nikon as 24-120 f4 VR
- Thread starter Bukitimah
- Start date
I have one, and only need to shoot it at high ISO when there isn't enough light.:encouragement:
Is there anything specific that you would like to know about this lens?
Quality wise (IQ) there is a bit of difference between the 24-70 2.8 and the 24-120. But there is also size and weight to consider. The 24-120 is quite lighter than the 2.8. Plus it has VR, and, the range it covers is a lot more useful. I have both and there have been times when I was out with the 24-70 and I wished I had the possibility to go to 120.
I think that the 24-120 is a very good lens to have on a FX camera. It's light and sharp and f4 is not so bad with newer sensors that have such great high iso IQ. And with the money saved between the two, you can get an 85 1.8 prime lens that is just fantastic for really low light situations.
I think that the 24-120 is a very good lens to have on a FX camera. It's light and sharp and f4 is not so bad with newer sensors that have such great high iso IQ. And with the money saved between the two, you can get an 85 1.8 prime lens that is just fantastic for really low light situations.
BackdoorArts
Senior Member
I just looked in my active LR catalog which currently contains the last 4 months of 2015 photos. In it there are 945 photos taken with the 24-120mm f4 (it lives on my FX cameras). Almost half (451) of the photos were taken at ISO 100. Only about 10% were taken at ISO levels above 6400, and in those cases it had more to do with the aperture I needed to shoot (above f8) than available light.
I say this to dispel the idea that an f4 lens somehow requires you to shoot at high ISO levels. That's just plain nuts. It's one stop less bright, so you've got one add'l stop of required ISO over your f2.8 lens. It's plenty sharp wide open, but yes it gets better at f5.6. It also saves you a wad of cash and weight if you don't want to spring for the 24-70mm f2.8, and it's got that extra reach that will keep you from wondering if you should have brought the 70-200mm with you as well. Perfect walkaround lens on a FX body, and a great lens on DX if you're looking to do candid street portraits or something similar.
I say this to dispel the idea that an f4 lens somehow requires you to shoot at high ISO levels. That's just plain nuts. It's one stop less bright, so you've got one add'l stop of required ISO over your f2.8 lens. It's plenty sharp wide open, but yes it gets better at f5.6. It also saves you a wad of cash and weight if you don't want to spring for the 24-70mm f2.8, and it's got that extra reach that will keep you from wondering if you should have brought the 70-200mm with you as well. Perfect walkaround lens on a FX body, and a great lens on DX if you're looking to do candid street portraits or something similar.
I have only tried it a few times. When I have plenty of light the IQ is pretty close, but the lower the light gets the better it is on the D750.
If you are looking for a less expensive alternative to a 2.8 zoom lens ,you can't go wrong with this IMO.
Also I noticed that you shoot with a D300. If you are shooting most of the time in low light, high ISO is your problem and may go for a 2.8 zoom or a 1.8 prime or higher.
BackdoorArts
Senior Member
I should add, if I'm going out shooting street stuff I'll take the D750 with a 16-35mm f4 and the D7100 with the 24-120mm f4, or the 24-120mm f4 on the D750 and the 70-200mm f4 on the D7100. It effectively gives me everything from 16mm to 180mm or 24mm to 300mm. Just which I take will depend on the location and how wide I need to get (those 8mm between 16 and 24 can be critical in small spaces). And while there are 28-300mm lenses out there the IQ on this combination is head and shoulders above that lens (I used to own it).
Well ,Jake answered most of this question but auto focusing depends more on the camera then the lens.
I can autofocus this lens in near darkness with the D750 and it will snap right to it, , but it will hunt forever on my D7100 under the same condition.
Don Kuykendall_RIP
RIP :(
I originally bought it to go on my D7100 and it produced great shots. My only complaint with it on that camera was it was not quite wide enough at 24mm but when I got my D750 it was perfect. I shoot a lot in low light but mostly with tripod since what am shooting sometime is in a very dark old building but I still want top quality. I think it is the perfect walk around lens with the longer focal length and the lens is a ittle heavy but in a 2.8 it would be a lot heavier.
I would not leave home without this lens on my camera.
