Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
New profile posts
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Lenses
General Lenses
Is anyone using their AF-S 24-120 f/4 regularly with good results?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="T-Man" data-source="post: 457395" data-attributes="member: 22038"><p>I 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. </p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="T-Man, post: 457395, member: 22038"] I 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. [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Lenses
General Lenses
Is anyone using their AF-S 24-120 f/4 regularly with good results?
Top