I let the 24-70 go...

[AdamJ]

I'm a bit disappointed in myself in that I let alot of people 'shoo' me away from the 24-120. I understand there has been some mixed results, but most of the information I had heard came from DX experience with that lens. Suffice it to say alot of other well read websites/reviews have a tendency to put down the lens. My mistake was not trying the lens out myself.

Today I picked up a brand new copy of the lens and tried it out, and the only 'softness' I could find was at the extreme corners when wide open and it wasn't nearly as bad as everyone wanted me to believe. For whatever reason I think this lens performs better on FX format and for 90-95% of the frame produces excellent and sharp results even wide open.

The second generation VR works great, I can shoot 120mm at 1/30s and 50mm at 1/20s reliably.

The only really noteable issue is that right off the bat I noticed the lens wanted to backfocus. I did some informal adjustments in the store and had to make an AF Adjustment of -10. After this, things that I expected to be sharp, were sharp indeed. At home I setup a test chart and further tuned it to -13.

I found no de-centering issues, contrast and color were good.

I come from shooting a Canon EOS 5D with the 24-105mm F/4L and I find the IQ to be indistinguishable other then at the extreme corners...?

I supplanted the zoom with the 50mm f/1.8 since it I wasn't exactly thrilled with the 50mm f/1.4 and I'm very comfortable with the lens combination I have now (24-120, 50mm, 85mm).

This post is really less about the 24-70 then it is about the 24-120. The 24-70 was more lens then wanted for an everyday carry around lens in terms of both price, weight, and size. I think the 24-70 is indeed an awesome lens, but its not something I can carry on my shoulder or neck for more then an hour or two. I needed something a bit more versatile, portable, and affordable, and in my case the 24-120mm happened to fit the bill.

Maybe I got a good copy, maybe I have no clue what sharpness or contrast is, but I think that the 24-120mm is being a little bit underrated these days, especially on FX. If your considering the lens, I would at least recommend you go out and try it out before you rule it out.

 

[davidwegs]

So you really like the 24-120 then?

 

[AdamJ]

So you really like the 24-120 then?

Yes, im happy with it, I will put a a few more days on it before considering it a keeper, but for now I would say I'm very satisfied with it, if I could give it a rating it would be 7/10.

 

[AdamJ]

I spent the sunrise this morning shooting both lenses outdoors. And the differences between the lenses are mounting. The bokeh is no where as good on the 24-120, especially with the VR on.

I've decided that there is just no way I can let the 24-70 go, its too nice of a lens... it has been my favorite lens since the day I got it. The 24-120 makes a nice compliment for when I need to travel light, but I can't replace it all together.

I think the only answer is to keep both!

 

[Rob T]

I spent the sunrise this morning shooting both lenses outdoors. And the differences between the lenses are mounting. The bokeh is no where as good on the 24-120, especially with the VR on.

I've decided that there is just no way I can let the 24-70 go, its too nice of a lens... it has been my favorite lens since the day I got it. The 24-120 makes a nice compliment for when I need to travel light, but I can't replace it all together.

I think the only answer is to keep both!

I think a better answer would be to sell me your 24-70 for the same price that you paid for the 24-120 VR. That way you get the 24-120 VR for F R E E ! ! !

:tongue:

 

[Steiner]

I think a better answer would be to sell me your 24-70 for the same price that you paid for the 24-120 VR. That way you get the 24-120 VR for F R E E ! ! !

:tongue:

:biggrin:

 

[MMarz]

I've been using the 24-120 for a few years, although on a DX format, and I find it to a great lens.. it's my primary carry lens

 

[AdamJ]

Yeah, the title of this thread should really be "Don't discount the 24-120 on FX without trying it out first..."

I've been using the 24-120 for a few years, although on a DX format, and I find it to a great lens.. it's my primary carry lens

 

[puddleduck]

Hi Adam

Would you mind sharing some 100% crops from this lens (without Pp) if you get a chance?

I've got a chance to buy one, but all the lens gurus - Ken Rockwell, Thom Hogan and Bjørn Rørslett dis-like its performance, and views on this lens are split (actually a little like the 18-200 VR with a love it - hate it split)

I wonder if there has been a "silent upgrade" to it?

 

[spalding12]

i'm sorry to hear that you feel this way about the 24-70
one thing to consider
your D700 DESERVES better IQ than the 24-120 is capable of providing
i'm not trying to offend folks who love that lens (like you)
but...
the FX D700 will "expose" the weaknesses of your 24-120 very quickly

better bodies need better glass...

