 |
|
|
jchastn
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Mar 25, 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 7
|
|
Review Date: May 14, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $514.00
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp, great color contrast, fast silent focus, balances well with my D70, VR works great.
|
|
Cons:
|
None
|
|
|
I bought this lens at the same time that I bought my 105 MicroNikkor VR. I had read some reviews that seemed to portray the lens as less than sharp, but I compared this lens to the 105 (which is supersharp) and the thing is very sharp. I wonder if some bad examples got into circulation. This lens lives now on my D70. I use it for everything but architecture, landscape and macro. With the 12-24 dx and the 105Micro, I have everything I need.
|
|
 May 14, 2006
|
|
Grognard
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jun 11, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 2157
|
|
Review Date: Apr 13, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $450.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
A nice light walk about lens.
|
|
Cons:
|
None so far
|
|
|
|
|
|
Apr 13, 2006
|
|
onder
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Nov 2, 2005
Location: Turkey
Posts: 50
|
|
Review Date: Apr 8, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $400.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
VR is great, Sharpness is enough, Well Built, Easy to Use, Usefull M/A switch which you can feel old fashion style.
|
|
Cons:
|
72mm filter size.
|
|
I am bought at second hand and I liked it. Specially I have tried 18-200 VRII and this one. I think that 24-120 has sharpen images than the newest VR prime zoom. This lens is made in japan also and other one is made in thailland. Also you can see the scientific result of those two lense from www.photozone.de and compare yourself. I liked it and recommed to everybody. I think 18-200 is not so usefull as after some point you need some 70-200 or 100-300 lens for better results. But 24-120 is very balanced lens. It is everyday use lens. It has 72mm bayonet which is maybe only weak point to expand extra dollar for some filters. But on the other hand these days this lens is getting cheaper after the 18-200 which is out of stock and selling at 800$. This is half of this price and VR is working great. At 200mm you can use 3 steps down with hand. Take consider that before buy prime zoom.
|
|
|
Apr 8, 2006
|
|
zavp
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Dec 16, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 1
|
|
Review Date: Jan 7, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $430.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Nikon build quality, great focal range, fast, silent focusing and very sharp! Decent price.
|
|
Cons:
|
None that I have found!
|
|
|
Very pleased. Granted I am only enthusiast, but this lens really performs -- especially the VR. And the pictures are as sharp as can be in every lighting environment and with flash (still haven't learned all I need to use at 10+ feet w/SB600).
Have no complaints about being slow. Others must have gotten some bad units!
Would prefer a 2.8f. But, hey, can't have it all.
One friend has a Canon 28-135 IS on his 350D, and my D50 with this lens is a winner . . . noticeably!
GREAT lens!
|
|
|
Jan 7, 2006
|
|
BryanP
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Oct 29, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 162
|
|
Review Date: Dec 26, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $400.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Great mid-range lens. VR feature is excellent for low-light shooting. I personally think build quality isn't an issue.
|
|
Cons:
|
Filter-thread size. Relatively slow (understandable because we all have to accept certain trade-offs).
|
|
|
I got this lens in E+ condition from a Nikon deal for 400 flat, so I have no complaint about the price on my behalf. The price is "ok" new.
Now, before getting these lens, I was also wary about the negative reviews about it. There have been many talk about it being too soft, or VR not working properly, etc.
I happened to get a good copy (in my opinion of what's sharp, etc.). VR does exactly what it's supposed to do. I was able to hand-hold shots in my dim room (shutter speed at around 1/5 sec @ ISO 400 @ 24mm - gotta hate cheapo fluorescent bulbs) and still get relatively sharp pictures for that speed. We all know that with those shutter speeds, you will have blurry shots almost all the time. VR helped in that situation by a mile-stone.
Now, sharpness is good. I have sharper lens such as my 105/2.8s macro so it's definitely not in that level, but it's not /soft/ as many would put it - at least, not under what I define as soft. We all definitely need to accept the trade-off from having such a wide mid-range. However, IMO, it's worth every penny, even if you end up paying 500 dollars for them (from the time you read this review, you could get it for 439.99 NEW because of the Nikon rebate that is going on until 01/15/06).
