24-120 nikkor vr2


almighty00

New Member
Aug 23, 2009
56
0
0
yishun
#1
Hi was thinking if anyone tried this lens on a aps-c instead of FF? yet to find any reviews online with aps-c body. Looking one to replace the 18-55mm kit lens with a longer range. Thanks.
 

Kopiroti

New Member
Aug 29, 2010
60
0
0
Singapore
#4
Hi was thinking if anyone tried this lens on a aps-c instead of FF? yet to find any reviews online with aps-c body. Looking one to replace the 18-55mm kit lens with a longer range. Thanks.
I took D7000 w/24-120 for an holiday recently, I found it to be adequate for my purpose (quite subjective from person to person on shooting style), I shot mainly scenery, landscape, architecture and small group photos. In fact, I did not miss the wider 18mm of my 18-200mm, which I did not use during the trip (brought along in case). I think it make an excellent upgrade for your 18-55mm kit lens, however, you need to note the lens is lot more heavier and bulky compare to the kit lens.

I really like the 24-120 lens, I will bring it for future holiday as a walkabout lens.
 

ericmar

New Member
Jun 23, 2007
116
0
0
36
Telok Blangah
#5
I am using this lens with my D7000 as well.
Quite love it except that it is a waste for the wide angle of 24mm since it is cropped on DX body!
But I plan to upgade to FF sooner or later so i get this lens instead of DX lenses.
 

s1221ljc

New Member
May 7, 2006
821
1
0
#6
I took D7000 w/24-120 for an holiday recently, I found it to be adequate for my purpose (quite subjective from person to person on shooting style), I shot mainly scenery, landscape, architecture and small group photos. In fact, I did not miss the wider 18mm of my 18-200mm, which I did not use during the trip (brought along in case). I think it make an excellent upgrade for your 18-55mm kit lens, however, you need to note the lens is lot more heavier and bulky compare to the kit lens.

I really like the 24-120 lens, I will bring it for future holiday as a walkabout lens.
Focal lengths aside, with the highter cost & extra weight, does it really make a significant difference in IQ in your opinion? I believe the 24-120 distortions are more obvious as indicated in some reviews? Was considering the 24-120 over the 18-200 I have. Tks.
 

Last edited:

jeff7id

Senior Member
Oct 15, 2008
4,863
10
38
#7
Focal lengths aside, with the highter cost & extra weight, does it really make a significant difference in IQ in your opinion? I believe the 24-120 distortions are more obvious as indicated in some reviews? Was considering the 24-120 over the 18-200 I have. Tks.
Second that.

As additional, barrel distortion of the new f/4 Nikon lenses, 24-120 f/4 VR and 16-35 f/4 VR are more obvious as indicated in some reviews. I also was considering a replacement of 18-200 I have. Thanks.
 

s1221ljc

New Member
May 7, 2006
821
1
0
#9
No lah, I am just a late bird :) Online reviews aside, since someone has both lens & share first hand experience, personal opinion would be useful though not the last word. And the Photozone review is not on the f4 version?
 

Last edited:

s1221ljc

New Member
May 7, 2006
821
1
0
#11
Thanks bro for the info & clarification. Just that like TS, I am on DX & am curious about its performance under APS-C... & someone seems to prefer it to the 18-200 which I own.
 

Last edited:

jeff7id

Senior Member
Oct 15, 2008
4,863
10
38
#12
Here is the link to the test on both cropped sensor and full frame body:

AFS 24-120 f/4 G Test on D300s and D3x
Thanks bro for the info & clarification. Just that like TS, I am on DX & am curious about its performance under APS-C... & someone seems to prefer it to the 18-200 which I own.
Above is the link to test of 24-120 f/4VR on both DX and FX body :)
 

Kopiroti

New Member
Aug 29, 2010
60
0
0
Singapore
#13
Focal lengths aside, with the highter cost & extra weight, does it really make a significant difference in IQ in your opinion? I believe the 24-120 distortions are more obvious as indicated in some reviews? Was considering the 24-120 over the 18-200 I have. Tks.
Bros, I don't think I can give you a fair technical comparison on the two lenses as I am not technical.

I have been shooting slr and dslr for many years, though not so much on Nikon (until D7000) but Canon. I find 18-200 is very good general purpose lens to carry around, but at 11x zoom you don't expect to get sharp picture all round as some focal lengths would be soft. At 72mm filter size versus 77mm filter size, one can already guessed the bigger optical lens size of 24-120f4 will give you a bigger sweet spot, and the corner to corner would be lot sharper too.

For scenic holiday I prefer to carry a higher quality (even though shorter zoom) lens, I find 24-120f4 is sharp throughout and I like the relative fast constant f4 and VR. It is a compromise between getting 24-70 f2.8 (which is the best lens) but I like the 24-120 extra focal length coverage and VR.

As for cost I think it is quite subjective comparing to the expensive holiday memory, the slight weight increase does not bother me as carry a dslr is already consider heavy by lot of folks even for D3100 with a kit lens.
 

Last edited:

tahoch

New Member
Jun 15, 2009
1
0
0
#14
I'm also interested in getting this as a replacement for my 18-105 as a walkabout. But because the 18-105 is already decently sharp, I'm not quite sure if its going to be worth the cost.

For the 18-200, I've always found it to be a bit soft, even compared to the 18-105. So I think there would be a significant difference for those users in terms of sharpness.
 

dazism

New Member
Jan 16, 2007
383
0
0
www.flickr.com
#15
24-120mm is a good lens. for me i think.
use on my d300 :)
the main different compare to 18-105mm are mainly the built quality, color rendition, VR.
is more like a walkabout lens with hell lotta convenience for me.

still bring along my UWA & 50mm if possible. :)
 

Top Bottom