My Nikon 24-120 f/4 VR first impressions
insanefred
Registered Users Posts: 604 Major grins
Some first impressions I'd thought I would post. I won't bore you guys too much with a introduction.
I am coming from the Nikon 24-70 2.8 on a D700, so keep that in mind. First off, I am sure some of you hear a lot about the distortions at the wide end. Yes there is a lot, but I would say there is about just 15-30% more than the 24-70 . Yes, there is plenty of light fall off (vignetting) wide open, as far as I tested, all focal lengths. But for me this is desirable as I add to my photos anyways. I am still testing sharpness, but so far it looks just as good as the 24-70 in the center. Contrast, I am pleased to report that it has just as much "snap" and micro contrast as the 24-70. :thumb Bokeh, is a little busy wide open, but not enough to kill a good shot.
It does extend a bit, to about the same length as the 24-70 (both with hoods on). Even though the weight is about 700g vs 900g, it still feels like half the weight of the 24-70. I think the inner tubes are magnesium alloy while the outside is plastic. Both the zoom and AF ring are smoother than my 24-70, (but my 24-70 has seen many more days out in the field).
Autofocus was probably the biggest surprise, at first it seems a tad slower than the 24-70 going from minimum to infinity, but normal shooting it seemed a lot snappier. So I checked the focus throw, it is about twice as long as the 24-70! Did I mention that it seemed just a tad slower going from minimum to infinity? :barb:lust Twice the focus throw can only mean one other thing..... easier manual focusing! :ivarBUT before I get too excited, I ought to check for AF accuracy.
Some 24-70 fanboys will bash f/4 lenses to their grave for being soOooO slow :rolleyes. And they'll tell you, "If you need more reach, then get a 70-200 2.8). I assume, they have never gone on vacation with that set up, gone hiking, zip lining (try carrying both 24-70 and 70-200 then:rofl), needing to attract less attention to yourself and I can think of so many more things. Plus, if I need "fast glass", I have plenty of primes :deal.
I will post some photos later, when I get to go out and shoot some stuff early morning. Hopefully the weather will improve, it's raining a lot today :cry.
I am coming from the Nikon 24-70 2.8 on a D700, so keep that in mind. First off, I am sure some of you hear a lot about the distortions at the wide end. Yes there is a lot, but I would say there is about just 15-30% more than the 24-70 . Yes, there is plenty of light fall off (vignetting) wide open, as far as I tested, all focal lengths. But for me this is desirable as I add to my photos anyways. I am still testing sharpness, but so far it looks just as good as the 24-70 in the center. Contrast, I am pleased to report that it has just as much "snap" and micro contrast as the 24-70. :thumb Bokeh, is a little busy wide open, but not enough to kill a good shot.
It does extend a bit, to about the same length as the 24-70 (both with hoods on). Even though the weight is about 700g vs 900g, it still feels like half the weight of the 24-70. I think the inner tubes are magnesium alloy while the outside is plastic. Both the zoom and AF ring are smoother than my 24-70, (but my 24-70 has seen many more days out in the field).
Autofocus was probably the biggest surprise, at first it seems a tad slower than the 24-70 going from minimum to infinity, but normal shooting it seemed a lot snappier. So I checked the focus throw, it is about twice as long as the 24-70! Did I mention that it seemed just a tad slower going from minimum to infinity? :barb:lust Twice the focus throw can only mean one other thing..... easier manual focusing! :ivarBUT before I get too excited, I ought to check for AF accuracy.
Some 24-70 fanboys will bash f/4 lenses to their grave for being soOooO slow :rolleyes. And they'll tell you, "If you need more reach, then get a 70-200 2.8). I assume, they have never gone on vacation with that set up, gone hiking, zip lining (try carrying both 24-70 and 70-200 then:rofl), needing to attract less attention to yourself and I can think of so many more things. Plus, if I need "fast glass", I have plenty of primes :deal.
I will post some photos later, when I get to go out and shoot some stuff early morning. Hopefully the weather will improve, it's raining a lot today :cry.
0
Comments
The last eight photos are from the Nikon 24-70.
Looks like the 24-70 has a tough challenger. One needs to take a look at the photos and decide whether it will meet their needs and what suits them better.
The most obvious downsides of the 24-120 f/4 is the distortion, lens breathing (notice how much wider 70mm is vs 24-70 @ 70mm?), and softness at 120mm.
Test setup Q&A
It was on autofocus
I did my best to set the camera pointing as parallel as possible.