It does exactly what it's supposed to do and with the VR feature, it helps quite a lot.
I definitely feel as if this is a lens that belongs in everyones' bag.
|
|
|
Dec 26, 2005
|
|
James Markus
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jul 19, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 6134
|
|
Review Date: Nov 7, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $499.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Great range of focal lengths, light, fast focusing, and good VR
|
|
Cons:
|
Would prefer an f2.8 version with killer optics like my 70-200 VR - a guy can dream can't he
|
|
|
I was hoping this lens would compete with my 70-200 (which has made all my lenses have inferiority complexes) - but it's not that good. It is - however - a very good to excellent lens, and certainly a bargain at $500. If you stay short of the focal length extremes (just inside 70mm and just shy of 200mm), and stop down to f5.6 thru f8 it really is quite sharp. Works better than expected as a portrait lense. I'm finding it is the lense I grab for walk-about - when I want just one lens.
|
|
|
Nov 7, 2005
|
|
barisaxer
Offline
Image Upload: On
Registered: Feb 21, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 764
|
|
Review Date: Oct 12, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Very nice lens. Sharp and VR works well. Has become my main lens.
|
|
Cons:
|
Think the build quality may not be true pro level.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oct 12, 2005
|
|
adamz
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Feb 3, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 35
|
|
Review Date: Aug 14, 2005
|
Recommend? no |
Price paid: $600.00
| Rating: 2
|
|
Pros:
|
Vibration reduction, Great zoom range
|
|
Cons:
|
Very slow aperture, soft focus, VR doesn't keep subjects from moving
|
|
I returned this lens after a week of use. It's photos were much softer focus than my other lenses. Even if that particular lens was a lemon, the speed was just way too slow and the VR didn't make up for it. I got much better photos in low-light with my F2.8 Tamron 28-105mm lens. The only time the VR lens was sharper was when it was at 24mm wide open with VR on at less than 1/15s handheld. Even at 1/160s, f8, 70mm the Tamron is perfectly sharp while the Nikon is soft by about 8-10 pixels (6.1Mp Nikon D70). See my post here. If the Nikon 24-120mm VR lens had an F2.8 constant aperture and sharper image quality, then we'd be talking.
|
|
|
Aug 14, 2005
|
|
Petrus
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Feb 17, 2005
Location: Poland
Posts: 160
|
|
Review Date: Jul 6, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Makes ideal couple to 12-24 for digital with eq. of 180mm telephoto!!!(that's all I need...)
I just compared it to Sigma 18-50 2.8 in common 24-50 range: not that bad for sharpness!!! And for low light VR is great: makes absolutelly usable images at 1/5 sec. with [email protected] mm!!! Sigma with no VR gave up (in my hands) at 1/15 sec... with [email protected] range. VR really makes 2-3 full stops advantage, that results in 24-120 f/1,8-2,8 or even f/1,2-2!!!!!!!! As an advanced amateur I just like this lens very much!
Anther thing: excelent build quality - my friend's 18-70 got loose feel in same time (Made in Japan vs. Made in Thailand?)
|
|
Cons:
|
CA, some distorsion - but can be easily corrected. It's said some lenses are sharper - just go and try it yourself - if you'll like it, you'll love it!!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jul 6, 2005
|
|
hajagee
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Apr 13, 2005
Location: Singapore
Posts: 23
|
|
Review Date: May 29, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $500.00
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Versatile zoom range, sharp pictures, VR
|
|
Cons:
|
None so far
|
|
|
First VR Lense in the stable for me. Impressed! Saving up for the head honcho: 70-200VR!!
|
|
|
May 29, 2005
|
|
Liftik
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Feb 12, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 72
|
|
Review Date: May 19, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $510.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
sharpness, size and weight, VR
|
|
Cons:
|
none
|
|
|
Have read several bad reviews about the lens being soft. Bought it anyway "needing a walking around lens." It is perfect for this purpose, at f8 or f11 it is tack sharp, do not know what the fuss is about re softness.
|
|
|
May 19, 2005
|
|
wvfoto
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Sep 8, 2002
Location: United States
Posts: 92
|
|
Review Date: May 9, 2005
|
Recommend? |
Price paid: $589.00
|
|
Pros:
|
Nikon Quality and feel, great focal length range, very fast and silent focusing and sharp!
|
|
Cons:
|
None this time!!!!!
|
|
|
I reviewed this lens on March 18, 2005 and rated it a 2...I now have to eat crow after being convinced by friends to give it another try.
