Good? ---> AF-S VR 24-120mm f/3.5-5.6G IF-ED

Matrix · 15th August 2003

Anybody in this forum own this lens and what comments do u have for it? Worth buying of simply get AF-S 24-85mm f3.5-4.5G IF-ED will do?

majere2sg · 15th August 2003

Maybe you can take a look at here if you haven't
http://www.photographyreview.com/psc...9_3128crx.aspx

rncw · 15th August 2003

Originally Posted by Matrix

Anybody in this forum own this lens and what comments do u have for it? Worth buying of simply get AF-S 24-85mm f3.5-4.5G IF-ED will do?

yes, it is good.

sadness · 15th August 2003

welcome to the Nikon family.

hopefully this will help u in ur decision making.

"General-purpose lenses

Many people want a lens that can be used as a do-it-all travel or general-use lens. When I started with the D1, the first lens I chose was the 24-120mm f/3.5-5.6 Nikkor, based on a recommendation from two people I respected. This lens has a fairly wide range, from medium-wide to short telephoto, and has a reasonably wide maximum aperture for a fairly bright viewfinder, however, images from this lens are soft unless the lens is stopped down to at least f/8. At f/11, the results are quite good, but of course the depth of field at that aperture does not offer much subject isolation. In addition, at the 24mm end there is significant barrel distortion, and I was never satisfied with the images taken at the 120mm end for a number of reasons. Another major detraction of this lens is the poor defocused character (the out-of-focus, blurred region highlights show dark centers and very bright edges, and these highlights are extremely distracting). From around 28mm to about 105mm, the lens does a fairly good job when stopped down to f/8-f/11 however.

Nikkor makes a lens that is in that very range, the 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5. This lens offers significantly better performance at all focal lengths and apertures, is a faster lens at the long end, offers a decent macro mode for those times when you want to focus closer, and overall is the general-purpose zoom that I recommend using to anyone who asks. While it is not up to the performance of the expensive AFS zooms, it has a wider focal-length range, is very light, and costs in the neighborhood of $325 making it in my opinion the ultimate choice for a general-purpose lens."
source taken from : Ron Reznick , http://www.digital-images.net/Lenses/lenses.html

for ur information only.

sadness · 15th August 2003

hmmm...
i guess it's only me.

i've this thing against G lens.

they aren't even G strings!

so of course i'll be negative.
but on the whole it seems like a really swell lens that u might love to take a look and try it out.

of course, the AF28-105D f3.5-4.6 seems a better investment. Macro function incorporated too.

just for your information.
oh yes, welcome to the Fuji S2Pro family! that is if u purchased it... hehe

AJ23 · 15th August 2003

Matrix, I have the lense, so far so satisfied. Let u play play next time.

Matrix · 15th August 2003

Thanks majere2sg for the link, seem like rating no very good hor.

Thanks rncw & sadness for this informations.

Matrix · 15th August 2003

Originally Posted by AJ23

Matrix, I have the lense, so far so satisfied. Let u play play next time.

ok ok thanks. What else you have ah?

Maybe we should go zoo and take some shots when my 10D is back. I can also bring along my notebook to compare shot taken with d100 and 10D on the spot. Hopefully got a S2pro user would like to join in.

erwinx · 15th August 2003

Thom Hogan has compared the 24-85 AF-S to the 24-120 VR and has this to say

Slow apertures. f/5.6 comes quickly on the 24-120mm, and that pushes the autofocus performance of the CAM900 cameras using the outboard sensors. Moreover, it makes for a dim viewfinder and not nearly enough depth of field control above 80mm.

Not as sharp. At least in the initial samples I've seen and used, the 24-120mm isn't as sharp at 24mm, especially on full-frame bodies. The VR appeals to the folks that think that tripods aren't necessary, but frankly, if you have to rely upon VR for everyday photography, you don't have good enough technique

http://www.bythom.com/2485lens.htm

AJ23 · 15th August 2003

I have from 12-200mm.

james m · 15th August 2003

Originally Posted by sadness

hopefully this will help u in ur decision making.

