Do y'all turn VR off when you don't absolutely need it? I know on the Canon's that if you have IS turned on when say taking a photo of a still subject from a tripod with a slightly longer exposure that the IS would actually introduce a slight bit of vibration decreasing the overall sharpness. Same issue on the Nikon side?
Yes, I turn off VR when using the camera/lens on a tripod.Same issue, same fix.
If I'm going with the tripod, VR gets turned off just after the camera is locked into the tripod.
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 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.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?
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.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 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 statedHi,
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'm by no means disputing what you say you're seeing, but I've never had an issue with either. Granted, I have Lens Profile Correction and Chromatic Aberration Removal applied to all my imaged import to LR, but I went out and searched my catalog for images that fall in your problem area and I've got to say that when I turned off both corrections the difference was minimal at best, and that was mostly CA on the wide end in the very corners, and then only with extreme light. With correction turned on it's gone immediately.
I understand your point about it being a $1200 lens, and if it bothers you spend the extra $700 for the trinity lens (which has yet to be updated with VR). Given that I get extra reach and any "problem" literally fixes itself on import that money is far better spent for me, and I'd lose a ton of reach.