I purchased another 24-120mm VR lens on April 29th to use the week of the Kentucky Derby. It worked flawlessly! The focal range was ideal, the focusing was very fast and quite, the VR work as advertised and most importantly the images were very sharp.
I'm sorry if I have discouraged others from considering this lens with my previous review, but I did have a bad copy the first time around. Being a loyal and satisified Nikon user for years I finally realized the chances of me getting two bad lenses was slim.
The forum won't let me rate this lens again, but I give it a 9 now.
|
|
|
May 9, 2005
|
|
JimDantin
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Aug 26, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 24
|
|
Review Date: May 5, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
|
|
|
Oops -- the review should have been posted for the 24-85 G
|
|
|
May 5, 2005
|
|
JimDantin
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Aug 26, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 24
|
|
Review Date: Apr 23, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $300.00
|
|
Pros:
|
Price, closeup performance, image quality.
|
|
Cons:
|
Lens shade and 67mm filter size.
|
|
|
This is my favorite lens when I'm walking around and don't want to carry a full backback. I'm particularly pleased with its performance close up. I like the AF-S functionality a lot.
I didn't like the oddball 67mm filter size and for digital bodies the lens hood is unnecessarily big. I came up with a very nice solution by buying a 67-77 step up ring and 77mm metal lens hood (search for seller name "heavystar" on eBay). The "Standard" size hood works without vignetting in a digital body (he also offers a "Wide" and "Tele" version -- I use the tele version on my 80-200 2.8)
Now I can use all my 77mm filters without trouble. Also, a Nikon 77mm pinch-style lens cap will fit quite nicely INSIDE the metal hoods.
|
|
|
Apr 23, 2005
|
|
benallen
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 25, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 235
|
|
Review Date: Mar 21, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
versatility and weight
|
|
Cons:
|
none yet
|
|
|
I love this lens! I understand that some folks have had some issues with it but I don't find it to be soft, even vs. the much more expensive Nikon and Leica glass. With film I find it to be just about right at the wide end and about as much as I'd want to telephoto before telling myself that I just need to get closer. It is lightweight and extremely versatile vs. trying to trade out other lenses for the perfect shot. This is my first experience with VR but it is pretty amazing how slow you can go and still get sharp images. As others have said, if you can only take one with you take this one.
|
|
|
Mar 21, 2005
|
|
wvfoto
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Sep 8, 2002
Location: United States
Posts: 92
|
|
Review Date: Mar 18, 2005
|
Recommend? no |
Price paid: $589.00
| Rating: 2
|
|
Pros:
|
Nikon Quality and feel, great focal length range, very fast and silent focusing.
|
|
Cons:
|
Soft, VR not working
|
|
|
I really wanted this to be a good lens...unfortunately I must have received a bad one. The sharpness was very inconsistant. I found it very seldom gave me what I would consider a sharp image. Also I could see the VR working in the view finder, but it didn't seem to translate to the image. After three months of on the job use I finally tested this lens against another of mine that I know is sharp and it failed miserably. It appears that the images were sharp about 25% of the time, and they actually were sharper with the VR off.
Yesterday I returned this lens to my camera store and replaced it with the 28-70 Sigma f-2.8 DG. I did an in store test on 7 different lenses they had in stock and the Sigma was the sharpest. I'll use the Sigma for now but I'll probably purchase the Nikon 28-70 f-2.8 ED-IF AF-S in the future.
|
|
|
Mar 18, 2005
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reviews
|
Views
|
Date of last review
|
|
42
|
144547
|
May 27, 2009
|
|
|
Recommended By
|
Average Price
|
|
74% of reviewers
|
$510.18
|
|
|
Build Quality Rating
|
Price Rating
|
Overall Rating
|
|
8.33
|
7.87
|
7.9
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
