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


Status
Not open for further replies.

since63

New Member
Nov 18, 2005
88
0
0
Hi,

Does anyone has this lense or have comments of about it? Please comment. Very much appreciated. Thanks.
 

zola70

Senior Member
Apr 7, 2005
908
0
16
54
Jurong West
s109.photobucket.com
To me it's a very good lens and gives a sharp image :thumbsup: . The only thing is not wide & tele enough :( that's why I sold it off few weeks ago and upgrade to 18-200VR :bsmilie: . The VR for this 24-120 works great and good for travelling ;) . I should say it's a very good walkabout lens.

If you really have 1K to spend go for 18-200 VR if not 24-120 VR:embrass: .
 

Dennis

Senior Member
Jan 24, 2002
3,879
0
0
Singapore
8dennis8.fotki.com
Lens is good only if you are careful, must say it is sharp, especially from 70 onwards.
The VR needs to get used to as it is slower than the others i.e. 70-200 / 18-200.
You will need to have it stabilized before you take the shot or you will complaint about soft pictures. Can be used on FF camera as well and not a DX lens.
 

lsisaxon

Senior Member
Nov 29, 2004
11,941
0
36
zola70 said:
To me it's a very good lens and gives a sharp image :thumbsup: . The only thing is not wide & tele enough :( that's why I sold it off few weeks ago and upgrade to 18-200VR :bsmilie: . The VR for this 24-120 works great and good for travelling ;) . I should say it's a very good walkabout lens.

If you really have 1K to spend go for 18-200 VR if not 24-120 VR:embrass: .
If you use digital only, get 18-200/3.5-5.6 VR.
If you use film also, get 24-85/2.8-4 D (not the AF-S one).
 

litefoot

New Member
Jan 27, 2005
888
0
0
since63 said:
Hi,

Does anyone has this lense or have comments of about it? Please comment. Very much appreciated. Thanks.
Sharp lens but not as constrasty as compared to primes and high end zooms. Barrel can be seen on the wide end, so careful with placing subjects on corners and edges.
 

espn

Deregistered
Dec 20, 2002
21,899
0
0
Planet Nikon
since63 said:
Hi,

Does anyone has this lense or have comments of about it? Please comment. Very much appreciated. Thanks.
Answer
 

since63

New Member
Nov 18, 2005
88
0
0
Hi Guys,

Many Thanks for the quick replys, the very informative comments and the suggested alternatives.

Presently have an old F90X and I'm looking for a DSLR. So a lense that's suitable for both the DSLR and SLR is preferrable, although I must agreed that the 18-200 VR is very tempting.

Thanks again.
 

espn

Deregistered
Dec 20, 2002
21,899
0
0
Planet Nikon
since63 said:
Hi Guys,

Many Thanks for the quick replys, the very informative comments and the suggested alternatives.

Presently have an old F90X and I'm looking for a DSLR. So a lense that's suitable for both the DSLR and SLR is preferrable, although I must agreed that the 18-200 VR is very tempting.

Thanks again.
Then buy AF-S 17-35, AF-S 28-70 and AF-S 80-200 :thumbsup:
 

since63

New Member
Nov 18, 2005
88
0
0
lsisaxon said:
If you use digital only, get 18-200/3.5-5.6 VR.
If you use film also, get 24-85/2.8-4 D (not the AF-S one).

Hello lsisaxon,
What's the difference between 24-85/2.8-4 D (not the AF-S one) and the AF-S one (besides the f-stop difference)?

Also do you know the price the 24-85/2.8-4 D (not the AF-S one)?

Thanks again for you suggestion.
 

lsisaxon

Senior Member
Nov 29, 2004
11,941
0
36
since63 said:
Hello lsisaxon,
What's the difference between 24-85/2.8-4 D (not the AF-S one) and the AF-S one (besides the f-stop difference)?

Also do you know the price the 24-85/2.8-4 D (not the AF-S one)?

Thanks again for you suggestion.
F-stop difference is good enough to justify a 2.8 instead of a 3.5. That's almost 1 stop.
Personally, I'm using this lens and it gives great result but I can't comment on the AF-S one because I don't have it. :)

AF-D 24-85/2.8-4 List Price:$1280 http://www.nikon.com.sg/productitem.php?pid=78-df53a3398c
AF-S 24-85/3.5-4.5 ED List Price: $650 http://www.nikon.com.sg/productitem.php?pid=79-570de00bd5

See which one you prefer. Actually, come to think of it, if you want to get the AF-S 24-85, might as well go for the 24-120VR instead. :)
 

since63

New Member
Nov 18, 2005
88
0
0
espn said:
Then buy AF-S 17-35, AF-S 28-70 and AF-S 80-200 :thumbsup:
Thanks ESPN,

Its a very good collection but unfortunately cannot afford.
 

danster

New Member
Oct 12, 2003
608
0
0
lsisaxon said:
F-stop difference is good enough to justify a 2.8 instead of a 3.5. That's almost 1 stop.
Personally, I'm using this lens and it gives great result but I can't comment on the AF-S one because I don't have it. :)

AF-D 24-85/2.8-4 List Price:$1280 http://www.nikon.com.sg/productitem.php?pid=78-df53a3398c
AF-S 24-85/3.5-4.5 ED List Price: $650 http://www.nikon.com.sg/productitem.php?pid=79-570de00bd5

See which one you prefer. :)
actually, quite a few reviewers (including noted Nikonian Thom Hogon) prefer the newer AFS 24-85mm f3.5/4.5 G lens.

