D70+24-120 Vr?

[golfkaki]

Greetings from the Silicon Valley.

I intend to purchase the D70 with the 24-120 f/3.5-5.6 G AF-S VR IF-ED instead of the kit lens.
What do you think?

Many thanks,
Patricia.

[showtime]

good body, good lens. but not so creative on the wide side. would prefer 18mm...

24mm translates to a picture angle equivalent to 36mm on film which is not wide enough for me.

unless you intend to get the 12-24 sometime soon... that would be a different story wouldnt it...

[espn]

The 24-120VR is a nice lens to own even for beginners, I would say it's the digital replacement for 28-105. With extra range + VR module after FLM it's 36-180 equivalence. The 24-120VR performs quite nicely on film bodies also, at 24mm wide.

Great for outdoors & indoors for general usage, portraits, events, casual shooting. Good lens if you ask me.

As show time mentioned, you can get the AF-S 12-24DX afterwards to complement the range.

12-24, 24-120.

[gadrian]

Originally Posted by espn The 24-120VR is a nice lens to own even for beginners, I would say it's the digital replacement for 28-105. With extra range + VR module after FLM it's 36-180 equivalence. The 24-120VR performs quite nicely on film bodies also, at 24mm wide. Great for outdoors & indoors for general usage, portraits, events, casual shooting. Good lens if you ask me. As show time mentioned, you can get the AF-S 12-24DX afterwards to complement the range. 12-24, 24-120.

Ehh.. nope.. it is not the digital replacment of the 28-105. the 28-105 has a 1:2 Macro feature.. and the 24-120AFS-VR doesnt. Optically I find that the 28-105 is sharper then 24-120.

As for the 24-120.. it is a great lens for general work.. and can be a great lens especiall with the VR function.

Some 24-120 Images

Images 1, 2 and 5 are taken with the 24-120

More 24-120 Images

[tulsidas]

Just a thought ........

With VR like function moving to inside camera body (minolta A1/A2) are VR lenses a good medium to long term investment.

cheers !

[gadrian]

Originally Posted by tulsidas Just a thought ........ With VR like function moving to inside camera body (minolta A1/A2) are VR lenses a good medium to long term investment. cheers !

well lets put it this way.. that would mean that every lens you have will be a VR lens.. correct.. absolutely.. that would be a worthwhile investment.. if y ou are starting a new system..

But just as Contax did in the mid 80's, but putting their AF in the body.. instead of the lens.. they found that this wasnt the best and went back to putting AF into the lens.. but that again is just a fundamental argument..

Cos if you have already spent 10-15K on your system.. I dont think you will want to start to change systems coz of that.. honestly.. besides.. the only SLR now that is scheduled to have Image Stabilization in the body is the new Digital Dynax.. and as yet.. a new. unproven technology.

[espn]

Originally Posted by gadrian Ehh.. nope.. it is not the digital replacment of the 28-105. the 28-105 has a 1:2 Macro feature.. and the 24-120AFS-VR doesnt. Optically I find that the 28-105 is sharper then 24-120.

Maybe I should rephrase, I feel the 24-120VR is the digital replacement, this is my own statement, not taken from anywhere else sorry for the misunderstanding.

Range wise, the 24-120VR (36-180) wins the 28-105 (42-158). Kekeke. But both I have to admit are good lenses.

[gadrian]

Originally Posted by espn Maybe I should rephrase, I feel the 24-120VR is the digital replacement, this is my own statement, not taken from anywhere else sorry for the misunderstanding. Range wise, the 24-120VR (36-180) wins the 28-105 (42-158). Kekeke. But both I have to admit are good lenses.

ESPN -> <- gadrian