 

[Rob T]

...
one thing to consider
your D700 DESERVES better IQ than the 24-120 is capable of providing
i'm not trying to offend folks who love that lens (like you)
but...
the FX D700 will "expose" the weaknesses of your 24-120 very quickly

better bodies need better glass...

I agree with this. I know that people say that the FF sensor is "more forgiving" of lens quality than the DX sensor, but I don't buy it. I think the difference in lens quality on a FF sensor is very noticeable indeed.

 

[puddleduck]

I agree with this. I know that people say that the FF sensor is "more forgiving" of lens quality than the DX sensor, but I don't buy it. I think the difference in lens quality on a FF sensor is very noticeable indeed.

I'm not so sure about this.

Certainly sharpness wise I am seeing per-pixel-sharpness that matches the heady days of the D70 with its weak AA filter, with pretty much any lens I try.

Off course, sharpness is not the only factor, but I think those big pixels and low pixel-density are very forgiving of lens optics in a way we've not seen since the D70 and D50 6 megapixel era. You could put Coke bottles on those things and it would look OK

 

[Nuteshack]

I'm not so sure about this.

Certainly sharpness wise I am seeing per-pixel-sharpness that matches the heady days of the D70 with its weak AA filter, with pretty much any lens I try.

Off course, sharpness is not the only factor, but I think those big pixels and low pixel-density are very forgiving of lens optics in a way we've not seen since the D70 and D50 6 megapixel era. You could put Coke bottles on those things and it would look OK

coke, pepsi -> choose your weapon ..lol

i agree

 

[BostonRott]

<making notes to find a Coke or Pepsi to pour on the D3...... maybe *that* will give me some Nute-like shots>

 

[Rob T]

I'm not so sure about this.

Certainly sharpness wise I am seeing per-pixel-sharpness that matches the heady days of the D70 with its weak AA filter, with pretty much any lens I try.

Off course, sharpness is not the only factor, but I think those big pixels and low pixel-density are very forgiving of lens optics in a way we've not seen since the D70 and D50 6 megapixel era. You could put Coke bottles on those things and it would look OK

Ironically I went from a D70 (ancient in digital SLR terms) straight to the D700. My 28-200 G lens doesn't look as impressive on the D700 compared to my quality lenses as it did on the D70. That's my point of reference.

 

[spalding12]

here's my main point from above
before you buy a D700 or D3, you have to COMMIT, in YOUR mind, to spending money on good glass

if you will not or cannot do that.... then, you are wasting your money on either body
that isn't meant to be rude... just stating a well-accepted fact
good glass is more important than a good body
of course, having BOTH is far better

 

[Dawgneck]

here's my main point from above
before you buy a D700 or D3, you have to COMMIT, in YOUR mind, to spending money on good glass

if you will not or cannot do that.... then, you are wasting your money on either body
that isn't meant to be rude... just stating a well-accepted fact
good glass is more important than a good body
of course, having BOTH is far better

I agree.

 

[AdamJ]

I agree as well, and I am indeed keeping the 24-70.

I think this was more of a discovery for me that the 24-120 is more 'useable' then I thought. Would I consider it for portraiture or any paid work, no. Would I consider it for going out to shoot for fun, yes.

As someone else asked I will try to post some shots, when I do I will link them in this thread.

But I also think that the '12Mp' FX sensor is a bit more forgiving on glass (especially the centers).

I'm not so sure about coke bottles though...

here's my main point from above
before you buy a D700 or D3, you have to COMMIT, in YOUR mind, to spending money on good glass

if you will not or cannot do that.... then, you are wasting your money on either body
that isn't meant to be rude... just stating a well-accepted fact
good glass is more important than a good body
of course, having BOTH is far better

 

[Nuteshack]

<making notes to find a Coke or Pepsi to pour on the D3...... maybe *that* will give me some Nute-like shots>

lol Gretchen ...maybe i can pass out some anointing oil, or sumthin?

 

[Nuteshack]

here's my main point from above
before you buy a D700 or D3, you have to COMMIT, in YOUR mind, to spending money on good glass

if you will not or cannot do that.... then, you are wasting your money on either body
that isn't meant to be rude... just stating a well-accepted fact
good glass is more important than a good body
of course, having BOTH is far better

i think the point is (ina nut-shell) -> the d3 chip is so awesome it brings the best out of any glass. in dslr this may very well be the first case of the body being the bigger factor. if it came right down to it, most of us would probably be better served with a d3/700 and a hundred dollar 50 1.8:biggrin: