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!

Lens Confusion

Discussion in 'General Technical Discussion' started by gbenic, Jun 26, 2005.

  1. I have been reading the reviews and opinions on these two Nikon lenses: 28-200mm f/3.5-5.6G ED-IF and the 24-120mm f/3.5-5.6G ED-IF AF-S VR. I may be missing something, but I didn't see my questions answered. I believe that I have narrowed my next lens down to one of these guys. Aside from the VR advantage, will one of these lenses give a sharper image than the other? I want to use it as my main walk-around lens. I can see the advantage of 200mm for the birds at my feeders and I can see the advantage of lower shutter speeds while hand-held with the VR. I believe that the baby VR will focus faster as well. Aside from the $200 difference, is there any other difference? Is there anything else that you guys would recommend from Nikon or anyone else?

    By the way, I will be using it on my D70 which is typically used in P mode and RAW+JPEG.

  2. Greg,

    I have the 24-120 VR and so far I like this lense. I feel like it is a nice all around lense. Of course, the extra reach would be nice also.

    Here is a pic I took this evening of our hummingbirds with the VR lense.

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


    Jan 30, 2005
    #1064 - You have an error in your SQL syntax;
  4. Mark, I think that most feel as you do. When they make the purchase, they are very happy with it. Thanks for sharing your picture.
  5. MontyDog


    Jan 30, 2005
    #1064 - You have an error in your SQL syntax;
  6. Me too!

    I am printing this out and trying to digest this as well.

    It is nice to know what a lense is capable of doing from a technical standpoint and from I think an objective point as well.


    Just curious, who does the testing? The manufacturers of the lenses? 3rd parties?

    And is this info always available for lenses?

    Ok I will go do a search right now!
  7. MontyDog


    Jan 30, 2005
    #1064 - You have an error in your SQL syntax;
  8. Yep, I just found the Nikon site. I was trying to figure out how to read the Japanese but, you are right just enough english to kind of make sense of it. This is interesting stuff for sure. I never know about such things. But that is why I am here. To learn more.

    Hopefully, this info helps Greg in making his lense decisions.
  9. How would you use the lens you decide to buy? I have both and have had good success with both of them...but I call the 28-200 G Nikon's best secret! At the long end it is amazingly sharp and at the wide end very acceptable. barrel distortion at the wide end...slight pincushion at the long...but not enough to bother in most cases.

    I think this is an amazing travel lens. Here is a link to show a little about it. I put the photos together right after the lens was originally introduced.


    I also like the 24-120 VR for certain instances...but that is a horse of another color. It would really help to know what you want to photograph.



  10. Gale


    Jan 26, 2005
    Viera Fl
    Wow Paul ,you sure a wonderful knowledge base for us here.

    Thank you ...
  11. It would be my "all purpose" lens. I really like the kit lens but it doesn't have enough reach for me. When I use the 70-300 and set it for 100 or 135mm, that would suffice for 80% of my shots at the telephoto end. I figured if I could get a carry around lens, I could add a "birding" lens and a portrait lens later as funds free up.

    I also keep looking at the Sigma 28-135/2.8-4. It looks promising. Since I am still a beginner with the MTF charts, I am not 100% certain, but I think that it should be comparable to my kit lens.

    As far as the 28-200mm/3.5-5.6 ED is concerned, I don't know if enough light would be available at 200mm for me to comfortably hand hold a lower light shot. My 70-300 doesn't fair well for me in this regard and it has similar specs.

    This is the chart for the Sigma. If I understand it at all, it appears to be a lens with good contrast and sharpness at the telephoto end and above average at the wide end.


    Here is the chart for the kit lens (wide on left). It looks like it does better in the wide angle than telephoto. This is why I keep looking at the Sigma.


    But then again, I may still be really confused!

    Thanks for reading!
  12. Greg,

    I think the 28-200 G lens is one of the best all-around lenses. As far as hand-held...all the fireworks shots and the football shot were taken hand-held. I think I ramped up to 400 ISo with the football shot. I was as far away in the stadium as you could get and yet, when I zoomed in I could easily read everyone's jerseys. It was taken at 200mm, too, with the D100 which was soon to be replaced by the D70.

    MTF charts are nice...but what you really see with the lens is what counts. I found this lens to be very sharp in all its range. You lose some bokeh relative to an f/2.8 or f/1.4 lens, but that is also true of the 28-120 VR lens.

    As mentioned, I like them both...but if I'm going traveling and can only take one lens it will be the 28-200 G. And please don't confuse it with the 28-200 D lens. That is older generation and no-where near the quality of the G lens.


  13. 28-200 G knowledge...

    Gale, you are going to make me blush. There is an awful lot of great talent in this forum...and you are no slouch, yourself. How did you do those kaleidoscopic photos, anyway?



  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.