Nikon 24-120 f3.5-5.6 g

Art Scott · September 10, 2011

I have been treying out a Nikon 24-120 f3.5-5.6 G.......This lens has amazed me....I have touted the praise of Sigma lens for many many many years and I will continue to do so........I bought back into the Nikon Digital Line a couple of years back after sony purchased the Konica Minolta line......but I kept shooting my KM 7D's for quite some time untill I decided it was time to come back to nikon (still had a film F70 sitting in a box and no lens)...so I bought 2 - D300's 18-200 / 18-70 ....quickly decided the 18-200 needed to go and got a 70-200vr1 and kept the 18-70 but was not impressed with either of these 2 lenses as neither would or could focus under 2 feet...I shoot weddings and portrait and wildlife and nature and the one thing I hate doing is changing lenses when out shooting....One of my hurrahs for Sigma is the ability to close focus with every Sigma lens I ever owned (70-210 (3 of them),28-200, 28-70, & 24-70 {not shown in purchase order}....so I decided to give one more Nikon Lens a go...the 24-120....sounded like the almost perfect carry around lens and also a great wedding portrait lens....so I have been doing some work with it....in the studio copying images out of my paper portfolio and outdoors......here are 2 I have processed so far:

copied paper image:

XL image click Here

outdoor shot....an evergreen sprouting out of the trunk of an paperbark Birch:

for XL image Click Here

This Nikon 24-120 f3.5-5.6 seems to be a very good lens....I can get in as close as about 19 - 21 inches to my subject to sensor and it still focuses ....so that puts me at about 16 inches at 120mm ...should be close enough for rings shots..................

ImageX Photography · September 11, 2011

Why wouldn't you just use a lens that is made for close focusing instead of tossing out some of the best glass in the world? Just because they won't close focus?

Because you don't like changing lenses or using the right lens for the right job? Isn't that what using two bodies is all about? Why not use a dedicated macro lens for ring shots instead of trying to do it half heartedly with some average zoom lens? Don't you want the best IQ you can get? Apparently not since you "tout Sigma" and then toss out the MUCH MUCH better Nikkor glass!

Art Scott · September 13, 2011

ImageX Photography wrote: »

Why wouldn't you just use a lens that is made for close focusing instead of tossing out some of the best glass in the world? Just because they won't close focus? Because you don't like changing lenses or using the right lens for the right job? Isn't that what using two bodies is all about? Why not use a dedicated macro lens for ring shots instead of trying to do it half heartedly with some average zoom lens? Don't you want the best IQ you can get? Apparently not since you "tout Sigma" and then toss out the MUCH MUCH better Nikkor glass!

In my testing of both side by side....as I have said...I found the more expensive Nikon IS NOT any better than the Sigma, which yes I have used for over 30 yrs ...

It is not just about ring shots.....I also like being able to move into a few inches of a portrait subject and shoot a single hair that is misplaced or unruly or simply shoot the eye and not have to crop the hell out of it because I could not get closer than 6 feet with the so called MUCH MUCH better Nikkor glass......with my Sigma Glass (which is no longer mine as I sold my Konica Minolta Kits) I could easily shoot a full lenght , quarter, headshot and the iris, or even just the pupil.........if I follow your advice I have to buy several dedicated lenses to do this and not one of my clients will be able to tell the difference....and my clients are not the run of the mill lets go to walmart to get photo done client, they are Professional People many of which are in the Photo Arts themselves......so again it is my opinion that nikon lenses are NOT truly worth the extra cost.......

ImageX Photography · November 10, 2011

Art Scott wrote: »

In my testing of both side by side....as I have said...I found the more expensive Nikon IS NOT any better than the Sigma, which yes I have used for over 30 yrs ...

It is not just about ring shots.....I also like being able to move into a few inches of a portrait subject and shoot a single hair that is misplaced or unruly or simply shoot the eye and not have to crop the hell out of it because I could not get closer than 6 feet with the so called MUCH MUCH better Nikkor glass......with my Sigma Glass (which is no longer mine as I sold my Konica Minolta Kits) I could easily shoot a full lenght , quarter, headshot and the iris, or even just the pupil.........if I follow your advice I have to buy several dedicated lenses to do this and not one of my clients will be able to tell the difference....and my clients are not the run of the mill lets go to walmart to get photo done client, they are Professional People many of which are in the Photo Arts themselves......so again it is my opinion that nikon lenses are NOT truly worth the extra cost.......