I used a flash at 1/250th sec
Used a remote to fire the shutter
I used a sturdy tripod
Yes, VR was turned off
Well I hope these samples help.
http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/28-300mm.htm
The Nikon 28-300. It looks pretty nifty and is supposed to be sharp across the board. The range is retardedly huge. lol.
Hi! I'm Wally: website | blog | facebook | IG | scotchNsniff
Nikon addict. D610, Tok 11-16, Sig 24-35, Nik 24-70/70-200vr
OT:
Huh?
Not to sound too harsh or anything.
You know the reason I never go to KR's site? It's because everyone refers to him as , "Well Ken rockwell says..."
Yes, it his opinion, but his shooting style is not even close to mine nor anyone I know. His photos are so "cooked" that they literally hurt my eyes.
I already have the Nikon 70-300 VR, and it is a great lens, so there really isn't a need to get the 28-300 vr. And the 24mm is a must for me.
I wasn't throwing KR out there cus he's the expert authority on anything (except maybe at asserting that it's not the camera, it's the photographer idea). I just like how his site is easy to reference for things like new lenses.
You made a reference to people who carry around two lenses and the ease of carrying one, I figured the 28-300 was exactly the type of thing you'd have looked at.
EDIT: What's the difference between 24 and 28 anyways? A step backwards?
Hi! I'm Wally: website | blog | facebook | IG | scotchNsniff
Nikon addict. D610, Tok 11-16, Sig 24-35, Nik 24-70/70-200vr
I used to think that it was the crazy people that thought it was a huge difference in real world shooting. Ok, not a huge difference, but big difference. So, I bought a 28-85mm lens, I used it for awhile. Let me tell you it's big enough, to make me want a 24mm in a zoom.
It's not only "perspective" difference but you know that moment when your back is already against the wall.
14-24 24-70 70-200mm (vr2)
85 and 50 1.4
45 PC and sb910 x2
http://www.danielkimphotography.com
Why start out a thread like this? Shooters have preferences for what lenses they like. You can just as easily say its a great lens, not as fast as a 2.8 zoom, but much more flexible than the 24-70. Let the fanboys argue with themselves.
I have seen too many threads (other forums) that have become an endless argument, so I was hoping that would prevent that.
I feel like I'm falling in love with a floozie! She may be cheap, but OH MY does she know how to please!
Natural selection is responsible for every living thing that exists.
D3s, D500, D5300, and way more glass than the wife knows about.
That's all that matters. I love my 24-70, but to each their own. I'm glad you're happy with your purchase...I tried it, but the distortion is not for my personal taste. I know it's correctable, but I don't like to play that much with my images afterward besides contrast, sat. and exposure settings.
Enjoy!
"Don't worry when you are not recognized, but strive to be worthy of recognition."
-- Abraham Lincoln
...AFTER Nikon makes an affordable full-frame body, that is! Until then, I'd much rather have a D7000 and a 16-85 DX. WAY lighter, smaller, cheaper, and wicked sharp. Until Nikon makes a 30+ megapixel FX body, the 24-120 is kinda lost on me. Of course for casual shooting I can understand it, in situations where resolution is less important but DOF and ISO ARE...
=Matt=
My SmugMug Portfolio • My Astro-Landscape Photo Blog • Dgrin Weddings Forum
Yeah, f/4 is terrible indoors...
And VR is useless...
120mm 1/13th sec f/4
And it's just too slow for portraits, I'd never be able to get the backround out of focus.
1/20th sec F/20
I remember I was going to get the 16-85 for my D300, but I think what really put me off was that the AF was a little too slow. And they didn't have a D7000 at that time I bought the D700.
I had my 24-70 on my D300 almost 24/7, but the D700, I felt like it was just sitting in the corner collecting dust. :cry
I don't believe my level of photography is good enough for the 24-70. And I do much better with primes anyways. I have accepted the comprises that the 24-120 f/4 has, and embraced the benefits that it has over the 24-70. I am already getting so many more keepers, it isn't funny for me.
Your level of photography definitely merits ANY lens you want to buy, it just depends on your style and what you enjoy shooting. Personally as a casual shooter, regardless of whether my pictures were terrible or stunning, I'd MUCH rather have the 24-120 than the 24-70.
My point was only that, considering the D700 is the same 12 megapixels as the D300 and also considering that now we have the D7000, ...I'd personally prefer to use the D7000 as my walk-around kit, and just get a 50 1.8 or 1.4 for the D700 and only take it out when the low-light truly warranted the extra weight and size. But, I'm just one of those backpacker types who obsesses over every last oz. (Or in this case, I bet the difference is a whole pound or two!)
=Matt=
My SmugMug Portfolio • My Astro-Landscape Photo Blog • Dgrin Weddings Forum
Natural selection is responsible for every living thing that exists.
