If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
24-120mm 3.5-5.6 VR
Does anybody have good/bad experiences with the
Nikon 24-120mm VR lens? And how badly will i suffer if i switch from 28-70 f/2.8? The intended application is as a general walk-about lens - which is why i'm interested in the switch (due to VR) at all, really. -- Sander +++ Out of cheese error +++ |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
24-120mm 3.5-5.6 VR
I've had good results with this lens. The VR is a nice feature as it allows
you to leave your tripod in the trunk provided that you aren't shooting in low-light situations that require longer exposure times (1 second or more) or in windy situations where holding the camera steady may be difficult. There will be some vignetting with filters, but any zoom will produce this. Steve "Sander Vesik" wrote in message ... Does anybody have good/bad experiences with the Nikon 24-120mm VR lens? And how badly will i suffer if i switch from 28-70 f/2.8? The intended application is as a general walk-about lens - which is why i'm interested in the switch (due to VR) at all, really. -- Sander +++ Out of cheese error +++ |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
24-120mm 3.5-5.6 VR
Nikonfidence wrote:
I've had good results with this lens. The VR is a nice feature as it allows you to leave your tripod in the trunk provided that you aren't shooting in low-light situations that require longer exposure times (1 second or more) or in windy situations where holding the camera steady may be difficult. There will be some vignetting with filters, but any zoom will produce this. No tripod is a basic requirement for a "walkabout" lens - no way do I want to take a tripod with me everywhere all the time. Steve -- Sander +++ Out of cheese error +++ |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
24-120mm 3.5-5.6 VR
Anybody using this lens on the D70?
Please post your experiences he http://non-aol.com/D70 Thanks, ~Ray "Roger" wrote in message ... On Mon, 14 Jun 2004 12:55:36 +0000 (UTC), Sander Vesik wrote: Does anybody have good/bad experiences with the Nikon 24-120mm VR lens? And how badly will i suffer if i switch from 28-70 f/2.8? The intended application is as a general walk-about lens - which is why i'm interested in the switch (due to VR) at all, really. Sander, I've just been reading the reviews on www.nikonlinks.com www.nikonians.com and in various other net photoreview sites. I'm really confused by the variety of comments, but especially the clustering of comments about "right-of-frame" softness. It sounds like there may be astigmatism in this lens (introduced by manufacturing in certain samples????). It's very puzzling. I hope we hear some interesting things from your questions. Regards, Roger |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
24-120mm 3.5-5.6 VR
"Roger" wrote in message ... On Mon, 14 Jun 2004 12:55:36 +0000 (UTC), Sander Vesik wrote: Does anybody have good/bad experiences with the Nikon 24-120mm VR lens? And how badly will i suffer if i switch from 28-70 f/2.8? The intended application is as a general walk-about lens - which is why i'm interested in the switch (due to VR) at all, really. Sander, I've just been reading the reviews on www.nikonlinks.com www.nikonians.com and in various other net photoreview sites. I'm really confused by the variety of comments, but especially the clustering of comments about "right-of-frame" softness. It sounds like there may be astigmatism in this lens (introduced by manufacturing in certain samples????). It's very puzzling. I hope we hear some interesting things from your questions. Regards, Roger I tried three samples of this lens. The first was surprisingly similar to the first 24-120 non-VR I reviewed a few years ago on my web site (good, particularly around f8 and smaller, but not astonishing, with some slight optical misalignment showing, particularly around 28mm) - though more recent samples of the non-VR were consistent, and quite excellent (I'm sorry I sold mine to get the VR this early in its production run). The second appeared well-aligned, but it and the third (not well-aligned) shifted the image noticeably and annoyingly when the stabilizer was engaged. All were returned, and I may try again next year, if I'm still shooting jobs. This lens has the potential for being both excellent optically, and very useful due to the stabilizer - and the three samples I tried were good enough to please most - but I was not satisfied (OK, I know I'm a nut about good optical alignment, and it is going to take longer for Nikon to get this better....). BTW, my "wish list" for VR is the 24-120 and 70-200 + really excellent 35mm f2, 50mm f1.4, 85mm f1.8, 135mm f2.5, 180mm f2.8, 60-200 f4, and 70-300mm f4.5 (and maybe a 300mm f4). I have less need for big/heavy/fast lenses than compact ones where the VR feature can add a couple of stops of speed compensation... -- David Ruether http://www.ferrario.com/ruether |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
24-120mm 3.5-5.6 VR
"David Ruether" wrote:
This lens has the potential for being both excellent optically, and very useful due to the stabilizer - and the three samples I tried were good enough to please most - but I was not satisfied (OK, I know I'm a nut about good optical alignment, and it is going to take longer for Nikon to get this better....). David, What makes you think that Nikon are ever going to get this any better? Tony |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
24-120mm 3.5-5.6 VR
"TP" wrote in message ... "David Ruether" wrote: [...] This lens has the potential for being both excellent optically, and very useful due to the stabilizer - and the three samples I tried were good enough to please most - but I was not satisfied (OK, I know I'm a nut about good optical alignment, and it is going to take longer for Nikon to get this better....). David, What makes you think that Nikon are ever going to get this any better? Tony They did it with the first version, as I pointed out in the earlier post with, "...more recent samples of the non-VR were consistent, and quite excellent". Four out of four late versions of the non-VR I tried were excellent and well-aligned, but the early version of it I had was just "good", and I sold it almost immediately. As I said, I now regret selling one of those last four, that I owned... -- David Ruether http://www.ferrario.com/ruether |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|