Sounds like you want a jack of all trades lens and one that does everything the best. Not sure there is such a thing but they do make "close up" filters that screw onto any lens and allow much closer focusing. If it's close up focusing you want, a dedicated macro lens is the way to go... especially if you have these high end demanding clients as you say. Would they prefer you to use a third party jack of all trades lens instead when higher IQ is attainable with other lenses?

I own both Sigma and Nikon glass and the Nikkor glass is MUCH MUCH better.... in many aspects. It's no secret at all and almost everyone here can attest to THAT. I am sorry but you are mistaken if you think otherwise. I can understand someone having an opinion of Nikkor not being worth the extra money(VS third party) but it is certainly better glass in most cases. For example... the Nikkor 70-200 smokes a Sigma 70-200 and is one of the best lenses in existence. For you to "throw it out" in favor of Sigma and say you are not impressed with an amazing lens like the 70-200VR because it isn't a macro lens.... just sounds silly to me. That lens is simply amazing... period. Screw a close up filter on it or use a proper lens for the job. I do own some third party glass.... such as the Tamron 17-50 VC and it is outstanding and on par IQ wise with the Nikkor 17-55. Not build quality though. You are obviously biased towards third party Sigma glass and your claims and tests about it being just as good as Nikkor glass are simply unfounded and I doubt one single person here would post and disagree. I can totally understand if you need a lens to focus closer but to push Sigma while claiming not to be impressed with the 70-200VR1 is laughable at best.

Matthew Saville · November 10, 2011

ImageX Photography wrote: »

Sounds like you want a jack of all trades lens and one that does everything the best. Not sure there is such a thing but they do make "close up" filters that screw onto any lens and allow much closer focusing. If it's close up focusing you want, a dedicated macro lens is the way to go... especially if you have these high end demanding clients as you say. Would they prefer you to use a third party jack of all trades lens instead when higher IQ is attainable with other lenses?

I own both Sigma and Nikon glass and the Nikkor glass is MUCH MUCH better.... in many aspects. It's no secret at all and almost everyone here can attest to THAT. I am sorry but you are mistaken if you think otherwise. I can understand someone having an opinion of Nikkor not being worth the extra money(VS third party) but it is certainly better glass in most cases. For example... the Nikkor 70-200 smokes a Sigma 70-200 and is one of the best lenses in existence. For you to "throw it out" in favor of Sigma and say you are not impressed with an amazing lens like the 70-200VR because it isn't a macro lens.... just sounds silly to me. That lens is simply amazing... period. Screw a close up filter on it or use a proper lens for the job. I do own some third party glass.... such as the Tamron 17-50 VC and it is outstanding and on par IQ wise with the Nikkor 17-55. Not build quality though. You are obviously biased towards third party Sigma glass and your claims and tests about it being just as good as Nikkor glass are simply unfounded and I doubt one single person here would post and disagree. I can totally understand if you need a lens to focus closer but to push Sigma while claiming not to be impressed with the 70-200VR1 is laughable at best.

ImageX Photography wrote: »

Why wouldn't you just use a lens that is made for close focusing instead of tossing out some of the best glass in the world? Just because they won't close focus? Because you don't like changing lenses or using the right lens for the right job? Isn't that what using two bodies is all about? Why not use a dedicated macro lens for ring shots instead of trying to do it half heartedly with some average zoom lens? Don't you want the best IQ you can get? Apparently not since you "tout Sigma" and then toss out the MUCH MUCH better Nikkor glass!

No offense, but my initial reaction to this is, "Clearly this person has NEVER shot under pressure in an extremely dynamic situation..."

On the one hand, everything you've said makes perfect sense. On the other hand, again, your logic is completely lost on someone who simply cares about getting the job done.

Personally, I've paid my bills over the past 3-4 years with nothing but a Sigma EX lens, and a couple old Nikon AIS primes and cheap "beginner" AF primes. I'm not rich, but I got the job done and nobody complained. And while I was using a crop sensor, Sigma offered the ONLY option available in the 70-200 range, the legendary Sigma 50-150 2.8. Nikon didn't even bother making a 50-150 DX VR or anything, they completely abandoned pro DX users and went for high-dollar FX lenses.

