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 +++

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 +++

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 +++

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

"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

"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

"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