Nikon 24-120 f/4 VR

I have the previous version of this lens. I hate it. Worst vignetting I
ever saw. On the other hand, it was a really cheap lens. It just had
really cheap performance to go along with it.

I hope this one is better. It costs twice as much as the old lens.

--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

C J Campbell wrote:
I have the previous version of this lens. I hate it. Worst vignetting I
ever saw. On the other hand, it was a really cheap lens. It just had
really cheap performance to go along with it.

I hope this one is better. It costs twice as much as the old lens.

Sounds like a solid kit lens for a D700 now, if it delivers. I like the
f/4 fixed spec. It ought to be impeccable though at $1000 (if I recall).

"C J Campbell" wrote in message
news:2010081920104043658-christophercampbellremovethis@hotmailcom...
I have the previous version of this lens. I hate it. Worst vignetting I
ever saw.

At 24mm - what do you actually expect*?

On the other hand, it was a really cheap lens. It just had really cheap
performance to go along with it.

I hope this one is better. It costs twice as much as the old lens.

--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor



* "Ye canna change the laws of physics" Scotty.

On Thu, 19 Aug 2010 20:10:40 -0700, C J Campbell
wrote:

I have the previous version of this lens. I hate it. Worst vignetting I
ever saw. On the other hand, it was a really cheap lens. It just had
really cheap performance to go along with it.

I hope this one is better. It costs twice as much as the old lens.

Maybe they got it right this time? Then again, if you want a high
quality zoom in this range, get the Canon 24-105...

;-)

On 2010-08-20 06:06:04 -0700, Bowser said:

On Thu, 19 Aug 2010 20:10:40 -0700, C J Campbell
wrote:

I have the previous version of this lens. I hate it. Worst vignetting I
ever saw. On the other hand, it was a really cheap lens. It just had
really cheap performance to go along with it.

I hope this one is better. It costs twice as much as the old lens.

Maybe they got it right this time? Then again, if you want a high
quality zoom in this range, get the Canon 24-105...

;-)

You know, Nikon used to make a really good 24-120 before they replaced
it with that last piece of garbage. Hopefully this new lens will be
more like that first one, only with VR. It is a lot heavier, though.

--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

"C J Campbell" wrote:

You know, Nikon used to make a really good 24-120 before they replaced it
with that last piece of garbage. Hopefully this new lens will be more like
that first one, only with VR. It is a lot heavier, though.

How long since you used the older version? Could have your
expectations changed in the interim?

I owned and used both versions, and at least with my copies I must
disagree. Neither one is (or was) the sharpest lens in my arsenal,
but the VR version is better especially at the longer focal lengths.

But if you want the "D" version, it's a buyer's market. Decent
copies (with hood) rarely bring even $150.

--
Mike Benveniste -- (Clarification Required)
Its name is Public opinion. It is held in reverence. It settles
everything. Some think it is the voice of God. -- Mark Twain

On Fri, 20 Aug 2010 09:51:25 -0700, C J Campbell
wrote:

On 2010-08-20 06:06:04 -0700, Bowser said:

On Thu, 19 Aug 2010 20:10:40 -0700, C J Campbell
wrote:

I have the previous version of this lens. I hate it. Worst vignetting I
ever saw. On the other hand, it was a really cheap lens. It just had
really cheap performance to go along with it.

I hope this one is better. It costs twice as much as the old lens.

Maybe they got it right this time? Then again, if you want a high
quality zoom in this range, get the Canon 24-105...

;-)

You know, Nikon used to make a really good 24-120 before they replaced
it with that last piece of garbage. Hopefully this new lens will be
more like that first one, only with VR. It is a lot heavier, though.

Agreed, and I shot one of those for years and made the mistake of
replacing it with the VR version, which was a dog. The older version
was better, optically, at avery length and stop. Loved that lens.

"Bowser" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 20 Aug 2010 09:51:25 -0700, C J Campbell
wrote:

You know, Nikon used to make a really good 24-120 before they replaced
it with that last piece of garbage. Hopefully this new lens will be
more like that first one, only with VR. It is a lot heavier, though.

Agreed, and I shot one of those for years and made the mistake of
replacing it with the VR version, which was a dog. The older version
was better, optically, at avery length and stop. Loved that lens.

This was my experience, also. I quit trying with the third sample
of the VR version and returned it, sorry I had sold the earlier one
in anticipation of buying the VR. I finally settled for the 24-85mm
f3.5-4.5 (NOT the f2.8-4!), which was superior to either of the
others, and in practical terms, not really much shorter at the long
end.
--DR

On 8/21/2010 8:30 AM, Bruce wrote:


Canon has had no such problems - the Canon EF 24-105mm f/4 L IS is
significantly better than any of the Nikkors mentioned above. That's
the lens Nikon has to beat, or at least match, for optical and build
quality.


I have that Canon lens. It is a good lens but not a great lens.
There is nothing to actually complain about, but it's not in the
quality range of a mediocre prime lens.