So, sure, maybe we're not able to brag about the 100% crop of our extreme corners. But we get our work done and our clients don't know the difference. In fact I would argue, like Scott, that there is something to be said for finding a lens that can do the work of 2-3 "specialty" lenses without ever having to switch or fiddle with accessories. The client may not "notice", but they will appreciate the speed and simplicity with which you get your work done. I know of PLENTY of wedding photographers who shoot with the Canon 24-104 f/4 and the Nikon 24-120, even now during the height of the "shallow depth craze" and everyone's obsession with f/1.2... And their work is stunning because they focus on their vision and getting the job done, NOT "equipment prestige"... Personally, I photograph children's theater regularly and there is DEFINITELY a lot of value in being versatile and not changing lenses. Just because we ask this of our cameras, doesn't mean we want a "jack of all trades" kit lens. Versatility simply helps us do our job better. In fact, to this day I still use my crop-sensor Sigma 50-150 2.8, ON FULL FRAME WITHOUT CROP MODE, because I love the ability to zoom from 50mm forward and because in theater, black vignetted corners are almost impossible to notice anyways. ;-)

So again, I find nothing wrong with your arguments of superior IQ etc. However in my opinion, with all due respect, you simply do not understand what we are all about.

ImageX Photography · November 10, 2011

Matthew Saville wrote: »

No offense, but my initial reaction to this is, "Clearly this person has NEVER shot under pressure in an extremely dynamic situation..."

On the one hand, everything you've said makes perfect sense. On the other hand, again, your logic is completely lost on someone who simply cares about getting the job done.

Personally, I've paid my bills over the past 3-4 years with nothing but a Sigma EX lens, and a couple old Nikon AIS primes and cheap "beginner" AF primes. I'm not rich, but I got the job done and nobody complained. And while I was using a crop sensor, Sigma offered the ONLY option available in the 70-200 range, the legendary Sigma 50-150 2.8. Nikon didn't even bother making a 50-150 DX VR or anything, they completely abandoned pro DX users and went for high-dollar FX lenses.

So, sure, maybe we're not able to brag about the 100% crop of our extreme corners. But we get our work done and our clients don't know the difference. In fact I would argue, like Scott, that there is something to be said for finding a lens that can do the work of 2-3 "specialty" lenses without ever having to switch or fiddle with accessories. The client may not "notice", but they will appreciate the speed and simplicity with which you get your work done. I know of PLENTY of wedding photographers who shoot with the Canon 24-104 f/4 and the Nikon 24-120, even now during the height of the "shallow depth craze" and everyone's obsession with f/1.2... And their work is stunning because they focus on their vision and getting the job done, NOT "equipment prestige"... Personally, I photograph children's theater regularly and there is DEFINITELY a lot of value in being versatile and not changing lenses. Just because we ask this of our cameras, doesn't mean we want a "jack of all trades" kit lens. Versatility simply helps us do our job better. In fact, to this day I still use my crop-sensor Sigma 50-150 2.8, ON FULL FRAME WITHOUT CROP MODE, because I love the ability to zoom from 50mm forward and because in theater, black vignetted corners are almost impossible to notice anyways. ;-)

So again, I find nothing wrong with your arguments of superior IQ etc. However in my opinion, with all due respect, you simply do not understand what we are all about.

The whole point is that someone would toss out an absolutely amazing lens.... claiming they are not impressed..... and then tout lesser glass while claiming it is just as good or better... when in fact it is not.

If someone doesn't like a particular lens because it won't focus as close as they need..... that's one thing and quite fair. Making a claim like above in the same sentence is something else all together. Also, saying that clients are super demanding yet wanting to use a "jack of all trades master of none" makes no sense when you could use something better suited for the job. It does make sense if you don't want to buy a lot of different lenses like Art mentioned..... but still.... you can't make false claims about inferior glass at the same time.

I know exactly what "we" are all about. I also pay bills with a camera and I know what it's like to shoot in dynamic situations. That is what the Black Rapid DR1 strap is for. You KNOW this as you have shot many weddings. What is your solution for the high pressure dynamic job? Is it a do all lens that is master of none that puts out lesser IQ than what is possible?

