Is anyone using their AF-S 24-120 f/4 regularly with good results?
- Thread starter 10 Gauge
- Start date
Well I owned the older version 24-120 3.5 to 5.6 vr which everybody and his brother seemed to run down and i got incredible pictures with it and am sorry I ever let it go. I would dearly love to own the new f4 version and would probably couple it with a 12-24 lens to cover about all the focal lengths I ever use. Put that lens thru it's paces and i think you will be more than pleased.
Hi,
With the 24-120 lens attached, I couldn't see a difference between off or on.
But with the 70-200 (tripod attached onto lens) the images were very blurry with VR still on.
My first picture I took with the 70-200 combo was with using it on my tripod... off course, VR still on...
I thought I had a very, very bad lens...
But luckily, it was good after all.
Ad B
PS I bought a Phottix tripod collar ring for my 70-200 lens.
The orginal Nikon will set me back €115,- ($ 130,-), while the Phottix version is € 50,- ($ 56,-).
Yes, I turn off VR when using the camera/lens on a tripod.
With the 24-120 lens attached, I couldn't see a difference between off or on.
But with the 70-200 (tripod attached onto lens) the images were very blurry with VR still on.
My first picture I took with the 70-200 combo was with using it on my tripod... off course, VR still on...
I thought I had a very, very bad lens...
But luckily, it was good after all.
Ad B
PS I bought a Phottix tripod collar ring for my 70-200 lens.
The orginal Nikon will set me back €115,- ($ 130,-), while the Phottix version is € 50,- ($ 56,-).
Last edited:
BackdoorArts
Senior Member
For me the question is always, "Do I turn the VR on for this?" I've found that I'm better off using the reciproal rule and shooting without it. While it can save a shot that would require a slow shutter speed I've found that even handheld it can shave a but of sharpness off a shot that doesn't require it. ISO noise on my cameras (D750, D610) are good enough that unless I want to take absolute control of a shot I use Auto ISO in Aperture Priority and set the shutter speed to be 1 click to the "Faster" side (2 clicks on the D7100 because of greater pixel density). I was surprised at first, but the shots are consistently sharper, all other things being equal.
I had to snap a couple more shots with it before I head to a meeting this morning. Can't wait for the weekend, don't want to take my hands off of this sexy beast.
'93 Toyota Pickup by Matthew Krei, on Flickr
'93 Toyota Pickup by Matthew Krei, on Flickr
'93 Toyota Pickup by Matthew Krei, on Flickr
'93 Toyota Pickup by Matthew Krei, on FlickrI just tried this on my 7100. This is great. It's like shooting in Shutter priority and aperture priority at the same time. It is somewhat windy out today, and there are some birds flying around as well. Tested it for a half hour and so far I like it. Of course it would be better if I had a more capable high ISO camera then the 7100, but I think I'm going to make a user setting for Birds in flight and try it out for a while.
I've been using VR with continuous focus and I think I can now turn VR off in this mode.
Thanks Jake!
The problem with the 24-120 f/4 is that it's always compared to the 24-70 f/2.8. I think the problem with the 24-70 f/2.8 is that it's compared with the 24-120 f/4. They both have advantages over each other, and you end up taking your choice and paying your money. But after all's said and done, what does that actually say about the 24-120?
I think the 24-120 is a perfect walkabout lens on a FX camera. I have both the 24-70 and the 24-120 and they get to share camera time. Sharpness is about equal.
Hi,
We were just "talking" about 24-120 stuff and use with a extender.
I don't use the 24-120 because I can't or am not willing to pay that amount of money for the 24-70...
(I bought my 24-120 used for € 550,- ($ 615,-)
I use it because I love its versatility, reach, quality and VR.
I will not buy the 24-70 because of its reach and it hasn't VR.
Now I have compared enough.
Ad B
The last half of this topic, I don't see a comparesing with the 24-70... I don't care about that lens. It doesn't have VR and I want that on my lens.
We were just "talking" about 24-120 stuff and use with a extender.
I don't use the 24-120 because I can't or am not willing to pay that amount of money for the 24-70...
(I bought my 24-120 used for € 550,- ($ 615,-)
I use it because I love its versatility, reach, quality and VR.
I will not buy the 24-70 because of its reach and it hasn't VR.
Now I have compared enough.
Ad B
I think you've missed my point. If the 24-120mm draws comparisons to the 'Holy Grail' 24-70mm that obviously means its a great lens. I looked at both, and i got the 24-120 f4 for similar reasons you have stated
Did a little fishing tonight, brought the camera along for an epic sunset and then didn't have an epic sunset, lol. Maybe tomorrow night....
