Is anyone using their AF-S 24-120 f/4 regularly with good results?

10 Gauge

Senior Member
Just been reading reviews and comments around the web about the 24-120 that comes bundled with the D750 that I just purchased. It doesn't seem to have the most rave reviews.

I'm looking for some real world application input from someone who uses this lens as their daily walk-around lens and is pleased with the results they get from it.

Basically I am trying to decide if I should unload it for a different zoom?
 
Last edited:

480sparky

Senior Member
While not on par with any in The Trinity, it certainly holds it's own for the vast majority of situations.

Kit lenses seem to suffer from an automatic response from many. "Oh, it's a kit lens, so it can't be that good". Surprise! Kit lenses today are surprisingly good.

When reading reviews, consider the source. Most reviews are from people who really shouldn't be writing reviews.
 

10 Gauge

Senior Member
Thanks for the input sparky. I'm not put off by the fact that it's a "kit lens", we're still talking about a piece of glass that retails for what, $1200 by itself?

I know that I will need to pick up at least one good medium length prime for the stuff that I like to shoot. But f4 shouldn't be a problem for most things I do.
 

480sparky

Senior Member
The 24-120 is on one of my D600s all the time.

But I have used my Streetsweeper 28-200 AF-D on occasion as well when I know I need the extra focal length.
 

Horoscope Fish

Senior Member
Just been reading reviews and comments around the web about the 24-120 that comes bundled with the D750 that I just purchased. It doesn't seem to have the most rave reviews.

I'm looking for some real world application input from someone who uses this lens as their daily walk-around lens and is pleased with the results they get from it.

Basically I am trying to decide if I should unload it for a different zoom?
I do not own one but I have carried one and having a whole Photography department in my division at work, I've seen a lot of shots from faculty and students who do use the 24-120mm f/4 on a regular basis. In my experience, and the primary reason I don't own one of these lenses, is due to the problems I see with vignetting and chromatic aberration at pretty much *any* aperture above f/8. Maaaaaybe f/5.6, but that's getting dodgy from what I can tell. Yes, both vignetting and CA clean up in post, at least relatively well, but this lens carries a price tag deep into the fourth digit and for that kind of money, IMO, you shouldn't be seeing as much CA and vignetting when wide open as I'm seeing on a regular basis. That's not to say you can't nail a great shot with this lens... I've seen numerous, excellent shots taken with this lens and I don't mean to imply it's a total "dog" of a lens because it's not; you just have to work with it and know its limitations.

I should also mention I'm referring to using this lens on a full-frame (FX) body; put this lens on an crop-sensor body and a lot of the issue resolve themselves at least in large part.
.....
 

RocketCowboy

Senior Member
This lens is the default lens on my D7100 at just about any given time. It's predominately my "walkaround" lens, when I don't feel like changing lenses frequently, but was also my first fixed aperture lens.

I've been very happy with it and the results I've gotten with it.
 

BackdoorArts

Senior Member
Thanks for the input sparky. I'm not put off by the fact that it's a "kit lens", we're still talking about a piece of glass that retails for what, $1200 by itself?

I know that I will need to pick up at least one good medium length prime for the stuff that I like to shoot. But f4 shouldn't be a problem for most things I do.

If they bundled a trinity lens with a body would that make it a "kit lens"? Yes it would. Would it start to suck after that? I'm convinced that some reviewers on the internet would immediately proclaim its downfall for that reason alone.

The D750 is the top of the Consumer heap. They bundled the 24-85mm f3.5-4.5 with the D600 and it is a very good zoom and well matched for that body. It has its minor flaws and weaknesses, but you'd expect that for a full frame zoom in that price range, and I still love mine. With the D750 they upped the ante in both sensor quality and price, so I expect they decided to up what's in the "kit" package as well. Think long and hard about this - the D750 "kit" price is like buying a D750 and a D7100 refurb body. That's not a cheap bump in price. A "kit" is not meant to short sell something, it's meant to allow someone moving into the FX format the opportunity to get suitable glass at a discount with the body, and the quality is matched accordingly. $700 is not throwaway money, and the 24-120mm is far from an also ran - but that never stopped people from running their mouths because they're looking to justify an idea. I've yet to see any poor review of any kit lens backed up with empirical evidence and detailed images and not just opinion - and you know what they say about opinions ... everybody has one.