I prefer to use more specialized lenses for a particular jobs though.... and prefer higher IQ over the ease of not switching lenses. ESPECIALLY when the clients are demanding. I carry two bodies when I know I need different types of lenses. Again, the issue is not what a photographer wants/needs a piece of glass to do to get the job(s) done or if they want a do everything well lens. Hell, even I own a 18-200. I don't use it anymore though.... because I have the better glass and don't mind switching when needed. Maybe the amazing Nikkor 70-200 is really NOT good for a certain thing someone wants to do. It happens often I'm sure. Everyone knows that Sigma, Tamron, and Tokina make some outstanding stuff and I'm not dissing on Sigma at all. They make some great stuff and I wouldn't hesitate to purchase more Sigma products. I just know that in most cases it cannot compare to Nikkor glass in function, form, and IQ. With all that said, I think that the 2011 Corvette steers a little quick. I wasn't impressed so I highly recommend the better Aveo instead. The first part of that sentence would be quite ok..... without the second parts. That's all I'm really saying here.

Matthew Saville · November 10, 2011

ImageX Photography wrote: »

The whole point is that someone would toss out an absolutely amazing lens.... claiming they are not impressed..... and then tout lesser glass while claiming it is just as good or better... when in fact it is not.

If someone doesn't like a particular lens because it won't focus as close as they need..... that's one thing and quite fair. Making a claim like above in the same sentence is something else all together. Also, saying that clients are super demanding yet wanting to use a "jack of all trades master of none" makes no sense when you could use something better suited for the job. It does make sense if you don't want to buy a lot of different lenses like Art mentioned..... but still.... you can't make false claims about inferior glass at the same time.

I know exactly what "we" are all about. I also pay bills with a camera and I know what it's like to shoot in dynamic situations. That is what the Black Rapid DR1 strap is for. You KNOW this as you have shot many weddings. What is your solution for the high pressure dynamic job? Is it a do all lens that is master of none that puts out lesser IQ than what is possible?

I prefer to use more specialized lenses for a particular jobs though.... and prefer higher IQ over the ease of not switching lenses. ESPECIALLY when the clients are demanding. I carry two bodies when I know I need different types of lenses. Again, the issue is not what a photographer wants/needs a piece of glass to do to get the job(s) done or if they want a do everything well lens. Hell, even I own a 18-200. I don't use it anymore though.... because I have the better glass and don't mind switching when needed. Maybe the amazing Nikkor 70-200 is really NOT good for a certain thing someone wants to do. It happens often I'm sure. Everyone knows that Sigma, Tamron, and Tokina make some outstanding stuff and I'm not dissing on Sigma at all. They make some great stuff and I wouldn't hesitate to purchase more Sigma products. I just know that in most cases it cannot compare to Nikkor glass in function, form, and IQ. With all that said, I think that the 2011 Corvette steers a little quick. I wasn't impressed so I highly recommend the better Aveo instead. The first part of that sentence would be quite ok..... without the second parts. That's all I'm really saying here.

I think you are simply exaggerating the impact and the importance of the sharpness differential here. The difference in sharpness is not really that huge, when you make the average sized prints that most clients want. And sure, some lenses are more rugged than others, but it's just a professional decision whether you opt for the rugged equipment, or simply plan on repairing / replacing your favorite lens every few years. It's just a business expense, and a rather small one if you think about the grand scheme of running a small business.

I would disagree with anyone arguing that a kit lens is simply BETTER than a lens like a 2.8 Nikon pro zoom. The Nikon 2.8 pro zooms are flawlessly sharp, built rock solid, and definitely the workhorse of many pros. I guess I just didn't get that impression from what Scott was saying. It's not that the 24-120 or a Sigma 70-200 is better in terms of sheer performance, they're just better lenses for a certain purpose. Make sense?

The bottom line is that these versatile / 3rd party lenses deliver more than enough to make clients happy, and that is all we are saying. Don't take personal offense, and don't talk down on someone, just because they opt for practicality more than sheer performance. That was the only reason I replied in the first place, was because it sounded like you were jumping down Scott's throat for saying that he prefers a more versatile lens over the venerable 70-200. I understand your concern, but trust me, everybody already knows that the 70-200 2.8 is an incredible lens when used for it's intended purpose. You don't have to worry about that fact going un-noticed by inquiring photographers, just because Scott voiced his unhappiness with the lens' versatility.

