24-120 VR...useful?

ultimind · May 30, 2007

I've been seeing these become more and more affordable on KEH and eBay lately...Is this lens useful for anything? I hear good things about it, then I hear about how crappy it is, how NOT sharp it is, how the VR isn't that great.

Do any of these facts hold true? I'd love to get one of these if the price were right to shoot bike Trials with. I've been constantly swtiching back and forth between my 18-70 and 70-210, but staying in the middle of the 18-70 and on the shorter end of the 70-210... So the 24-120 would fit the bill perfectly, but I wouldn't want to get something that isn't going to be up to par being used wide open.

Karel the Wailer · May 30, 2007

well... I have it, and I love it .. my copy is pretty sharp, on par with the 18-70.
the VR ..well it's definitely worth at least 2 stop for me

I usually use it wide open, but never compare every f

ultimind · May 30, 2007

If it's on par with the 18-70 I think it would be just fine for me. I've heard stories about it being terribly soft and the VR-I being substantially worse than VR-II of newer lenses. Honestly the VR would just be a fun toy most of the time because i'm mainly interested in the AF-S and actual focal length.

Just for reference.. This is what I'm shooting at the moment:

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

Latens · May 30, 2007

I suggest you take a closer look to the 18-200VR, it has a more eficient VR system than 24-120, is AF-S. It's more expensive but worth the extra money.

Paulo

http://www.pbase.com/paulorbaptista

ultimind · May 30, 2007

My goal is to purchase some sort of 18-70 replacement and also get an 80-200 F2.8 AF-D. The 18-200 VR is tempting but I really want the speed of the F2.8 when I get out to 200mm.

Chris101 · May 30, 2007

I can't see you picture Ulti, but here are some photos I did with that lens.

Remember that it is not a fast lens! Folks often think that the 2-3 stop advantage of VR makes a slow lens fast, but it doesn't. What it does do is make it possible to handhold at the long end to 1/15th or at the short end to 1/4 second.

In the photos referenced above, the waterfall, for example, was handheld at 1/10th of a second to get the movement of the water.

Chris101 · May 30, 2007

ultimind said:
... I really want the speed of the F2.8 when I get out to 200mm.

Then the 24-120vr won't do at all. It's f/5.6 and only zooms to 120mm. Look at the 70-200mm VR lens.

ultimind · May 30, 2007

Chris: Not sure what the problem is with linking to Flickr images... Here's the set of what I've been shooting lately that the 24-120 would fit in nicely with:

http://flickr.com/photos/d-v/sets/72157600236938319/detail/

Also,Your beach photos are wonderful! I love the "At the Edge of America" image

davidzvi · May 30, 2007

There were reports of the lens being a little soft. But I've used two and gotten good results. Some say that eary copies were the problem, but I can't remember the "magic" serial number. It is a great focal range, another lens to think about is the one I just ordered used. The 28-105, it's not AF-S or VR, but it does have a limited 1:2 macro and is f3.5-4.5. It's also smaller and lighter than the 24-120.

ultimind · May 30, 2007

I'm also avoiding the 18-200 because of the F5.6 @ 200mm. This is also a negative point for the 24-120 as well, but at less than half the price, it's a different tradeoff.

The 70-200 VR would be amazing minus the price. $1500 is a little steep for me at the moment. Especially considering I'm not a professional photographer (Read: I don't make a dime taking pictures! Hehe

baseballer: I've got most of my MF lenses up on eBay at the moment, and once I get the profits from those, I'm going to start seeking out an 80-200 F2.8 AF-D. Two-ring or push/pull... I'm not really picky about either now that I've learned they're the same quality. I just want to find one that's affordable and in decent shape.