"General-purpose lenses

Ron Reznick , http://www.digital-images.net/Lenses/lenses.html

for ur information only.

That won't help to much since Ron is talking about the AF-D 24-120 lens and not the AF-S 24-120VR.

sadness · 15th August 2003

Originally Posted by james m

That won't help to much since Ron is talking about the AF-D 24-120 lens and not the AF-S 24-120VR.

heh heh heh
din't realise that!
thanks for pointing out the error!

MoriMori · 16th August 2003

Its a decent travel lens. Some barrel and pincushion distortion at both ends, so architectural shooters might want to try out first.

Bit of light falloff at 24/3.5 ok at 5.6. The VR isn't really a good substitute for 2 more stops since its tough to freeze people at 1/10 or 1/15 unless you tell them not to move.

Some people say there's softness on the right side. I've not seen this on mine but I've been shooting film and the results appear ok.

YSLee · 16th August 2003

They appear to have the same optical formula, with some ED elements thrown in for the marketing folks.

Avatar · 16th August 2003

Ok, for what it is worth ...

To start off, the AF-S 24-120 VR is a decent lens, and while it has its weakness, it is definitely not the same AF-D 24-120 all over again. Some skeptics may think otherwise but realistically saying, the extra punch they put into this lens does make a significant difference in its overall quality. Yup, I do agree the less-than-stellar AF-D is responsible for bringing a little deja-vu kind of feeling to this new contender, especially when it shares the same 24-120 moniker but hey ...

Now, while it doesn't resolve as much details as the mega-dollar AF-S 28-70/f2.8, it does hold well on its own as a decent value-for-money consumer lens. This isn't a dastardly fast lens though it is decent enough for general usage, don't expect the same type of f/2.8 performance here cuz it isn't such a lens. VR may not be the almighty magic potion for shaky hands but in situations whereby you have to move constantly while taking shots (and not having enough time to stablize your hands totally), IS/VR is something very useful.

Before I continue, I realised there is a common misconception some photographers have on IS/VR's 2-3 extra stops worth of shutter compensation. While technically it means one is able to shoot at a lower shutter speeds as opposed to one's focal length, this form of compensation does not aid in capturing motion at all. 1/15 is still 1/15 on a IS/VR lens, the shutter won't magically move faster, it remains the same with IS/VR enabled, the only thing that differs is that your shots are more stablized, that's about all you get.

I had shot slides, negatives and digital images with the AF-S 24-120VR, geometric distortion (as mentioned by MoriMori) aside, the results are very reassuring. Do give it a try if you are at your photographic dealer, I think you won't be disappointed.

espn · 29th September 2003

How about at f/5.6 full telephoto 120mm, would the focusing be as fast as per normal under normal lighting?

How does this lens compare over the AF 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5D? If using this as a portrait/event lens, would the f/5.6 pose as a problem?

binbeto · 29th September 2003

Originally Posted by espn

How about at f/5.6 full telephoto 120mm, would the focusing be as fast as per normal under normal lighting?

How does this lens compare over the AF 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5D? If using this as a portrait/event lens, would the f/5.6 pose as a problem?

You got a SLR body liao?

The f/5.6 might pose a problem in focusing, especially in low light condition. In bright daylight, shouldn't be much of a problem.

I have not used any of these 2 lens before. The closest I have used is the kit lens 28-80 G. Pretty decent AF.

espn · 29th September 2003

Mmm cos I was wondering if taking outdoors I think f/5.6 is pretty fine, but using it indoors, like Takashimaya square, the lighting there, f/5.6 would the focusing be fast and sharp?

Cos if I do get the 24-120VR, I probably want to use it both indoors and outdoors. And f/5.6 does make it seem unattractive a bit as compared to the f/3.5-f/4.5 of the 28-105 not considering the focal length of course.