Yes, my D300 cannot perform above iso 400. I am looking at a D600 or D610 and pairing with this lens. That is why I am checking if I need the f2.8 or this will be a perfect lens.
I have both the 24-120 and D600 and cannot complain, other than the 24-120 was still too short for my style of shooting. So I changed to the 28-300. But the 24-120/D600 is a very formidable combination.
I don't have the lens and have never used one so my comments come from shooting in somewhat low-light situations. Here is a SOOC photo taken yesterday immediately prior to the Worship service. It was a test shot to check the exposure--it is completely unedited except for forum resizing.
I was in aperture priority--no exposure compensation was used. ISO 2500, Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8 lens shot at f/5, 1/80" shutter speed. I'd say the lighting was not overly bright by any means but a little brighter than it looks here. Most of the images taken were shot at @180-190mm. By zooming in, the camera meters a different area. Even though the lighting didn't change, by zooming in, I wound up having adjust my exposure by -0.3 stop. I even opened up to f/4, and although I underexposed the remainder of the images, the shutter speed slowed down to 1/30". Like I said, when you zoom in or out, the camera is metering a different area. I was surprised I needed to use ISO to 2500, but I really didn't want my shutter speeds to be too slow. 1/30" was definitely slow enough for the remainder of the images.
I've also photographed my local high school's drama productions. When I first started, I used a Sigma 70-210 f/3.5-4.5 lens. It handled the lighting okay, but when I took my Nikon 55-200mm f/4.5-5.6 DX lens, most of the time it hunted. I believe you should be fine to shoot with the lens you mentioned because it is an f/4 lens and not one with a variable aperture. If the lighting winds up being too dim, you will have the option to switch to live view and focus manually.
I was in aperture priority--no exposure compensation was used. ISO 2500, Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8 lens shot at f/5, 1/80" shutter speed. I'd say the lighting was not overly bright by any means but a little brighter than it looks here. Most of the images taken were shot at @180-190mm. By zooming in, the camera meters a different area. Even though the lighting didn't change, by zooming in, I wound up having adjust my exposure by -0.3 stop. I even opened up to f/4, and although I underexposed the remainder of the images, the shutter speed slowed down to 1/30". Like I said, when you zoom in or out, the camera is metering a different area. I was surprised I needed to use ISO to 2500, but I really didn't want my shutter speeds to be too slow. 1/30" was definitely slow enough for the remainder of the images.
I've also photographed my local high school's drama productions. When I first started, I used a Sigma 70-210 f/3.5-4.5 lens. It handled the lighting okay, but when I took my Nikon 55-200mm f/4.5-5.6 DX lens, most of the time it hunted. I believe you should be fine to shoot with the lens you mentioned because it is an f/4 lens and not one with a variable aperture. If the lighting winds up being too dim, you will have the option to switch to live view and focus manually.
Last edited:
RocketCowboy
Senior Member
I haven't shot the 24-120/f4 on a D300, but I do use it regularly on my D7100 and have also spent some time with it on a D610 and D750.
I've only run into a situation once where I swapped lenses (from the 24-120/f4 to an 85mm/f1.8) due to lighting, but even in that situation I could have gotten a suitable equivalent exposure without sacrificing ISO performance.
I would say that I've been very pleased with the improved performance with the 24-120/f4 on FX bodies, but I believe a big part of that is the improved IQ from the FX sensors.
Of course my D600 cannot compare with D7100 sensor. It is either the D7000 series or the D600 series sensor I will be shooting with this f4 lens.
Thank you and let me work on the body first. The only thing that holds me back is that other than low light situation, I am very happy with my D300. Unfortunately, this is when it matters most times.
Thank you and let me work on the body first. The only thing that holds me back is that other than low light situation, I am very happy with my D300. Unfortunately, this is when it matters most times.
I have had this lens for over a year now on my D750. My two cents are that it has good optics but poor build quality. I recently purchased the 24-85 and it is the opposite. It has much better build quality but poor optics. But since the 24-70 is way too expensive for probably little gains in optical quality I will keep my 24-120.
I don't think Nikons' 1.4 vIII TC is compatible with the 24-120/4.