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


Status
Not open for further replies.

seanlim

New Member
Oct 28, 2005
943
0
0
NEL
Is this lens as sharp as the 50mm(nikkor).....could some1 comment..thanks:)
 

King Tiger

Senior Member
May 11, 2004
5,914
1
38
47
In the heart of SengKang
www.worldwar2aces.com
seanlim said:
Is this lens as sharp as the 50mm(nikkor).....could some1 comment..thanks:)
Hi seanlim

It's 2 different class.
One is a zoom lenes while the other is a prime lense.

For sharpness, both lense can give you the sharpness you want.
Alhough 50mm performance much better than 24-120 @ 50mm.
 

King Tiger

Senior Member
May 11, 2004
5,914
1
38
47
In the heart of SengKang
www.worldwar2aces.com

wind30

Deregistered
Mar 14, 2004
2,927
0
0
slrgear.com


there is reviews for BOTH lens. And the information there is far more detailed than any normal user feedback you will get here. + there is review for the 17-55mm so you know how far the lens is from the "best" DX zoom.
 

seanlim

New Member
Oct 28, 2005
943
0
0
NEL
King Tiger said:
Care to tell us what is your concern, needs and wants ?

So that we can advise you more directly. :)
kk lets see...i have decided to get a couple of lens to suit my need:
AF-S VR 24-120mm f/3.5-5.6G or the 18-200 VR
24mm/2.8 or the 18-35mm or the 20mm
60mm/105mm macro...


but after using my prime, i realised that theres a big diff in terms of sharpness between it and my kit lens. so i want to have some comparison between the lenses:)
 

roti_prata

New Member
Jul 31, 2005
768
0
0
Bt Batok
unless ur very demanding, the 18-200vr + 60marco r enuff for most of the time. reviews and tests hav shown the 18-200vr to be better thn xpected of a high magnification lens
 

lsisaxon

Senior Member
Nov 29, 2004
11,941
0
36
roti_prata said:
unless ur very demanding, the 18-200vr + 60marco r enuff for most of the time. reviews and tests hav shown the 18-200vr to be better thn xpected of a high magnification lens
I second that view. Even when I got the 18-200, I wasn't expecting the lens to perform that well especially when it's a 11x zoom.
 

Dennis

Senior Member
Jan 24, 2002
3,879
0
0
Singapore
8dennis8.fotki.com
If you are not into film or FF than 18-200 is OK, both gives sharp images.
The 24-120 needs some getting used to especially the VR, the stabilizing time is longer.
18-200 is the overall champ now for superzoom unless you are using FF than the 24-120 would be good. Don't expect to compare to prime, it is not the same.
 

Astin

Senior Member
Mar 2, 2002
4,736
0
36
Astin Studio
astin.clubsnap.org
seanlim said:
kk lets see...i have decided to get a couple of lens to suit my need:
AF-S VR 24-120mm f/3.5-5.6G or the 18-200 VR
24mm/2.8 or the 18-35mm or the 20mm
60mm/105mm macro...


but after using my prime, i realised that theres a big diff in terms of sharpness between it and my kit lens. so i want to have some comparison between the lenses:)
If u like the sharpness of the prime lens, then probably u should stick with prime lens.
 

espn

Deregistered
Dec 20, 2002
21,899
0
0
Planet Nikon
Astin said:
If u like the sharpness of the prime lens, then probably u should stick with prime lens.
I like prime's sharpness leh, but I don't like everything prime :bsmilie:
 

seanlim

New Member
Oct 28, 2005
943
0
0
NEL
espn said:
I like prime's sharpness leh, but I don't like everything prime :bsmilie:
yea:eek:
 

Status
Not open for further replies.