D3s, D500, D5300, and way more glass than the wife knows about.
Hi insanefred, i am extremely curious about your further findings and more detailled experience with the AF speed and accuracy... have you had any chance to test this any further? The only thing that keeps me looking at the 24-70mm is that its focus speed and accuracy "should" (according to many reviews and users experience i have read) be better than than the 24-120 mm F4, but after reading your post i really feel a bit confused now... and you would do me a very big favour if you could complete your last words of the above quote ....
thanks man
I think some users say it's faster without considering the focus throw. From minimal focus distance to infinity, the 24-120 is about twice the throw but is just as fast, if not, faster. However, lets say I wanted to focus on something very close, then go focus on something at a distance. The 24-70 will make it to minimal distance to infinity faster because of the shorter throw. As for accuracy, because the 24-120 is a bit more snappy, it seems to respond faster, making it more liable to user error. But it is sure nice when photographing subjects moving towards you. The overall accuracy is perfectly good.
Also, call it a hunch, but feel that many folks who write about the 24-120 f/4 have never used or touched it in their life. And only relaying what they have read or going on their experience base on the 24-120 3.5-5.6.
Hi my insane friend, thank you so much! you cannot believe how much i appreciate this onconventional feedback (since everyone in this electric world says differently), indeed AF accuracy is much more than just putting the lens cap on and see how fast it spins back and forth, therefore i'm very happy to read such great argumented experience, actually its about the same with my Sigma 50-150, from begin to the end its not blazing fast (it doesn't have to be), but in between small adjustments, its very "snappy".
Although in some occasions it's still not snappy enough (especially when the subject is moving fast towards the camera in straight line, but then again, the AF of the camera (D300) also plays its roll i guess)
I will try out the 24-120 in the store and see if this is better... it would be the perfect lens for me... let's hope, i'll tell you later about this
thanks!
hey hey hey
i just got this lens, i'm still traveling and i haven't tested it yet in the field very thoroughly but first impressions are quite good. Only i have one serious confusion:
the 24-120 mm F4 is an "FX" lens, so on my D300, on 120mm it should turn into 180mm right?? Now, when i take a picture on 150 mm with my Sigma 50-150mm "Dx" lens, the picture is still more zoomed in?! Did i miss something here?? The 24-120mm on 120mm (=180mm) still has more wide angle than the sigma on 150mm!!
sorry i cannot post any pictures here, still on the road...is this normal or did i miss something on the comprehensing of the cropfactor theory??
Well, it seems you're ignoring the fact that your 150 Sigma acts like a 225 on your crop body. FX-DX has nothing to do with the focal length.
In 35mm FOV terms, your 24-120 acts like a 36-180. Your 50-150 acts like a 75-225.
Natural selection is responsible for every living thing that exists.
D3s, D500, D5300, and way more glass than the wife knows about.
It's field of view (or FoV) that you are having to recalculate. 120mm on DX (or APS-C) sensor will have about the equivelant FoV of a 180mm FX (Full Frame) sensor lens.
I photographed a 2 day event this weekend, the first day was just pouring rain for 5-6 hours. It was enough to soak through my nicer rain jacket, my water resistant fleece and my t shirt. I had a plastic bag over my camera and lens, but you know how it is, lots of water still made it's way in on the lens and camera.
It still works perfectly!
Weather seals confirmed.
Of course I still recommend getting insurance on all your gear to truly protect it.
If you want quality bokeh, you'll have to use primes.
That's a most curious statement, and not entirely true.
Prime lenses alone do not guarantee "quality bokeh". Large aperture primes allow better background bokeh when the background is at a lesser distance, but slower aperture primes have no intrinsic advantage over large aperture zooms.
For example, the Canon 70-200mm, f2.8L USM (either with or without IS) can produce lovely bokeh backgrounds if the background is sufficient distance from the subject.
Even the Canon 24-105mm, f4L IS USM can create a quality bokeh as Andy demonstrated:
http://dgrin.smugmug.com/gallery/1161613
Edit: Ah, I think I see what you were replying to. Yes, some lenses produce "busy" bokeh and it's true that many complicated zooms do have busier bokeh than some primes. Likewise, some prime lens formulas tend to produce a very smooth and creamy bokeh. In that regard I am very fond of the "Sonnar" designs. Tessar is not to bad either.
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
Yeah, I wasn't saying that zooms can't produce quality bokeh. But primes generally produce better and creamier bokeh.
Just as I said before, the 24-120mm f/4 can be somewhat busy, but not enough ruin a good photo.