Camera Labs

Hello
I have for long now been planning on getting a better assortment of glass for my D90, the zoom I have have served me well but I have found that I want a sharper and more decently built lens, with larger aperture to use as my everyday zoom, in other words a zoom in the 24 and upwards range.

I have had some criteria:
- Larger constant aperture
- 24-70 or more zoom range
- Be able to use on FX, full frame bodies for future upgrade

I have after much consideration came up with the Nikkor 24-120 f/4, released this autumn and with a constant aperture of f/4 which is not super large but decent. It wins according to me over the sigma 24-70 and the nikkor 24-70 (both f/2. as it's brand new, features vr II, is considerably more compact and has a better range. It will also overlap very well with the upcoming sigma 120-300 f/2.8 that I plan for the end of the summer. Also it features nano crystal coating, ed elements and so on so it seems to have great spec.

Please give me some feedback on this choice! Is it motivated or are there better options?

_________________
Nikon D90 | Nikkor 18-105 AF-S f/3.5-5.6 VR | Nikkor AF 50mm f/1.8D | Nikon MB - D80 battery grip | Lowepro Flipside 200

Nokia 6220 5mp - Carl Zeiss optics



Flickr

Im sure it is a great lens, never actually used it, and you seem to know what you are looking for, and its probably the best lens for you, so Ill just make a few comments.

Firstly what are you looking for over your 18-105? It's probably no sharper in real life shooting and doesnt get quite as wide, which is important for some people.

EDIT: Sorry just read what you want. Yeah Im not sure it'll be any sharper but it is better built. Not by too much but a little. Also, bear in mind that it isnt that much wider aperture throughout most of the range, and in fact the 18-105 is wider at the wide end.

Also if it were me, Id buy the Sigma 24-70. If you havent seen one, they re a lot smaller and lighter than the Nikon, possibly smaller than a 24-120 (I dont know), and for me that aperture is more tempting than VR.

Like I say, Id take the Sigma, but you seem to have you're priorities set, and the Nikon is Im sure wonderful and you'll enjoy it!

_________________
Nikon D5000 and D300 with 12-24mm, 35mm f1.8, 50mm f1.4, 60mm f2.8 Macro, 18-200mm, 17-55mm f2.8 (all Nikon)

It's a lens I've been considering as well since it is light enough to maybe accompany on a few backpacking trips. Although I'm not the greatest fan of zoom lenses due to their common optical flaws I was really surprised by the new 24-120/4.0G. I tested it out at my local camera store a couple of times and found it to be quite sharp throughout its zoom range. It feels a bit "wobbly" though -- more like one of the DX zooms, so I'm pretty sure it's not as robust as some other glass in that price range.

I think the more important features making it Pro are the VRII, Nano coating and F/4.0 fixed aperture (and of course the gold ring).

_________________
- Wout -
Nikon D80 with 18-70 DX, 70-300 VR, 35 1.8 DX
Manfrotto 055XPROB tripod with 488RC0 midi ballhead
Lowepro CompuRover AW and Nova 200 AW

Glad to see som positive feedback
I can only agree with wout89 here, (especially the golden ring is a must )'

I have not yet tried it out, read Ken Rockwells review and he prefered the 28-300 just because it was more bang for the buck and a wider zoom range. It is bang on sharp through out and colors should be great, it has some distortion throughout the entire range, that was it's only major flaw, otherwise a great lens according to Ken R.
I have also noticed that many professionals prefer a lens like this one, for example the equivalent Canon lens 24-105 f/4 is a very popular so I think the 24-120 is a very good allround lens to mount at most times.
As an allround zoom I think f/4 is fairly ok, not f/2.8 but lest just say that in low light or for a high demanding portrait I should use a prime anyway so if not the aperture is super big I can still live with that.
Also I am not appealed to buy lets say the 28-300 because on the tele end I have understood that anything but f/2.8 or maybe f/4 limits your oppurtunities, for example to shoot sports. Therefore I am going to need a dedcated large apertue tele lens anyway and am not in need of a super zoom, thats why I prefer this lens.
I think that zooms are sometimes underestimated, today they are very sharp and very useful, and the "sharpness" of them are sufficient enough for most situations I think, it's the aperture that limits them...

_________________
Nikon D90 | Nikkor 18-105 AF-S f/3.5-5.6 VR | Nikkor AF 50mm f/1.8D | Nikon MB - D80 battery grip | Lowepro Flipside 200

Nokia 6220 5mp - Carl Zeiss optics



Flickr

I own the 24-120mm f4 and It is a great lens. Sure, it has its faults: pronounced barrel distortion (straight lines curving) and vignetting (darkening of corners) at 24mm, but these can be corrected in software. It is a very sharp lens, though, usable straight from f4.

However...I just purchased the Nikkor 28-300mm f3.5-5.6 that was released at around the same time as the 24-120mm f4, and I will be selling the latter. The reason that I got the 28-300mm are as follow:
1. Not that much of difference (for me, anyway) between 24mm and 28mm at the wide end;
2. More reach, all the way to 300mm, and I do like to shoot telephoto;
3. The image quality is great. Maybe technically (numbers) the 24-120mm f4 might be slightly better, but I cannot notice it in real life. They look just as good as each other to my eyes;
4. I shoot mainly daylight, so the loss from f4 to the 28-300mm's f5.6 is not a great loss for me;
5. It's more versatile because of its reach.

In short, you will not regret getting the 24-120mm f4 as a walkaround lens, but you should also try the 28-300mm and see which one suits your style of shooting better.

thanks Ant1 for your reply
Indeed the two lenses don't differ that much and the 28-300 is more bang for the buck no doubt, I do however plan to invest in a large aperture tele lens in the future and will probably not need another tele lens with smaller aperture, thats the main reason. But I have my doubt about the 24-120, seems like the distortion is a bit too much for a lens in that price range and maybe there are better choices for a all round lens, much depends on what I will complete with on the tele end, I would like the two lenses to overlap well and not buy lenses whose zoom range go into each other...

_________________
Nikon D90 | Nikkor 18-105 AF-S f/3.5-5.6 VR | Nikkor AF 50mm f/1.8D | Nikon MB - D80 battery grip | Lowepro Flipside 200

Nokia 6220 5mp - Carl Zeiss optics



Flickr

If I'd be going for a one-lens-fits-all setup, the 24-120 f/4 VR would probably be it. The need for wider apertures can be mitigated by throwing in a couple of inexpensive primes ( 35 + 50 f/1.8 ) later on.

_________________
"Shoot RAW, ask questions later"
My Flickr Photostream. C&C Welcome!
Nikon D80 | AF-S Nikkor DX 18-135 mm f/3.5-5.6G ED | AF Nikkor 50 mm f/1.8D | AF Nikkor 70-210 mm f/4