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

I've used it myself and was more than happy with the sharpness and contrast. Only problem was that it was not wide enough on DSLR so I traded it for the D70 kit lens, which I'm also happy with :)

But as it is a G lens w/o the aperture ring, you can mount it on your F90x but will not be able to control the aperture in A or M mode. However, you can still use it in "shiftable" P mode.
 

lsisaxon

Senior Member
Nov 29, 2004
11,941
0
36
danster said:
actually, quite a few reviewers (including noted Nikonian Thom Hogon) prefer the newer AFS 24-85mm f3.5/4.5 G lens.

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

I've used it myself and was more than happy with the sharpness and contrast. Only problem was that it was not wide enough on DSLR so I traded it for the D70 kit lens, which I'm also happy with :)

But as it is a G lens w/o the aperture ring, you can mount it on your F90x but will not be able to control the aperture in A or M mode. However, you can still use it in "shiftable" P mode.
Maybe for half the price, it's really worth it? :)
 

jeff3tan

Senior Member
Jun 9, 2004
856
0
16
Far East Of Singapore
Prob u judge for yourself on sharpness.

This is taken handheld VR ON: F4 1/30 34mm


This was taken VR OFF handheld: F4.5 1/100 100mm


This was taken VR OFF (on a tripod): f14 5/1s 24mm


I find that it is an excellent travel lens of course now u have a 18-200 VRII, I wouldn't comment much on the quality of it but on the 24-120, I would say that its a lens that worth its price. :thumbsup:
 

shutterbug

New Member
Jan 30, 2002
490
0
0
Anywhere
Visit site
since63 said:
Hi,

Does anyone has this lense or have comments of about it? Please comment. Very much appreciated. Thanks.

Like some has said, it is not wide enough. Better choice is the new 18-200 VR. Quite a performer. :)
 

espn

Deregistered
Dec 20, 2002
21,899
0
0
Planet Nikon
If want to see sharpness, should zoom in at 100% and crop the sides/center, showing a resized image doesn't work.
 

jeff3tan

Senior Member
Jun 9, 2004
856
0
16
Far East Of Singapore
espn said:
If want to see sharpness, should zoom in at 100% and crop the sides/center, showing a resized image doesn't work.
Agreed to a certain extend.

Do u print every single shot at A3 or poster size?

shutterbug said:
Like some has said, it is not wide enough. Better choice is the new 18-200 VR. Quite a performer.
Agreed that the 24 is not wide enough, I do find that it is a limitation to a certain extend. If there is a 18-200 2.8 VR .. I guess its really a wish lens for a lot of pple as well. Not forgetting at the 200 tele end, is this a well balanced lens? I'm not sure, but from the experience of the 24-120, the tele end is not very balance(as in weight distribution), thats my feel of it. It may be a personal preference, I guess.
 

espn

Deregistered
Dec 20, 2002
21,899
0
0
Planet Nikon
jeff3tan said:
Agreed to a certain extend.

Do u print every single shot at A3 or poster size?
And your point being? If I do print above A3 and poster size?

You wanted to show the sharpness of the glass, then it should be cropped at certain areas to show the sharpness at 100% and not a resized image. Any resized image + PS USM will appear to be sharp.

It's the raw images prior to USM and resizing that shows how sharp the glass is. Resizing already throws away details.
 

jeff3tan

Senior Member
Jun 9, 2004
856
0
16
Far East Of Singapore
espn said:
And your point being? If I do print above A3 and poster size?

You wanted to show the sharpness of the glass, then it should be cropped at certain areas to show the sharpness at 100% and not a resized image. Any resized image + PS USM will appear to be sharp.

It's the raw images prior to USM and resizing that shows how sharp the glass is. Resizing already throws away details.
Please pardon me on that, I did not resize that image, Its is displayed at a predefined size for viewing. If u want to take a look u can view it from my gallery. Orginal size is available for your viewing pleasure. Yes, agreed on USM + ++++ gives u a good processed image but these images are UN-USM.

I'm leaving the judgement here, I'm neither saying that my shots are sharp nor soft, these are really subjective to indivduals. If u would like to comment as they are not the right size for your expert comments , your choice.
 

espn

Deregistered
Dec 20, 2002
21,899
0
0
Planet Nikon
jeff3tan said:
Please pardon me on that, I did not resize that image, Its is displayed at a predefined size for viewing. If u want to take a look u can view it from my gallery. Orginal size is available for your viewing pleasure. Yes, agreed on USM + ++++ gives u a good processed image but these images are UN-USM.
What's displayed at predefined size? If you wanted to show the original images you should have linked the originals directly and not give 'predefined size' viewing sizes for showing the sharpness.



jeff3tan said:
If u would like to comment as they are not the right size for your expert comments , your choice.
My my, getting touchy here aren't we.
 

Status
Not open for further replies.