One hint: if you use it on a crop frame camera, you can use
a reducing adapter and much small polarizer, and not vignette
at all, zero.

Doug McDonald

"Bruce" wrote in message
news
"David Ruether" wrote:
"Bowser" wrote in message
. ..
On Fri, 20 Aug 2010 09:51:25 -0700, C J Campbell
wrote:

You know, Nikon used to make a really good 24-120 before they replaced
it with that last piece of garbage. Hopefully this new lens will be
more like that first one, only with VR. It is a lot heavier, though.

Agreed, and I shot one of those for years and made the mistake of
replacing it with the VR version, which was a dog. The older version
was better, optically, at avery length and stop. Loved that lens.

This was my experience, also. I quit trying with the third sample
of the VR version and returned it, sorry I had sold the earlier one
in anticipation of buying the VR. I finally settled for the 24-85mm
f3.5-4.5 (NOT the f2.8-4!), which was superior to either of the
others, and in practical terms, not really much shorter at the long
end.

Nikon seems to have lost its way in this (approximate) focal length
range, several times over.

The original 28-85mm manual focus zoom was a dog. A very, very bad
dog. It not only had a bad name (very well deserved) but for years it
gave all Zoom-Nikkors a bad name and, to some extent, its bad
reputation affected zoom lenses in general.

Sample variation hit several Nikkors about then - the 35-105mm f3.5 and
35-200mm f3.5-4.5 Nikkors could range from near "pop-bottle-bottoms"
to really excellent. The 28-85mm f3.5-4.5s that I saw were quite decent.
Nothing was as bad, though, as the original-version of the 43-86mm f3.5!
This one was consistently TERRIBLE! (The later version, though, was not
great, but a BIG improvement.) BTW, my Nikkor evaluation list is at --
http://www.donferrario.com/ruether/slemn.html

The AF Nikkor 24-85mm f/2.8-4.0 was also a dog. It had dreadful
distortion which was complex at the wide end, making it very difficult
to remove in post-processing.

The AF Nikkor 24-120mm f/3.5-5.6 was a little better. I'm sorry,
guys, but I cannot find much to say about this lens that's good. I
suppose it's quite sharp, and its distortion at the wide end is easier
to correct in post-processing than that of the 24-85mm I mentioned
above. But that distortion is severe, and it also distorts badly at
120mm.

For some purposes, like shooting outdoor receptions, it was superb...;-)
And the big flat-fronted shade made it easy to place the camera face
down on a table top for efficiently changing film...;-)

I agree with both of you about the AF-S Nikkor f/3.5-5.6G VR version
of this lens. Putting AF-S *and* VR on this truly mediocre optic is
like giving a stray dog two gold teeth. Best not to. ;-)

8^)

Finally, though, Nikon made a good one. The AF-S Nikkor 24-85mm
f/3.5-4.5G was a great lens. Yes, it had distortion, but it was
simple to edit out. The main thing was, it was sharp across the frame
at almost all apertures and focal lengths.

And distances, unusual for a zoom...

So what did Nikon do? They discontinued it! Nikon still offers the
AF Nikkor 24-85mm f/2.8-4.0D, which is just as much of a dog as it
ever was.

Smart, huh? 8^(
I will be keeping mine, although I've used it only once (for testing). Its
performance throughout its range is very consistent, although compared
with non-zooms in its range the results can be interesting. Compared with
the Nikkor 24mm f2.8 AF, the zoom is better to the corners (infinity-focus)
at the widest stops; with the 35mm f2 AF, they are close (with the 35mm
very slightly ahead); with the 50mm f1.4 AF (older), the 50mm easily beats
the zoom at the same wider stops; with the 85mm f1.8 AF, that wonderful
lens easily beats the zoom - BUT, as noted, the zoom is very consistent
center-to-corners at all stops, FLs, and focus distances, not a small thing.

So the new AF-S 24-120mm f/4G VR is Nikon's latest opportunity to
redeem itself, and to finally offer a lens in the 24/28-85/120mm range
that is worthy of the brand.

At the price asked (HIGH!), I expect it is part of a new Nikkor f4 very high
quality constant-aperture series, now with a 16-35mm, a 24-120mm, a
200-400mm, and likely soon to be 70-200mm (or some such - to compete
with Canon's excellent equivalent).

Canon has had no such problems - the Canon EF 24-105mm f/4 L IS is
significantly better than any of the Nikkors mentioned above. That's
the lens Nikon has to beat, or at least match, for optical and build
quality.

Nikon has been slow with introducing practically-sized high-quality
constant-aperture f4 zooms that some can conceive of actually buying and
carrying. ;-) Nikon has made some superb (unequaled) WA f2.8 zooms,
though, and it has had the excellent 200-400mm f4 in its line for quite a
while - although that one is NOT cheap/light/small! ;-)
--DR