Nikon 28-105 vs 24-120 VR

Discussion in 'Nikon' started by David Jennings, Jul 27, 2003.

  1. Hello all,

    Any opinions on how the new 24-120 VR compares to the older 28-105 in term
    of optics? It's obviously got the VR advantage but are the optics as good or
    better?

    Cheers,

    David.
     
    David Jennings, Jul 27, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. David Jennings

    T P Guest


    Surely there have been more than enough discussions about these lenses
    in the last month on here for you to be able to form an opinion about
    them?

    Try searching on Google.
     
    T P, Jul 27, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. I'd already tried that but have not found anything very helpful. Perhaps
    this post of yours from 13 July is the sort of informative post you're
    referring to:

    TP> Obviously the new lens has significantly altered optics due to the
    TP> need to incorporate the VR elements and mechanism. Until actual
    TP> production samples are in the hands of honest reviewers (and that cuts
    TP> out a great many magazines and web sites) we can only speculate.

    I've also seen comparison between the 28-105 and the old 24-120, the 24-50.
    A news-group search for "nikon 28-105 24-120 vr" reveals just seven hits
    since the start of May, before the 24-120 VR came out. Three of those aren't
    in English. Two of them say "wait until the new lens comes out to evaluate",
    one talks about the new lens price and availability, and the other compares
    to the old 24-120.

    If you could direct me to the discussions that you are referring to it would
    be much appreciated.

    Thanks,

    David.
     
    David Jennings, Jul 27, 2003
    #3
  4. David Jennings

    cymago Guest

    "David Jennings" > Any opinions on how the new 24-120 VR compares to the
    older 28-105 in term
    "Chasseur d'images" august 2003: not good at 24 and 120 for the 24x36
    format. Good for numeric. Af is fast, VR a real improvement.

    The old 28-105 is a little better than the old 24-120 in the 28-105 range
    (overall performance) and it seems also better than the new 24-120.

    I have plan to go to the new 24-120. As the optic is not improved I will
    stay with the 28-105.

    cymago
     
    cymago, Jul 27, 2003
    #4
  5. David> Any opinions on how the new 24-120 VR compares to the older
    David> 28-105 in term of optics? It's obviously got the VR advantage
    David> but are the optics as good or better?

    For handheld photographs below 1/500 second, I would expect the
    24-120 to blow away the 28-105 because of VR.
     
    Andrew Koenig, Jul 27, 2003
    #5
  6. David Jennings

    Lewis Lang Guest

    Subject: Nikon 28-105 vs 24-120 VR
    Try this link, David:

    <A HREF="http://h00805ffe2420.ne.client2.attbi.com/24120/">New Page 1</A>

    Hope it helps.

    Regards,

    Lewis

    Check out my photos at "LEWISVISION":

    http://members.aol.com/Lewisvisn/home.htm

    Remove "nospam" to reply
     
    Lewis Lang, Jul 27, 2003
    #6
  7. David Jennings, Jul 28, 2003
    #7
  8. AK> For handheld photographs below 1/500 second, I would expect the
    AK> 24-120 to blow away the 28-105 because of VR.

    Good point Andrew. Presumably the extra "sharpness" beqeathed by the VR
    under hand-held conditions would more than out-weigh any small loss due to
    the glass. I expect to use this lens hand-held so that's a big factor. I've
    got a couple of primes that I'd use for tripod work.
     
    David Jennings, Jul 28, 2003
    #8
  9. Any opinions on how the new 24-120 VR compares to the older 28-105 in term
    According to a test (MTF + projection test + test target) by CdI the lens is
    slightly worse than the 28-105.

    Klaus
     
    Klaus Schroiff, Jul 28, 2003
    #9
  10. David Jennings

    T P Guest


    I don't know how that scurrilous rag has gained such "respect" on this
    newsgroup - maybe because it is written in a language that so few
    subscribers understand.

    Of course VR is an improvement over the previous version. That's
    largely because the previous version did not have VR.
     
    T P, Jul 28, 2003
    #10
  11. David Jennings

    T P Guest


    If it is optically unsharp, it won't "blow
    away" anything, whether it has VR or not.
     
    T P, Jul 28, 2003
    #11
  12. David Jennings

    T P Guest


    That question is not specific enough. You would need to see a
    comparison test of the two lenses at a variety of common focal
    lengths, and I'm not aware of one having been done.

    Personally, I am confused about the new 24-120mm G AF-S VR Nikkor.
    The designers felt they had achieved, optically, a significant
    improvement over the previous version, but the discussion on DPReview
    seems to suggest that they have failed.

    The previous version was something of an enigma, and it seems the new
    one may also be. The jury is still out on the first version; it
    hasn't started its deliberations on #2.

    However, in spite of all the above, I would speculate that the
    28-105mm would be optically superior to either version at all common
    focal lengths and apertures. That is certainly the assumption I would
    make if I was choosing which to buy today.
     
    T P, Jul 28, 2003
    #12
  13. Thanks TP. That was helpful information.

    Cheers,

    David.
     
    David Jennings, Jul 29, 2003
    #13
  14. David Jennings

    Bowser Guest

    Bowser, Jul 29, 2003
    #14
  15. David Jennings

    Lewis Lang Guest

    Lewis Lang, Jul 31, 2003
    #15
    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.