=Matt=

ImageX Photography · November 11, 2011

Matthew Saville wrote: »

I think you are simply exaggerating the impact and the importance of the sharpness differential here. The difference in sharpness is not really that huge, when you make the average sized prints that most clients want. And sure, some lenses are more rugged than others, but it's just a professional decision whether you opt for the rugged equipment, or simply plan on repairing / replacing your favorite lens every few years. It's just a business expense, and a rather small one if you think about the grand scheme of running a small business.

I would disagree with anyone arguing that a kit lens is simply BETTER than a lens like a 2.8 Nikon pro zoom. The Nikon 2.8 pro zooms are flawlessly sharp, built rock solid, and definitely the workhorse of many pros. I guess I just didn't get that impression from what Scott was saying. It's not that the 24-120 or a Sigma 70-200 is better in terms of sheer performance, they're just better lenses for a certain purpose. Make sense?

The bottom line is that these versatile / 3rd party lenses deliver more than enough to make clients happy, and that is all we are saying. Don't take personal offense, and don't talk down on someone, just because they opt for practicality more than sheer performance. That was the only reason I replied in the first place, was because it sounded like you were jumping down Scott's throat for saying that he prefers a more versatile lens over the venerable 70-200. I understand your concern, but trust me, everybody already knows that the 70-200 2.8 is an incredible lens when used for it's intended purpose. You don't have to worry about that fact going un-noticed by inquiring photographers, just because Scott voiced his unhappiness with the lens' versatility.

=Matt=

I wasn't talking down on anyone or any brand of glass at all. Art is saying that Nikkor glass is not any better than Sigma glass and his tests prove that. That is the point of my posts so why are we talking about me disagreeing instead of the wild claims being made here?

Icebear · November 11, 2011

Before this thread got so "interesting" I was going to wonder to the group why we weren't discussing the Nikkor 24-120 f/4 as an alternative. Then I got skeert off.

DsrtVW · November 11, 2011

Art
You should try out the 28-300mm f3.5-5.6 VRII ED it focus at 18 inches. I bought a refurbished copy from Nikon and it has been a sweet lens even at 300mm. Using it on D300 D7000

Art Scott · November 12, 2011

ImageX Photography wrote: »

1-Why wouldn't you just use a lens that is made for close focusing instead of tossing out some of the best glass in the world?
2- Just because they won't close focus? Because you don't like changing lenses or using the right lens for the right job?
3-Isn't that what using two bodies is all about?
4- Why not use a dedicated macro lens for ring shots instead of trying to do it half heartedly with some average zoom lens?
5-Don't you want the best IQ you can get?
6-Apparently not since you "tout Sigma" and then toss out the MUCH MUCH better Nikkor glass!

1- I always use the CORRECT LENS for the job.....ALWAYS!! I have never had a client complain about IQ sharpness or anything....The CORRECT LENS is the lens that gets the job done and keeps the client happily ecstatic. Simple right keep the clients happy.

2-Not sure how much time you have for changing lenses with your clients...but here in this part of the world the churches use weddings as big money makers....meaning that you have either a church employed coordinator rushing you out of the church or one of the couple hundred Priests that are affiliated with teh several Catholic churches...99% of the you have 15-20 minutes to get all the formals done...everything and if you are not done in the Sanctuary, they start another wedding right on top of you......so I do not have time for changing lenses, I carry 2 bodies strapped to me at all times one with a semi wide to med tele zoom and one with the 70-200....I have to go from shooting wide family groups to a close up ring shot in less than a couple of seconds a lot of times...or if I am shooting a concert and the artist has asked for a certain shot to be taken I again have no time to fumble for another "dedicated close up/ macro lens to get that shot....if I were doing a lot of insects or flower 1:1 close ups then the MACRO LENS would be on the camera...not simply my choice of close shooting zoom....

3- using 2 bodies for me is to keep me mobile and not wondering if my bag is safe or if some idiots kid is poking thru it....so 2 bodies each with MY CHOICE of the CORRECT LENS for my job at hand...

