Best Deals nikon 70 200 f2 8 g ed if af s vr

Best 24-120 attempt yet, October 12, 2010

By 

Busy Executive (Long Island, NY) – See all my reviews

  

  

Being a glutton for punishment, I’ve owned each incarnation of the 24-120. Honestly, the original was about the worst Nikon lens I’ve ever owned…I used to describe it as “how to turn several thousand dollars of camera gear into a $200 point and shoot”. It was that bad…poor contrast, distortion, vignetting, slow focusing, etc. The only really bad Nikon lens I’ve ever owned. Thank goodness for eBay, and my condolences to whoever is using that lens today.

Then came the second generation 24-120. Not ready to give up the dream of having a 5x zoom for my (then) new D3, I took the plunge a second time.

The second-generation 24-120 was better than the original, but still not the sharpest tool in the shed. I’m lucky enough to own the “magic quartet” of Nikon zooms (14-24, 24-70, 70-200, 200-400) but I get lazy like everyone else and would like to have a single walk-around lens. Still, the difference in image quality was just too noticeable when I wimped out and took the 24-120 instead of the “real lenses”. I’d go out with the 24-120 on my D3 and get some shots that would have been keepers with (say) the 24-70, but ended up disappointing with the 24-120. On my DX camera, I came to like the 16-85 – the same 5x zoom range as the 24-120, but with much better image quality. Except maybe in very low light, I actually got better results with the D300 and the 16-85, versus the D3 and 24-120. I tried to convince myself otherwise, but pretty soon the 24-120 was mostly sitting home gathering dust. The second-generation 24-120 eventually landed on eBay, too.

Well, I guess I never learn…still wanting that 5x zoom for my FX camera, I took the plunge and bought the latest 24-120 f/4. I guess I’m a hopeless optimist, but part of me expected to be disappointed once again. Still, instead of disappointment, so far, I’m reasonably impressed with it. Really.

In a nutshell, this is a very different lens than either of the earlier 24-120 products. It handles differently, it’s constructed more ruggedly, and it’s faster all the way around. The best way to describe it is to say that it’s very similar to the 16-85 in terms of image quality, but scaled up for an FX body. That is to say, it’s sharp, offers good contrast and color, and not so much distortion that you can’t correct it in post processing.

To be clear, the long end is a bit soft wide open, but entirely acceptable at f/8 or so. I’m finding the short end very sharp at 24mm, but with some noticeable distortion (that can be easily fixed in Capture NX2 or Photoshop). Color and contrast are very good, usually giving that “pop” you get with good pro-grade lenses, and for a complex lens, there’s relatively little flare. The VR system, as usual for Nikon, works unobtrusively and very effectively. And it’s that much better on a DX body – most likely outperforming the 16-85 in overall image quality (and that’s saying something). Though a slight step down from the best lenses, construction quality seems very good, and the lens seems to handle effortlessly on my bulky D3 as well as on my smaller D300.

Make no mistake, I’d never give up my 24-70 for one of the new 24-120 lenses. In addition to that extra stop (f/2.8 vs. f/4), the 24-70 is one of the world’s best in its range…I feel comfortable stacking it up against anything, even those exotic Leica or Carl-Zeiss primes. The 24-120 is “good enough”, but you marvel more at the way Nikon made all the design trade-offs, rather than feeling that you have a lens that’s about no-compromise absolute top image quality. Still, the 24-120 is finally at a stage where you can carry it around on your FX camera and have no regrets.

I think Nikon finally has a keeper in the 24-120 family…at long last!

Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 

Was this review helpful to you? 

>Report abuse
| Permalink

 Comments (8)

High quality general use lens; not the best value for everyone, October 4, 2010

This is a very good lens.

UPDATED: I have now shot with the lens on my D3. In the center of the frame it is almost identical to my 24-70 2.8. Excellent center sharpness. It is a bit less sharp in the corners, but I am very impressed.

Final verdict: It is a little bit too expensive, but I have upgraded it to five stars instead of four stars based on its center sharpness. I consider it a low five, high four… depending on your camera, your other lenses, and the size of your wallet.

Initial impressions:

Thus far I have been able to test it on my D90, which is a DX-sensor camera (as opposed to the full-frame pro cameras such as the D3). Please note that this lens is designed mainly for FX shooters. I plan to test it on my D3 camera later.

When compared to the well-made 18-55mm kit lens, this lens shows somewhat better sharpness at the same aperture. Overall I would conclude that this lens is sharp, but not “perfectly” sharp.

Combined with the fact that it collects more light (f4 vs f5.6), the fact that it has Vibration Reduction II, and the fact that it zooms to 120mm, this lens offers a lot of features as a “go to” general purpose lens for FX shooters (and DX shooters as well).

For DX shooters, the 24mm wide-end will not always be wide enough. For FX shooters, the 120mm long-end will likewise not be close enough. The f4 max aperture is good, but again, some shooters will need or want f2.8 or faster.

This is a lens that makes a lot of compromises and does so intelligently. It is not the perfect lens for any situation. But it is a lens that will take very good, even marketable pictures in a wide variety of situations.

Pros shooting for money will usually bring a bag of pro lens, and this lens will not change that reality.

But vacationers, pros who cannot always bring a huge bag, and photo enthusiasts would be well serviced by this lens.

Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 

Was this review helpful to you? 

>Report abuse
| Permalink

 Comments (4)

Excellent travel lens, October 22, 2010

Like other reviewers I had the previous version of the 24-120 and it performed poorly on my D700. It’d been better on my old D60 but unacceptable on the full frame D700 which makes use of the whole lens not just the central bit. Like other reviewers mine ended up on ebay after just 2 weeks!

Given the poor previous incarnations of this lens I was a bit concerned and did a lot of tests between this and other quality lenses I own. It came out better than my previous mid range zoom – the Nikon 24-85. It was very close in quality to the Nikon 16-35. At the centre nothing much between the two – only in the corners was it obvious the 16-35 was the better lens. The 16-35 was also a better performer at f4 – stopped down to f8 and differences were virtually unnoticeable.

The 24-120 doesn’t perform quite as well at the long end. I compared to my Nikon 70-300mm and the 70-300 was clearly sharper at the edges at all focal lengths and apertures. Again not much difference in the centre.

Having said all that the differences were on the whole quite small and acceptable – the lens is acceptable at all apertures or zoom length.

However I did notice the 24-120 has good contrast – certainly better than the Nikon 24-85.

After a lot of pixel peeping I took the lens out for some proper photography. I took some great shots – sharp, contrasty and loved the flexibility of this lens.

In summary this lens is not going to be as sharp as a bag of expensive prime lenses. Or even short range zoom lenses. Convenience means some compromise on quality – but the compromise is very small and acceptable where you want to travel light. I’ve given 4 stars due to the price of the lens – twice the cost of the previous version.

Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 

Was this review helpful to you? 

>Report abuse
| Permalink

 Comment