sjackal said:
I agree. However i've tried 24-70 before and I find the AF severely lacking in quickness. Might be something to consider if u wanna spend quite a bit on it
AFS 24-120mm F4 VR
- Thread starter IluvDYL
- Start date
I agree. However i've tried 24-70 before and I find the AF severely lacking in quickness. Might be something to consider if u wanna spend quite a bit on it
The range is also another reason.
Sorry, I never tried any trinity lens before so I can't really commend on the difference in picture quality between them.............................:dunno:
Cant agree more to this statement! 24-70 is a lens which is excellent however in getting an image, weight should always not be a MAIN factor.
Hi TS, check your pm. Sent you link to a few casual snapshots I taken today, no processing whatsoever done.... The 16-35 & 24-120 f4 are my favourite lens for general photography & travels. IMHO, IQ on par with the f2.8s. Cheers!
Hey guys, I'm currently considering if I should get the AFS 24-120mm F4 VR lens to be used on my D700. Having upgraded to FF makes my 17-35mm f2.8 not really useful for travelling. Hence looking for a new lens for my shanghai trip at end of year. 24-70mm f2.8 is too ex for now ><. And I think the VR feature will be very useful at night
I've done a search on my own and read many previous threads in CS about this lens, including looking at sample pics. However, number of sample pics is insufficient. Hence, I'm still not sure if I should get it. Is the colour and sharpness is on par with my AFS 17-35mm f2.8. I will greatly appreciate if any of you can post some shots by this lens with minimal pp. Thanks
Last edited:
Just my 2 cts view, I owned both lens earlier @ the same time, wanting to determine which one is more suitable as an "overall" lens on my D700. Experimented with a 2 hour shooting session, with mounting one lens and shooting at specific spots, then walking back shooting the same spots with the other lens.
Ended giving up the 24-120mm, though I discovered at times the extra 4mm wide end does help but with the 28-300mm you get more spontaneous shots which is very handy for a general walkabout lens. IQ is pretty decent, of coz it cannot be compared to the trinity series or prime lens. But you get most of the work done, unless you are talking about specific themes in mind(portraiture, landscapes).
AF hunting is a bit more tedious, but overall it is a lens that should impress decently.
Comparison of different Nikon lenses to the 24-120 F4 VR :
Nikon 24-120mm VR Review
Just FYI.................................
Nikon 24-120mm VR Review
Just FYI.................................
Comparison of different Nikon lenses to the 24-120 F4 VR :
Nikon 24-120mm VR Review
Just FYI.................................
Whatever rocks your boat bud.
28-105mm AF-D is the best walkaround lens + a built-in macro switch!! american swiss knife!! best on fx.
I owned both 24-70/2.8 and 24-120/4vr. My personal observation...
Both are sharp perhaps 24-70 wins by a hairline or two advantage. To be fair, both lenses has been AF fine tune using LV as the baseline.
I guess both lenses serve different needs / purpose / budget. For travel (especially with kids), 24-120 will be handy. Serves most aspect of photography. Small compact and light (although this is relative...). However, there are situations when a f2.8 has the advantage, and when you are carrying a f4.0 - you wish it's was a 2.8 (or faster). Then again, how often does it arise - 20% of the time or is it 80% of the time? Well like one of our bros mentioned, there's no one size fits all...
For my family travels, I have no qualms on bringing 24-120/4vr + 50/1.4 and I am done...but that's me.
Both are sharp perhaps 24-70 wins by a hairline or two advantage. To be fair, both lenses has been AF fine tune using LV as the baseline.
I guess both lenses serve different needs / purpose / budget. For travel (especially with kids), 24-120 will be handy. Serves most aspect of photography. Small compact and light (although this is relative...). However, there are situations when a f2.8 has the advantage, and when you are carrying a f4.0 - you wish it's was a 2.8 (or faster). Then again, how often does it arise - 20% of the time or is it 80% of the time? Well like one of our bros mentioned, there's no one size fits all...
For my family travels, I have no qualms on bringing 24-120/4vr + 50/1.4 and I am done...but that's me.
yup.. really depends on what you shoot. If all you shoot is landscapes and "we were here" pictures, of course a F4 lens would suffice.
Cheesecake
Senior Member
its ok leh.
i've the lens with D800E and so far so good.
i've posted sample of it quite a while back.
The Nikon 24-70 is the fastest autofocusing lens in the industry. You most likely tried a bad copy or its user fault.
Hi,
Having two of the three f4 trinity I am very pleased with the IQ (16-35 and 24-120), plus the focus speed even in low light is great - way above the old 18-200 vr2 I used to use. Of course the 2.8 family will be better but consider lugging around the massive lens. Unless you are a pro and demand the best possible option I can't really see why 2.8 would be best option.
What bugs me if the new 70-200mm f4 will be a good addition since it only gives extra range of 120-200. Not sure if that little extra range would be worth lugging an extra lens over when on hols ..
Side note the 16-35mm is really awesome, and gives a totally different perspective. So if u r looking for a unique perspective that's not as common, check that out and other uwa variants
Having two of the three f4 trinity I am very pleased with the IQ (16-35 and 24-120), plus the focus speed even in low light is great - way above the old 18-200 vr2 I used to use. Of course the 2.8 family will be better but consider lugging around the massive lens. Unless you are a pro and demand the best possible option I can't really see why 2.8 would be best option.
What bugs me if the new 70-200mm f4 will be a good addition since it only gives extra range of 120-200. Not sure if that little extra range would be worth lugging an extra lens over when on hols ..
Side note the 16-35mm is really awesome, and gives a totally different perspective. So if u r looking for a unique perspective that's not as common, check that out and other uwa variants
There will always be complains. People want instant focusing. Their minds think it, and it focuses. Only then they may be happy. Or maybe they will complain how come focus will shift when they see a pretty lady walk by.
IMHO sir, the 24-70 is the closest one can get to instant focusing, in today's context. If there is ever a faster focusing lens, I do not know.
Another thing, it is not just fast, it is damn accurate too.