YSLee · 29th September 2003

For the overpriced $900+ you pay for this average lens, I'd rather get something else. The 28-105 is a nicer and cheaper lens, while if you're more interested in telephotos the older 80-200/2.8 two touch model can be had for 1k+ 2nd hand. There should be plenty going off since there'll be people "upgrading" to the newer (but not necessarily better) AFS VR 70-200/2.8.

Avatar · 29th September 2003

Originally Posted by espn

Mmm cos I was wondering if taking outdoors I think f/5.6 is pretty fine, but using it indoors, like Takashimaya square, the lighting there, f/5.6 would the focusing be fast and sharp?

Cos if I do get the 24-120VR, I probably want to use it both indoors and outdoors. And f/5.6 does make it seem unattractive a bit as compared to the f/3.5-f/4.5 of the 28-105 not considering the focal length of course.

That will depend on the AF precision of the body you are using this lens on. Generally speaking (and if my memory serves me right), with the exception of a few, most cross hatched AF sensors are good up to the vicinity of f/4, this includes some low/mid range Nikons and literally all of the other brand of SLRs. However, whilst on bodies with CAM1300 (or better) autofocus modules, it will do just fine.

With a little skill, practice and common sense (eg. finding contrasty areas for AF, don't expect it to lock on similar colored objects, etc), I think one is able to put hunting to a minimum in most situations even with low/mid range of bodies.

It is a decent addition if your kind of work requires constant movement and/or is restricted to unstable grounds. For example, I had used this for underwater photography (deep sea dive). I find VR a really welcomed feature while dealing with strong currents (and trying to stablise yourself to get a good, usable shot). I had experiences with the AF-S 28-70 f/2.8 in similar situations too but frankly, it doesn't work out as well as the consumer level 24-120VR. Well, while I do find it practical for my kind of work/hobby, others might find it "useless" or worse, dismissing it altogether without even having used/evaluated its strengths and weaknesses extensively.

Point it, like what I said in my previous post in this thread, be realistic with your expectations, it is NOT a pro level kind of lens, period

Just a little insights based on my personal experience, hope it will help you decide better

15th August 2003	#1
Matrix Member Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Seng Kang Town Posts: 913	Good? ---> AF-S VR 24-120mm f/3.5-5.6G IF-ED Anybody in this forum own this lens and what comments do u have for it? Worth buying of simply get AF-S 24-85mm f3.5-4.5G IF-ED will do?

15th August 2003	#2
majere2sg Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Singapore (SengKang) Posts: 2,992	Maybe you can take a look at here if you haven't http://www.photographyreview.com/psc...9_3128crx.aspx __________________ -Express yourself not in words- Majere2sg's Digital Photography

16th August 2003	#15
Avatar Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Singapore / Taiwan Posts: 1,244	Ok, for what it is worth ... To start off, the AF-S 24-120 VR is a decent lens, and while it has its weakness, it is definitely not the same AF-D 24-120 all over again. Some skeptics may think otherwise but realistically saying, the extra punch they put into this lens does make a significant difference in its overall quality. Yup, I do agree the less-than-stellar AF-D is responsible for bringing a little deja-vu kind of feeling to this new contender, especially when it shares the same 24-120 moniker but hey ... Now, while it doesn't resolve as much details as the mega-dollar AF-S 28-70/f2.8, it does hold well on its own as a decent value-for-money consumer lens. This isn't a dastardly fast lens though it is decent enough for general usage, don't expect the same type of f/2.8 performance here cuz it isn't such a lens. VR may not be the almighty magic potion for shaky hands but in situations whereby you have to move constantly while taking shots (and not having enough time to stablize your hands totally), IS/VR is something very useful. Before I continue, I realised there is a common misconception some photographers have on IS/VR's 2-3 extra stops worth of shutter compensation. While technically it means one is able to shoot at a lower shutter speeds as opposed to one's focal length, this form of compensation does not aid in capturing motion at all. 1/15 is still 1/15 on a IS/VR lens, the shutter won't magically move faster, it remains the same with IS/VR enabled, the only thing that differs is that your shots are more stablized, that's about all you get. I had shot slides, negatives and digital images with the AF-S 24-120VR, geometric distortion (as mentioned by MoriMori) aside, the results are very reassuring. Do give it a try if you are at your photographic dealer, I think you won't be disappointed. Last edited by Avatar; 16th August 2003 at 01:39 PM.

