Buzz over Nikon's 24-120mm VR lens

Discussion in 'Nikon' started by J.D. Parker, Jul 18, 2003.

  1. J.D. Parker

    J.D. Parker Guest

    Since I got my D1x I am concerned that I shouldn't be changing lenses
    as often (dust issues): so am considering getting some pro grade zooms
    to replace some or all of the following:
    24mm f/2.8 D
    50mm f/1.4 D
    85mm f/1.4 D
    135mm f/2 DC
    180mm f/2.8 D

    Having read the reviews on the new 24-85mm and 24-120mm I am wondering
    if they can be considered. Assuming the following conditions:

    - Money is not an object
    - Weight is not a problem
    - Using a tripod
    - Range of zoom lens is not a concern (i.e. travel convenience)

    Why would you choose a new 24-120mm or 24-85mm lens over the using a:
    17-35mm AF-S
    28-70 AF-S
    70-200 AF-S (or 80-200 AF-S)

    I've seen many reviews excited about the 24-120mm VR lens though I
    can't see why they'd consider using a non-constant aperture lens when
    the existing lenses (that cover that range) offer better optics. The
    24-120mm is more portable and easier to hand-hold - but at what
    expense?

    Any news from Nikon about a 24-70 AF-S f/2.8 lens similar in quality
    to Canon's EF version?

    Thanks,

    JP
     
    J.D. Parker, Jul 18, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. J.D. Parker

    T P Guest


    Try finding a good used 20-35mm f/2.8D AF Nikkor to give the
    equivalent field of view of a 30-52.5mm f/2.8. Make sure that whoever
    you buy from will return your money if you are dissatisfied, as some
    of these lenses suffer from colour fringing. But get a good one, and
    it will be an outstanding optic.
     
    T P, Jul 18, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. J.D. Parker

    David Guest

    Not to complicate your decision further, but Nikon will be coming out
    with a 17-55/2.8 G AFS DX lens which will give the equivalent of a
    25-83/2.8 lens in 35mm. If you can hold off 'til then, this lens with
    the 70-200 should cover all your needs as listed except for some fast
    f1.4 lenses.
     
    David, Jul 18, 2003
    #3
  4. J.D. Parker

    J.D. Parker Guest

    Any sort of timeframe?

    With that range along with a 70-200 and the 60mm Micro, TC-14e, and
    300 f/4 AF-S that I already have I should be pretty covered for most
    of my needs.

    Thanks for the info: it's the first I've heard about this lens.

    JP
     
    J.D. Parker, Jul 18, 2003
    #4
  5. J.D. Parker

    bowser Guest

    I have the new 24-120, and while it appears to be similar, maybe a little
    better than the old zoom, the addition of AF-S is nice, but VR is much
    nicer. Some test shots here:

    www.manzi.org/24120
     
    bowser, Jul 18, 2003
    #5
  6. I'd actually argue, considering you use a D1X, that any zoom lens, creates a
    vacuum with the in and out movement of the lens. I'd then argue you might
    continue to have dust issues.

    I use a zoom lens exclusively, it rarely comes off the DSLR, I also have
    dust problems. I'd find out from other users via forums whether this is
    anecdotal, or problematic with lens changes or zoom lenses.

    Worth some thought before you invest.

    Derrick
     
    Surfworx Photography, Jul 19, 2003
    #6
  7. J.D. Parker

    Randy Howard Guest

    Some very nice lenses in that list, don't see much reason to
    replace them for the sake of dust. You can't beat it, it's
    going to happen.
    The 17-35 is an extremely nice lens. You wouldn't pick a 24-85 or
    a 24-120 over it, it simply isn't a comparison. The 80-200AF-S is
    the sharpest zoom lens I've ever encountered. If the 70-200 is
    equal or better, it's a miracle. Either way, since you said that
    money is no object and you don't care about weight, this seems like
    a slam dunk for the AF-S lenses. Might as well throw in a 400
    while you're at it. :)
    I can't either, although I'm fairly sure it's primarily based upon
    price, while pretending it's about how VR is necessary. (Of course
    it may be with the slower speeds of the lower cost VR lenses).
    The only one that matters, picture quality.
     
    Randy Howard, Jul 19, 2003
    #7
  8. J.D. Parker

    Guest Guest

    With the exception of the 135, I have all of the above. If money is no
    object, why replace? Just add to your armamentarium. (Heh, or in some
    circumstances impedimenta :)

    I have these AF-S lenses too and find them to be excellent. When it becomes
    available in my area, I will buy the 24-120mm not only because I have this
    long-standing affliction that causes me to obsessively acquire more
    equipment, but also because the new lens is smaller, lighter. With the
    Af-S and VR I expect that it will be easily maneuvered as hand-held in
    rapidly changing, ad hoc circumstances.




    mailto: clix.at.xeropixdotcom
     
    Guest, Jul 19, 2003
    #8
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.