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!

Nikon 24-120VR IQ?

Discussion in 'Lens Lust' started by Scorpio1, Aug 22, 2008.

  1. Any folks using this lens with the D300 specifically? Interested in impressions of lens and image quality in particular.

    Photos would be great. Thanks.
     
  2. In my humble opinion.... This is one of Nikon's sleeper lenses (like the 28x105). It's low priced and the newer ones I've had performed perfect. I've owned 3 and all have been great. One went to my daughter (she still uses it 3 years later), the other was sold after I found a great copy of the 18x200.

    I don't do a lot of wide shots, so it fit my DX needs just fine and I'd sometimes carry the 12x24 with it to give me 12 to 120 in an easy carry bag. I just went to FX (the reason I bought my 3rd 24x120) and once again it performs very well.
     
  3. weiran

    weiran

    966
    Jan 2, 2007
    Nottingham, UK
  4. AdamJ

    AdamJ

    300
    Jan 28, 2008
    Aurora, IL
    Oddly this seems like the most 'debated' walkaround zoom lens nowdays, probably because of Nikon's pairing it with the D700.

    I've seen results that show its perfectly acceptable, and I've seen other results that are unacceptable.

    I've been a bit interested in this lens as an easy to use all-in-one, but I don't think I will really know my comfort level with it until I get one and do a direct comparison. Of course I don't expect it to hold up to something like the 24-70, but what I'm look for is a personally defined level of 'acceptability' in terms of image quality.
     
  5. weiran

    weiran

    966
    Jan 2, 2007
    Nottingham, UK
    I'd expect it would work better on a D700 than a D300 as the pixel density is much lower (if you take the DX portion of the D700 sensor, it's ~6MP compared to 12MP) and wouldn't stress the lens as much.
     
  6. Weiran

    If that is the case, would a true DX lens be best suited to the D300 to help produce better IQ assuming one is not looking for a "pro" caliber lens?
     
  7. AdamJ

    AdamJ

    300
    Jan 28, 2008
    Aurora, IL
    That is what I would think too, but looking at the corner resolution on the crop-sized test show it falling off FAST, if its resolution is dropping that fast the FX frame could be quite mushy even with the reduced pixel density...
     
  8. weiran

    weiran

    966
    Jan 2, 2007
    Nottingham, UK
    You don't have to get pro-class lenses to get top level optical quality, for example Nikons consumer zoom the 16-85VR is a pretty good lens and in the optical quality of the 17-55 f/2.8, but without the fast apertures.

    Personally I chose the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8, as it offers me the best IQ for anything near it's price, as well as a compact and lightweight lens that I can easily afford.

    You don't have to get a DX lens to get the top IQ on a DX sensor, as you probably know the 14-24 and 24-70 are some of the best zooms around and they're both FX lenses. However you may find older full-frame lenses designed for film may have slight problems on digital DX sensors (from what I've seen, mainly CA).
     
  9. AdamJ

    AdamJ

    300
    Jan 28, 2008
    Aurora, IL
    I would say in many cases, yes. Because often the DX lens can actually provide a better resolution due to the tighter pixel density, the lens has to account for that.

    I'f I'm not mistaken, I've heard others say the overall IQ of the 18-200 DX is better then the 24-120 when on a DX body, specifically the D300...


     
  10. The short answer on the 24-120mm VR is that it does quite well for sharpness at F8 or so but it is pretty soft wide open. This is my second copy and they both have been bevaving the same.

    At wider angles it has quite visible distortion (curved horizons), this is pretty much gone by 35mm.

    This is my experience and I have tested it on D50, D2X, D300 and D3 bodies.
     
  11. Thank you to everyone who has provided some insight so far.
     
  12. Butlerkid

    Butlerkid Cafe Ambassador Moderator

    Apr 8, 2008
    Rutledge, Tennessee
    Karen
    You can check out actual shots at this post:

    https://www.nikoncafe.com/vforums/showthread.php?t=183528

    All shots with the 24-120 VR but with the D200.

    I've used the lens for several years. For travel, I found the 24-120 and the 12-24 covered about 85% of my shots. The range of the 24-120 minimizes lens changes. And the minimal weight of the 24-120 is nice.

    All that said, I am taking a D300 and 24-70/2.8 with the 12-24/f4 on my next trip. Less range, more weight and hopefully sharper images!
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 15, 2017
  13. Thanks for sharing Karen. BTW you took some lovely shots, please make sure to post some from your upcoming trip.
     
  14. Butlerkid

    Butlerkid Cafe Ambassador Moderator

    Apr 8, 2008
    Rutledge, Tennessee
    Karen
    Thanks, Ed.

    The 24-70 is almost twice the weight! BTW - I had first issue of the 24-120 without VR and it was terrible!

    Good luck!
     
  15. PJohnP

    PJohnP

    Feb 5, 2005
    Ed :


    For daylight photography, and stopped down even slightly, the 24-120mm VR/AFS is a versatile lens. I've had a copy since my D100 days, and as a reasonably sized walkaround lens, it's hard to beat. And now, with the improved high ISO shooting capability of the D300, it's gaining renewed life.

    Now, in all candour, if you want an evening or low light lens, the 24-120mm will not hold up to lenses like the 85mm f/1.4 or the legendary 28mm f/1.4, but then, it's a fraction of the prices of those lenses.



    John P.
     
  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.