Wacky Rigged Senko Bass Fishing by Matthew Krei, on Flickr
Wacky Rigged Senko Bass Fishing by Matthew Krei, on FlickrAnd it was a beautiful night on the lake regardless of not getting the picture perfect sunset I was hoping for....
Lake Land'Or Sunset by Matthew Krei, on Flickr
Lake Land'Or Sunset by Matthew Krei, on FlickrI have the 24-70 f/2.8 and the 24-120 f/4. I seldom use the former, and use the latter pretty frequently. I honestly cannot tell much difference in IQ between these two lenses. I'd have to agree the 24-120 has a tiny bit more off-axis CA tendency in very high contrast situations, and it does have more distortion. However, as easy as it is to apply lens profile corrections and CA removal in LR, it's almost a non-issue to me. The 24-70 has nicer build quality. The 24-120 has more reach, VR, yet is shorter and lighter.
The fact is, if there was a better all-purpose, "walk-around" FX lens with VR than the 24-120 available, I would own it. I want fixed max aperture, and f/4 is a good compromise when you consider size, price, DOF and "reasonable" speed, when you consider how much better today's cameras handle high ISO noise. Every other lens offered for Nikon bodies that comes closest to filling that role has serious drawbacks from my perspective vs the 24-120. When I'm going somewhere with my camera, I don't know ahead of time what kind of shots I'll be confronted with, don't have the luxury of taking a tripod, and I need to travel light, the 24-120 is the lens I take every time. There just isn't another viable option that has its combination of virtues and flexible focal length range. The only situation I can think of where I'd rather use the 24-70 f/2.8 is if I want shallower DOF, and most of the time I'd probably select one of my fast primes for that anyway.
Yes, I wish it was a tad sharper across all apertures. Yes, I wish it had less distortion. I wish it had the more solid construction feel of the 24-70. But if it had all of that, it would probably cost $800 more, and I can work with its limitations and still get good to excellent results. If I don't get good enough results, the problem lies with me, not the lens.
The fact is, if there was a better all-purpose, "walk-around" FX lens with VR than the 24-120 available, I would own it. I want fixed max aperture, and f/4 is a good compromise when you consider size, price, DOF and "reasonable" speed, when you consider how much better today's cameras handle high ISO noise. Every other lens offered for Nikon bodies that comes closest to filling that role has serious drawbacks from my perspective vs the 24-120. When I'm going somewhere with my camera, I don't know ahead of time what kind of shots I'll be confronted with, don't have the luxury of taking a tripod, and I need to travel light, the 24-120 is the lens I take every time. There just isn't another viable option that has its combination of virtues and flexible focal length range. The only situation I can think of where I'd rather use the 24-70 f/2.8 is if I want shallower DOF, and most of the time I'd probably select one of my fast primes for that anyway.
Yes, I wish it was a tad sharper across all apertures. Yes, I wish it had less distortion. I wish it had the more solid construction feel of the 24-70. But if it had all of that, it would probably cost $800 more, and I can work with its limitations and still get good to excellent results. If I don't get good enough results, the problem lies with me, not the lens.
I'd have to agree with you. At least half of all the shots I've made with my D600 have been with the 24-120. I have yet to see any problems with CA, and exactly like you mentioned, before & after lens correction is turned on in Lightroom. Vignetting I can't answer as that is automatically corrected every time and I've never cared to compare before and after shots. And I'm someone who inspects my images at 100% (usually in search of any stray dust spots).
I've been eyeballing Pentax cameras and lenses for a number of years now. After having downloaded thousands of raw samples from a variety of their lenses, I still feel they are king when it comes to CA. Really bad CA.
The Nikon 24-120 f/4 is pretty sharp. I see slightly better sometimes with a Nikon 24-70 /f/2.8 on a tripod, but this is not a 24-70, nor was it with a tripod. This one is carry-able and walk-able.
I'm a happy camper with it.
Here is a 100% crop, D800, hand held, 120mm, 1/1000 second, f/8, ISO 400.
Click it to show it enlarged more.
Here is a 100% crop, D800, hand held, 120mm, 1/1000 second, f/8, ISO 400.
Click it to show it enlarged more.
I've ended up being super pleased with this lens, it really doesn't disappoint!
This one I just took turned out super sharp hand held, VR off, 1/60s, ISO 100, f/16 @ 52mm.
Drew Estate Undercrown by Matthew Krei, on Flickr
This one I just took turned out super sharp hand held, VR off, 1/60s, ISO 100, f/16 @ 52mm.
Drew Estate Undercrown by Matthew Krei, on Flickr