1. Welcome to NikonCafe.com—a friendly Nikon camera & photography discussion forum!

    If you are thinking of buying a camera or need help with your photos, you will find our forum members full of advice! Click here to join for free!

Equivalent to Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM

Discussion in 'Lens Lust' started by Electromen, Jun 21, 2007.

  1. Does anyone know of a Nikkor or F-mount lens similar to Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM

    IS is like Nikon's VR
     
  2. nykonian

    nykonian

    570
    May 4, 2007
    New York
    24-120VR? It's close enough.
     
  3. Thanks, I was hoping for a constant f/4 or faster.

    What I like to see is a 24-90mm f/2.8G ED-IF AF-S VR or similar
     
  4. I'm leaning toward the "Beast" but it seems to be on eternal backorder.

    Maybe Nikon will announce some new pro glass?????
     
  5. nykonian

    nykonian

    570
    May 4, 2007
    New York
    Greg, I am waiting for a compact constant f/4 from Nikon as well :) 
     
  6. slappomatt

    slappomatt

    811
    May 13, 2006
    San Diego CA
    nikon doesnt seem to make constant F/4's other than the 12-24 and I can see their point of view. its really not very fast at all. the 18-70 3.5-4.5 is basicly a F/4 lens. its very sharp. very affordable and VR isnt needed at the wider end.

    really F/2.8 isnt all that fast when you get down to it. I've taken the 70-200 2.8 out to a couple night baseball games with very good lighting at petco park and really wasnt able to get the shutter speeds I would have wanted without going to 1600 iso. and there really arent any other options other than 200 2.0 and thats $$$
     
  7. ZBaum

    ZBaum Guest

    Well, the pros do go to ISO 1600 at f/2.8 when doing night games. I'm sure some use the 200 f/2 and Canon's 200 f/1.8, but I think that most use 70-200, 300, and 400 f/2.8's.

    Back to the original question: there isn't any f/4 constant zoom that covers the range you're looking for. I'd love to see a 24-105 f/3.5. There were rumors of a 24-120 f/2.8, but I kind of doubt that we'd see that lens considering how large and heavy it would be.
     
  8. Even if it was as large and as heavy as the 70-200 VR I'd buy it if it was f/2.8

    I'm shooting weddings and have these Nikkor lenses:
    12-24 f/4
    17-55 f/2.8
    70-200 f/2.8 VR
    18-200 VR
    105 f/2.8 Micro VR
    50 f/1.8

    I'd like a zoom in the 35-90 range, maybe the 28-70 f/2.8 is the answer - if I could find one. The 70-200 is great for the back of the church, but a little long for the reception. I use the 17-55 for most of the shots, great lens especially for formals and the wider end, but not great for showing facial expressions and emotions during the reception unless you want to be out on the dance floor, which I try to avoid.
     
  9. PJohnP

    PJohnP

    Feb 5, 2005
    Greg :


    The 24-120mm lens is somewhat underrated. I've found it to be a very good walking around lens, with the VR and AFS working to good advantage. I haven't been using mine as much of late, but it's still holding a place in the line-up. I know that Chris101 has done some fine work with this lens.

    Alternately, consider the 35-70mm f/2.8. Great quality of build, fine to exceptional optical quality, and thought the 28-70mm f/2.8 does edge it out, it's not such a big edge for the differential in price. The only difficulty for some folks is the push-pull zoom arrangement, which is disconcerting for some (I personally enjoy it).



    John P.
     
  10. Thanks John P, I'm still hoping Nikon adds some "gold ring" lenses to it's line up soon. Either the 35-70 or 28-70 would probably fit my needs.
     
  11. plim

    plim Guest

    I started off my nikon journey with the 24-120mm vr and found it to be too soft. Even with VR, I tried to maintain my shots faster than 1/50 to account for subject blur. maybe i was pixel peeping, or i had a bad copy, but i just wasn't thrilled with it.

    i ended up upgrading to the 17-55mm dx and it is a beauty. but sometimes i miss the reach. and sometimes i don't use it wide. had nikon had a 24-70mm f/2.8 (instead of 28-70), i think i would have opted for that. but for now, i'll take the 17-55.

    if you don't need VR, consider the 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5. like the 18-70mm dx, it's basically an f/4 lens, just sans VR (and obviously not as much reach). It was one of my first choices before i trumped it with the 24-120. had i not gotten the 24-120, i would probably have either the 24-85 or the 18-70 in my bag now, and not the 17-55.
     
  12. Me too, plim

    This matches my experience--my 24-120 VR couldn't compare with the Canon consumer equivalent, which I also owned at the time (the 28-135 IS). My disappointment only deepened when I tested both against my old 28-105 and found it was a fair bit sharper than either.

    I liked everything else about the 24-120 (size, range, VR), I just wasn't super impressed with its optical performance.

    Greg
     
  13. Wow... I am very unimpressed with the Canon 28-135IS. I've only seen one copy of each (28-135IS and 24-120VR) at close range, but in the pair that I saw the 24-120VR was easily the better one.
     
  14. My experience was the reverse but in the end . . .

    . . . I got rid of both of them. My 28-135 IS was definitely sharper than my 24-120 VR (and to be frank, I found other optical quality differences between them to also favor the Canon). Maybe my 24-120 was a lemon. I tried all three (24-120, 28-135, and 28-105) on a tripod with VR/IS off and all set to approximate the same field of view that the 28-105 hit near the 28 and 105 ends, and the 28-105 didn't just beat them both, it cleaned their clocks. Who knows, maybe my 28-135 was a lemon too.

    Regardless, the fact that a lens hoarder like me let them both go says something, at least about my samples ;) 

    Heck, I have two 28/2s, three 75-150Es and three nikon 300mm lenses--you can bet if either stabilized lens discussed above had stood up to the test of a couple months use I'd still have them. As it stands, I do still have the 28-105--and I'm keeping that little bugger forever. If a FF Nikon DSLR ever appears on the scene I think the 28-105mm would be my convenience zoom of choice (probably the reason I use it on my film bodies as often as I do).

    Greg
     
  15. Well I certainly won't argue that the 28-105 will beat the pants of either of them...
     
  16. I wonder if this answers the OP's question? Obviously, the 28-105 doesn't have vibration reduction, but it is a solid lens optically and at least doesn't go to f/5.6 on the long end.
     
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.