Funny thing is, the 24-120mm F4 completes what is effectively the budget, or "unholy" trinity of Nikon zooms along with the 16-35mm F4 and the 70-200mm F4, and I don't hear many people complaining about the kit-worthiness of them. Those 3 lenses are all I really need unless I have a screaming need for depth of field. Light isn't a problem with modern sensors because the stop I get from a 2.8 lens is made up for with improved ISO noise suppression.

I'll let my work speak for the lenses, just follow my Flickr link below where you'll see 90-95% of my non-wildlife work shot with "kit lenses" almost exclusively - 18-105mm DX, 24-85mm F3.5-4.5, 24-120mm f4. They live on my cameras unless there's a specific need for something else.
 

BackdoorArts

Senior Member
In my experience, and the primary reason I don't own one of these lenses, is due to the problems I see with vignetting and chromatic aberration at pretty much *any* aperture above f/8. Maaaaaybe f/5.6, but that's getting dodgy from what I can tell. Yes, both vignetting and CA clean up in post, at least relatively well, but this lens carries a price tag deep into the fourth digit and for that kind of money, IMO, you shouldn't be seeing as much CA and vignetting when wide open as I'm seeing on a regular basis.
.....

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.
 

Horoscope Fish

Senior Member
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.
And I'm certainly not disagreeing with your results. The proof of the pudding is in the eating, after all.

....
 

WayneF

Senior Member
I have the three f/2.8 Trinity lenses, love them, and use them around home, or when I can work out of the car. But not wanting to carry all of that, I take only the 24-120mm f/4 on vacation trips, or anytime as a walk-around all-day with one lens thing.

It's a great lens. It may not do f/2.8, and it may be wide open for bounce flash at f/4, but it sure beats the f/3.5-f/5.6 lenses. I have absolutely no issues with it, and I can carry it. :)
 

10 Gauge

Senior Member
Sounds as if I'll be perfectly content with the performance of this lens after all. I ended up scoring it for free so there's no way I could complain about it!
 

Ad B

Senior Member
Hi,

I use this lens on my D750. I bought my D750 with the 24-85 VR "kit lens".
But I like a constant f4 and the longer 120 mm end more. Much more.
I also have the 70-200 f4 lens.
I bought the Kenko 1.4 Pro DGX extender for that 70-200. But surprisingly, it also works very good onto my 24-120 lens.
With the Kenko on my cam, I have a 168 mm f5.6 lens! With good results.
So now I have a very good walk around lens, with the possibility to make it a near 170 mm lens.
For visiting cities I travel quite light, these days!
17196153172_b7511a90f8_c.jpg

120 mm

Testing with extender.
16454718472_edc160559c_c.jpg

120 mm
16268229060_5be1bc65dd_c.jpg

120 x 1.4 = 168 mm

This was a test after AF fine tuning.
totale%20foto_zps5gogw0ei.jpg

Total picture. 120 mm
100%20%20uitsnede_zpswagz52k1.jpg

100% crop.
400%20%20uitsnede_zpsk4fslnag.jpg

400% crop!
This was just a playing testshot, handheld shooting.
If the Nikon 24-70 did have VR, maybe I would have that lens. But I like VR (getting older :topsy_turvy:).
I love my combo as I have it now.

Ad B
 

Ad B

Senior Member
Hi,

yes, this is the 1.4x extender I'm using.
I didn't buy the Nikon extender, because he didn't fit the 24-120 lens (and the price is nearley twice the Kenko)
The Kenko version did fit very well. And yes, sure my AF works like without.
Otherwise I didn't bought it. I'm not such a manual AF person...

I have no experience with 2x extenders. But you can read everywhere, your getting a fairly decraese of sharpness and quality.
It seems to be one step too much for a fairly good lens.

Sometimes, I shoot at 1.2 mode (30x20), still 16 Mp pictures. When I need a bit "more lenght".
With the 24-120 lens+1.4 extender, I have a 200 mm f5.6 at 120 mm (120mmx1.4x1.2=201.6 mm).
Off course, fast AF and sharp pictures.

Ad B
 

RocketCowboy

Senior Member
I also have the kenko 1.4 TC. I can confirm that it does work with my Nikon lenses, however I am not able to get AF working with Tamron lenses for some reason.

I don't usually have the 1.4 TC connected with my copy of the 24-120mm lens, but I did connect them both temporarily when I was testing to see what lenses would work with the converter.
 

10 Gauge

Senior Member
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?
 

RocketCowboy

Senior Member
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?

Same issue, same fix.

If I'm going with the tripod, VR gets turned off just after the camera is locked into the tripod.
 
Top