15th August 2003	#4
sadness Member Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: New York, New York! Posts: 468	welcome to the Nikon family. hopefully this will help u in ur decision making. "General-purpose lenses Many people want a lens that can be used as a do-it-all travel or general-use lens. When I started with the D1, the first lens I chose was the 24-120mm f/3.5-5.6 Nikkor, based on a recommendation from two people I respected. This lens has a fairly wide range, from medium-wide to short telephoto, and has a reasonably wide maximum aperture for a fairly bright viewfinder, however, images from this lens are soft unless the lens is stopped down to at least f/8. At f/11, the results are quite good, but of course the depth of field at that aperture does not offer much subject isolation. In addition, at the 24mm end there is significant barrel distortion, and I was never satisfied with the images taken at the 120mm end for a number of reasons. Another major detraction of this lens is the poor defocused character (the out-of-focus, blurred region highlights show dark centers and very bright edges, and these highlights are extremely distracting). From around 28mm to about 105mm, the lens does a fairly good job when stopped down to f/8-f/11 however. Nikkor makes a lens that is in that very range, the 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5. This lens offers significantly better performance at all focal lengths and apertures, is a faster lens at the long end, offers a decent macro mode for those times when you want to focus closer, and overall is the general-purpose zoom that I recommend using to anyone who asks. While it is not up to the performance of the expensive AFS zooms, it has a wider focal-length range, is very light, and costs in the neighborhood of $325 making it in my opinion the ultimate choice for a general-purpose lens." source taken from : Ron Reznick , http://www.digital-images.net/Lenses/lenses.html for ur information only.

15th August 2003	#6
AJ23 Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Town of Queens doing PORT-9YOU Posts: 6,715	Matrix, I have the lense, so far so satisfied. Let u play play next time.

15th August 2003	#9
erwinx Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Posts: 2,492	Thom Hogan has compared the 24-85 AF-S to the 24-120 VR and has this to say Slow apertures. f/5.6 comes quickly on the 24-120mm, and that pushes the autofocus performance of the CAM900 cameras using the outboard sensors. Moreover, it makes for a dim viewfinder and not nearly enough depth of field control above 80mm. Not as sharp. At least in the initial samples I've seen and used, the 24-120mm isn't as sharp at 24mm, especially on full-frame bodies. The VR appeals to the folks that think that tripods aren't necessary, but frankly, if you have to rely upon VR for everyday photography, you don't have good enough technique http://www.bythom.com/2485lens.htm

16th August 2003	#13
MoriMori Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Posts: 202	Its a decent travel lens. Some barrel and pincushion distortion at both ends, so architectural shooters might want to try out first. Bit of light falloff at 24/3.5 ok at 5.6. The VR isn't really a good substitute for 2 more stops since its tough to freeze people at 1/10 or 1/15 unless you tell them not to move. Some people say there's softness on the right side. I've not seen this on mine but I've been shooting film and the results appear ok.

16th August 2003	#14
YSLee Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Posts: 2,327	They appear to have the same optical formula, with some ED elements thrown in for the marketing folks.

29th September 2003	#16
espn Deregistered Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Planet Nikon Posts: 22,045	How about at f/5.6 full telephoto 120mm, would the focusing be as fast as per normal under normal lighting? How does this lens compare over the AF 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5D? If using this as a portrait/event lens, would the f/5.6 pose as a problem?