Alternative to Nikon 24-120 VR f4

SimonBalaam

SimonBalaam

Suspended / Banned
Messages
533
Name
Simon
Edit My Images
No
I'm thinking about getting one, but before I take the final step I wanted to see if there was anything close to it in quality.

I know the 24-70 is a good lens but it doesn't really have the reach and plus I cant afford it.

Thanks

Simon
 
28-105 f3.5 - f4.5D (IF) used £100 - £150 ... would be a cheaper option.

No nano coating, or VR but no slouch optically, and smaller to boot.

Sample images on pbase LINK





.
 
Last edited:
The latest generation of zoom FX lenses are quite a big leap forward over what Nikon and the third parties have offered before.

Whilst not as good as the top notch "Holy Trinity", they really are perfectly good enough for excellent casual photography without the weight and cost penalties of the big boys.

Other people make glass with similar focal lengths, but nothing else is nearly as optically as good.
 
Simon,
I have no experience with this zoom... but in general reviews are not very positive about it. It seems that is an OK lens but with nothing special... As I see, the 28-300 VR is receiving appraisals everywhere. I know that is not a f4 zoom... but it is very tempting me.
 
Thanks Mihai

Thing is I was hoping to get something a bit fatser then the 5.6 of the 28-300.
 
SimonBalaam said:
Thanks Mihai

Thing is I was hoping to get something a bit fatser then the 5.6 of the 28-300.
Click to expand...

Well, 5.6 is at 300mm... you can think at this part as a bonus :) If I have to guess... at 120mm is probably f4.5 The real thing you are loosing are the 4mm on the wide part which could be important sometimes...

LE: So in fact you get a 28-120 f/3.5-4.5 and as a bonus 120-300 f/4.5-5.6
What is significant is that the IQ of this variable aperture zoom seems to be very good. Apart of some glowing reviews, on a different forum I saw Roger Cicala from lensrentals.com sharing the enthusiasm of his staff when testing this zoom in comparison with the lack of enthusiasm after testing 24-120/4. I mention that personally I am a fixed lens fan... and the majority of my kit is based on fast primes... but this zooms really is tempting and maybe one day I'd add it to my kit.
 
Last edited:
A comment comparing it to the 28-105mm and the old Tamron 24-135mm: http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/941539/2#8932816

The 24-120 is the quickest to sharpen up corner-to-corner and lose vignetting of the three. The 24-135 is slightly less sharp than the 24-120, and the 28-105 is noticeably less sharp than both. The 24-120 does have more CA than the other two, and less max magnification due to focus breathing. The 24-120 is very flare resistant, something I couldn't say of the other two.

I hadn't used the 28-105 much at all since the 24-135 landed, and the tests I did of all three showed why. The 24-135 is just a sharper lens. The 24-120 improves it slightly in the optics, whilst gaining VR, AF-S, nano-coating, and constant f/4. That said, the 24-135 is an excellent value, and whether the benefits of the 24-120 are worth the cost is up to the eye of the user.

Others, who've tried both, prefer the 28-105 to the Tamron, but the old Nikkor 24-120 was a dog, apparently. On a cropped sensor I wanted the 24mm so went for the Tamron, happy to use with flash when necessary, instead of my ƒ/2.8 28-70mm.
 
I'm having a similar problem decided what to replace my Nikon 18-135mm with. I think my favourite at the moment is the 24-85mm but its very expensive even secondhand. Thing is I want to be able to use it on my D300, my F3 (so it needs to have an aperture ring) and my F401 (so it needs to be useable on a full frame camera). But it does look to have very good reviews and it seems to be a well-made solid lens as well.

Andy
 
When I used to shoot Canon I had a 24-105 f4.0 which was a stonking lens, when I switched to Nikon there didn't seem to be a comparable lens so I went for the 24-70 f2.8 also a super lens but a little too short for me really, when the 24-120 came out I thought that would be ideal, but there have been some mixed reviews and a few guys who bought them early on have sold them again on here so I'm not sure, not much help I know but just my observations
 
The main problem is that people have tried to compare it to the 24-70... and its not, not in any way shape or form.
 
Well I got one on Thursday from Digital Depot. Thanks Stuart. And I think so far although not used in anger it's a great lens. Thanks for everyone's advice.

Simon

Sent from my iPhone using TP Forums
 
desantnik said:
The main problem is that people have tried to compare it to the 24-70... and its not, not in any way shape or form.
Click to expand...

Yeah Ive thought about this lens as it would be handy as a walkabout on a crop body and also handy for weddings during the reception for candids, just don't know how I would get on with it having the 24-70 and 70-200 2.8, I imagine I could be dissapointed but I do like the idea of the extra reach and the VR would be nice. I suppose most of those images never get printed much bigger than 6x4 with the occasional 8x10 and I'm sure it's more than capable of producing good results, so I might talk myself into it yet.
 
Depends a lot on the working distances really.

In my pitlane environment, the 24-70 at 70mm does come up a little short unless you are in a proper press pack scrum, when it has advantages over the 70-200 which I normally prefer as you can get a head and shoulders without being intrusive or reach in and grab something at a distance.

There isn't really a single perfect solution for that type of work and yours too probably.
 
SimonBalaam said:
I'm thinking about getting one, but before I take the final step I wanted to see if there was anything close to it in quality.

I know the 24-70 is a good lens but it doesn't really have the reach and plus I cant afford it.

Thanks

Simon
Click to expand...

Whatever the reviews say the 24-120 F4 VR is a very useful lens which just happens to have some weaknesses - well no surprise there. However it is better and faster in the 28-120 range than the 28-300 IMO. Its also better than the 24-85 which I replaced with it.

Once you get used to correcting a bit of distortion and CA, its a properly decent lens and, like I said, very useful especially if like me you do any work in low light and cant always use a tripod.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top