24-120 F4 focus breathing

[Geoffc]

If you mean it's focussing beyond the subject you need a negative value. You need to choose a focal length and distance to subject to do the calibration at as it will be slightly out at other settings.

I also recommend something like the focal AF software which I have, or lens align which I don't, to make the testing less subjective.

I'm now happy with mine and leave it on the camera most of the time.

 

[WhiteLight]

a bit off topic, how would this lens compare against a combination of 24-70 f/2.8 & 70-200 f/4?
for studio shoots?

 

[gqtuazon]

a bit off topic, how would this lens compare against a combination of 24-70 f/2.8 & 70-200 f/4?
for studio shoots?

For studio shots using f5.6 or lower aperture, the 24-70 and 24-120mm f4 are equally just as sharp from corner to corner when I did my test on my D700 and I was pixel peeping. I can't say about the 70-200mm f4 since I don't have that lens. It is very vesatile lens for studio work especially if you are in a tight space.

It can work for portraits too but I don't have a lot of people to shoot except for occassional NFL cheerleaders that visit us every superbowl game.

 

[BackdoorArts]

a bit off topic, how would this lens compare against a combination of 24-70 f/2.8 & 70-200 f/4?
for studio shoots?

Not having the 24-70 f/2.8 I cannot compare them, but I have no issues with the sharpness of either the 24-120mm or 70-200mm f/4's. I see no reason why they wouldn't work wonderfully in the studio provided you don't need the extra stop for narrow dof.

 

[WhiteLight]

Thanks Jake & Glenn

 

[TonyD315]

Reading through this forum I noticed that a few people on here are shooting with the 24-120 on DX cameras. I was wondering what your opinions of it were. I'm looking to upgrade to the 7100 from the 5000 and I'm going back and fourth between the 17-55 2.8 and the 24-120 4. I understand the distance difference, I'm mrs concerned with how the FX lens performs on the DX body. I've read a lot with mixed reviews...

 

[BackdoorArts]

Tony, I'm not sure why there would be mixed reviews concerning this. More times than not, any lens is going to be weakest at the edges and in the corners, and given that the DX sensor eliminates all of those and grabs the sweet spot of any full frame glass. So, if nothing else, a full frame lens should consistently perform as well or better on the DX camera.

As you know, a 24mm will start your zoom at an effective 35/36mm, so it's not going to be nearly as wide as you might like in a versatile zoom, but outside of that there's nothing about them that should be a detriment on a cropped sensor camera. And should you ever upgrade to full frame you have one less lens to replace.

 

[TonyD315]

Tony, I'm not sure why there would be mixed reviews concerning this. More times than not, any lens is going to be weakest at the edges and in the corners, and given that the DX sensor eliminates all of those and grabs the sweet spot of any full frame glass. So, if nothing else, a full frame lens should consistently perform as well or better on the DX camera.

As you know, a 24mm will start your zoom at an effective 35/36mm, so it's not going to be nearly as wide as you might like in a versatile zoom, but outside of that there's nothing about them that should be a detriment on a cropped sensor camera. And should you ever upgrade to full frame you have one less lens to replace.

I was reading online and someone posed the simple question and two or three people got the topic off track by arguing the difference between FX and DX, like really in depth about pixels, lines, sharpness on the edges, and some other stuff that was really over my head. I understand about the DX sensor using the sweet spot on the lens, as well as that it will technically be 35/36mm. That's why my next purchase would be a wind angel zoom. Maybe some day down the line I will look into a lens with more reach, but I don't see much use for what I want to do right now. I also toyed with the idea of just getting the 18-105 lens that comes with the kit...but going back to your last point I like the idea of having FX lens for if/when I make the jump to FX...

 

[BackdoorArts]

Wanna good wide angle zoom that'll transition to FX? Get the 16-35mm f/4. A little more width than the 17-58mm you mentioned, and almost as sharp as the famed 14-24mm. I personally love the trio of f/4 Nikkor lenses (16-35mm, 24-120mm, 70-200mm). I rarely shoot wide open, so not having that extra stop doesn't bother me at all.

 

[gqtuazon]

I was reading online and someone posed the simple question and two or three people got the topic off track by arguing the difference between FX and DX, like really in depth about pixels, lines, sharpness on the edges, and some other stuff that was really over my head. I understand about the DX sensor using the sweet spot on the lens, as well as that it will technically be 35/36mm. That's why my next purchase would be a wind angel zoom. Maybe some day down the line I will look into a lens with more reach, but I don't see much use for what I want to do right now. I also toyed with the idea of just getting the 18-105 lens that comes with the kit...but going back to your last point I like the idea of having FX lens for if/when I make the jump to FX...

The Nikon 24-120mm f4 has a similar field of view as the Nikon 16-85mm. Just hope that Nikon will update it to f4 as previously rumored.

 

[Geoffc]

Wanna good wide angle zoom that'll transition to FX? Get the 16-35mm f/4. A little more width than the 17-58mm you mentioned, and almost as sharp as the famed 14-24mm. I personally love the trio of f/4 Nikkor lenses (16-35mm, 24-120mm, 70-200mm). I rarely shoot wide open, so not having that extra stop doesn't bother me at all.

I use the 16-35 on my DX bodies as I sold all my DX glass. It's very sharp on a DX. It's also sharp on FX for that matter.