4- is already answered above ....see reply #2

5- I get the best IQ I need for each job and I get repeat clients ...yes i do get clients that are extremely wealthy and many have requested that I use certain equipment when I work with them...so I do...but I also do the same shoot with my choice of equipment....I have Clients that wouild not allow any camera to be used for family portraits other than Hassleblad...so I did, but I also shot each pose with a Kiev slr, a Yashica Mat 124G, a Mamiya C330 and my Pentax 645...funny I could have lost this client by embarrassing him but we met privately and I showed him all the images with camera details on the back of each image...I still get work from him 25 yrs later......there are times that images call for certain cameras and lens combo's but for 99% of the work an excellent 3rd Party lens will do the job perfectly...I believe it was Galen Rowell that shot some of his most compelling shots while suspended hundreds to thousands of feet in mid air with a Pentax K1000 and inexpensive lenses...the reason it cost less than $100 for the whole kit and If I drop it I can easily replace it at any camera store ... ... ... ...

6- and you say your not slamming any one... well I take offense to your accusation in #6 above....but that is your opinion and like arse holes everyone has one. ... ... ... Right???

I posted this thread in part to show that I am willing to give different supposedly much much much better lenses a try... and for me a lens is damn near useless unless I can go from a 3/4 portrait shot of an entertainer to getting that evil look in his right pupil by simply zooming in to 200mm from 70 at less than 3 feet.....or from that semi wide shot of the bridal party to the ring on her hand in less than 2 seconds, because the spontaneity is totally lost when you ask the couple to hold that pose why I switch over to my perfect Macro lens cause this hugely over priced lens will not get the shot......That is laughable ...... Each person correct lenses for the job is individualistic and the choice of each......

Just because my choice or lenses is not YOUR choice does not make it wrong....if Sigma was such a piece of junk as you insinuate they would not have lasted all theses years as the largest of the "3rd" party lenses now would they.

Matthew ... Thank You ......

So to kinda finish off my opinion of the 24-120 f3.5-5.6...Great lens for outdoor shooting but I have shot for way to may decades using strictly constant aperture lenses and it had to go.....If you can live with variable aperture lenses it would be a great street lens and as I said it focused close enough that I was considering it for weddings and portraits......and copy work.

Icebear.....The 24-120 f4 will be getting a try out....it looks very promising...hopefully ....i think I can live with the F4 aperture...I am not one that shoots very often at 2.8 anyway....most of my work is shot between f4 and 8 even with out flash........

I am done and don't feel there is truly any thing else that can be said that will be beneficial to this thread....Good Night all.

Matthew Saville · November 12, 2011

@ Scott - I had a kid push my (wedding) camera bag down a cliff, once. THAT went over well! Thankfully I had both of my cameras on me at the time, and only one lens fell out of the bag.

Also, indeed I'll be saving up for the 24-120 f/4 VR and I will be patiently awaiting Nikon's release of a 70-200 f/4 VR. Or, if it doesnt' focus close enough, I'll be opting for a Sigma 150 2.8 OS Macro.

=Matt=

Art Scott · November 12, 2011

DsrtVW wrote: »

Art
You should try out the 28-300mm f3.5-5.6 VRII ED it focus at 18 inches. I bought a refurbished copy from Nikon and it has been a sweet lens even at 300mm. Using it on D300 D7000

I would be interested if this was a constant aperture lens...I own a 28-200 (Schneider) but again I have been SPOILED by constant aperture lenses for many decades... Glad it works well for you ...

Icebear · November 12, 2011

Art Scott wrote: »

I would be interested if this was a constant aperture lens...I own a 28-200 (Schneider) but again I have been SPOILED by constant aperture lenses for many decades... Glad it works well for you ...

I have that lens. It's a decent walk-around lens for a full frame body, but Art, you might find that the 28 is a bit long for you on crop bodies. I'll bet you fall in love with the 24-120 f/4. The nano-coating really does help with color.

Art Scott · November 12, 2011

Icebear wrote: »

I have that lens. It's a decent walk-around lens for a full frame body, but Art, you might find that the 28 is a bit long for you on crop bodies. I'll bet you fall in love with the 24-120 f/4. The nano-coating really does help with color.

Yes 28 is a bit to long for me...my 28-200 was a hold over from shooting film and it was good on full 35mm but I started leaving it behind a lot when i acquired my 24-70 f2.8 ....so I sold it...really hate having stuff just gathering dust on shelves....especially now that renting is so much easier than it was just a few years back....Maybe Santa will leave a 24-120 f4 on the fireplace mantle this year.....

.. .. ..

Nikon 24-120 f3.5-5.6 g

Comments