. If I could use only one lens on a trip then this would probably be the one because the VR gives added versatility for hand-held shooting at say f/5.6 or smaller when I need more DOF rather than less, and the FL versatility is great.
AF is somewhat slower than the 24-70 but I think no less accurate. The difference would be less obvious with a slow-focusing camera than with a top grade camera. As with all zooms, in-camera focus tuning can only be done at one combination of FL and distance and so you need to choose wisely.
As someone who doesn't live in the states the concept of rebates from nikon is Allen to me. Can you give me the Gen on the size of the rebate available on this lens at the moment ? For no other reason than to make me jealous !
cadman342001 wrote:
As someone who doesn't live in the states the concept of rebates from nikon is Allen to me. Can you give me the Gen on the size of the rebate available on this lens at the moment ? For no other reason than to make me jealous !
I have the 24-70 2.8, I also have the 28-70 2.8 as backup or for another shooter to use. I think it will be better to sell the 28-70 and pick up a 24-120. From all I've read here it seems to be a solid lens that will give me extra reach.
I travel on occasion and have used many of Nikon's lenses. After realizing that traveling internationally was not conducive to carrying many lenses I found my camera bag, which is as big as a parachute, is entirely too big for different modes of transportation. I used a Nikkor 18-105mm lens but found it just didn't have the reach I was looking for. I bought the 24-120mm lens and am very happy with the results. Even though the aperture is only f/4, I use it on a D3S body to get the results I am looking for. This lens works perfectly for my use and I am very satisfied with the quality and sharpness of this lens.
I had one that I bought from FM member Charles Loy, sold and ended up really regretting it. Just bought one and received it today. Love this lens, it will not be sold a second time..
I have the 24-70 2.8 and I also had the 24-120 f4. I think I had a bad copy of the 24-120 because I could not get rid of horrible vignetting on my FF cameras. I returned the 24-120 and picked up a 28-300. I am happy with my choice.
No Mercy wrote:
I have the 24-70 2.8 and I also had the 24-120 f4. I think I had a bad copy of the 24-120 because I could not get rid of horrible vignetting on my FF cameras. I returned the 24-120 and picked up a 28-300. I am happy with my choice.
LR gets rid of the vignetting (and distortion for that matter) with a single click
