Not a lot of love for the 24-120....

IanGIanG Posts: 93Member
Hi there - been away a while - I'll try to be good this time around ;)

I've noticed a severe (IMHO) lack of comments about the 24-120 - both is AF-S and S formats - why is this ?

I am involved in a lot of concert and circus photography and frankly this range is really good for what I need - I fully realise that not everyone is in the same boat - can't imagine this being much use for landscapes for instance.

Are there other people out there with this lens, or am I alone...??

All the best

Ian
Cameras, lenses and stuff. (I actually met someone once who had touched a real Leica lens cloth.)

Comments

  • Ton14Ton14 Posts: 665Member
    For me the 24-120mm f/4 S is the best zoom lens that came out. My biggest problem is, that my 24-70mm f/4 is obsolete now. I use this lens for everything, it is a nobrainer.

    Software does a lot these days with my Capture One and Pure RAW from DxO f/4 is no problem to get clean shots, even with ISO 12.800.
    User Ton changed to Ton14, Google sign in did not work anymore
  • IanGIanG Posts: 93Member
    Thank G** - I was feeling very alone there!

    There's currently a shortage of the Z (S) variant here in Europe - my AF-S version certainly paid for itself many times over and I'm eager to get my hands on the new S version ASAP.

    I currently use the 24-70 f/2.8 S as a 'replacement' and possibly my only gripe would be that an f/2.8 version of the 24-120 would REALLY be perfect!

    Glad to see you're happy with yours B)
    Cameras, lenses and stuff. (I actually met someone once who had touched a real Leica lens cloth.)
  • PistnbrokePistnbroke Posts: 2,397Member
    I have had two AF-s 24-120 both junk ..I use the 28-300 perfect.
  • IanGIanG Posts: 93Member
    edited October 14
    For you perhaps...

    Why do you say 'Junk' ?
    Post edited by IanG on
    Cameras, lenses and stuff. (I actually met someone once who had touched a real Leica lens cloth.)
  • Ton14Ton14 Posts: 665Member
    @Pistnbroke I think you talk about the 24-120mm f/4 G and not the 24-120mm f/4 S because this one is for the Z bodies, announced this year and this is the lens we talk about. (also hard to get in some countries).
    User Ton changed to Ton14, Google sign in did not work anymore
  • PistnbrokePistnbroke Posts: 2,397Member
    The op said AF- s so I think he talks of F mount 24-120 f4 is junk look at the sharpness charts.
  • IanGIanG Posts: 93Member
    edited October 15

    ...24-120 f4 is junk look at the sharpness charts.

    Ah ok, I understand now - don't bother looking at the results, just look at the charts.

    Brilliant scheme...

    PS the OP (me) actually mentioned BOTH versions...this wasn't in a 'chart' so it's easy to miss
    Post edited by IanG on
    Cameras, lenses and stuff. (I actually met someone once who had touched a real Leica lens cloth.)
  • PistnbrokePistnbroke Posts: 2,397Member
    edited October 15
    Ok look at the photos it produces ..soft even with the fine tune spot on and the sharpness control at +9. To be honest I dont think 120mm is long enough so the 28-300 scores.
    Taken many thousands of pics with a pair of them .
    Post edited by Pistnbroke on
  • IanGIanG Posts: 93Member
    Amusing to think that you've "taken many thousands of pics" with such a "junk" lens...

    Why bother?
    Cameras, lenses and stuff. (I actually met someone once who had touched a real Leica lens cloth.)
  • Ton14Ton14 Posts: 665Member
    Photographiclife publsh a test soon for the 24-70mm f/4 S.
    User Ton changed to Ton14, Google sign in did not work anymore
  • MrFotoFoolMrFotoFool Posts: 326Member
    I still shoot F mount (D850), but use the 24-70 f2.8 E. The range of 24-120 would be nice but I read and heard that the 24-120 G lens (for F mount) was not sharp enough. I never tried it myself, I just trusted what is written. However the new Z mount version might be a worthwhile investment. If I do switch to Nikon Z at some point I would definitely consider the 24-120 f4 S.
  • IanGIanG Posts: 93Member
    edited October 16
    I do a lot of event photography - concerts and suchlike - which means I'm often very close to the stage and need the '24' end of the zoom to get more than peoples legs in shot.

    When the stage is very large, and the musiciens are spread out a bit, the '120' end comes into it's own as the 24-70 just doesn't get me close enough for individual close-ups.

    Yes, I could crop, but being VERY old and having grown up being used to filling the frame, I still like to do this.

    Not wishing to 'blow my own trumpet", nearly all of the examples on this page were taken with the AF-S 24-120 - sharp or not, they don't seem too bad really...to me at least.
    Post edited by IanG on
    Cameras, lenses and stuff. (I actually met someone once who had touched a real Leica lens cloth.)
  • mhedgesmhedges Posts: 2,766Member
    Nice shots, Ian!

    I considered getting the Z 24-120 but I already have the 24-200 and felt that would be better as a "convenience" type lens. I did get the 24-70 2.8 on a refurb sale for use at events and/or when I need max quality or speed. But maybe I would be better off with just the 24-120.
  • IanGIanG Posts: 93Member
    edited October 17
    Thank you @mhedges

    I shied off the 24-200 (albeit a super zoom range) as while I can 'handle' a maximum aperture of f/4, I felt that f/6.3 was pushing it a bit (for my post processing sequence)

    Obviously a 24-120 f/2.8 would be ideal...but I can't imagine what the price and the size of a beast like that would be!

    More trumpet blowing (!) this album is almost exclusively the 24-120 - and is the environment I'm most comfortable in...
    Post edited by IanG on
    Cameras, lenses and stuff. (I actually met someone once who had touched a real Leica lens cloth.)
  • spraynprayspraynpray Posts: 6,510Moderator
    I bought the 24-120 and D750 as a package for weddings. Unfortunately I found the IQ of the lens to be unexceptional around 100mm wide open and went back to two bodies and two lenses.
    Always learning.
  • PistnbrokePistnbroke Posts: 2,397Member
    Ian G ...thousands with the 28-300 ..I am with spray on the 24-120.
    But I will say any lens is crap on JPEG unless you have the sharpness at +9
  • Ton14Ton14 Posts: 665Member
    User Ton changed to Ton14, Google sign in did not work anymore
  • gene_mcgillgene_mcgill Posts: 354Member
    I believe sample variation is a factor. I bought a new AF-S 24-70 f/2.8G back in my D700 days. In spite of its good reputation, I was underwhelmed by its performance. Not as sharp as I expected given the buzz about the lens. I bought a used (reconditioned) AF-S 24-120 VR f/4 and was happier with it. The VR, extra range, and lighter weight were definite positives for my use. I still own it and use it on my D800e. However, it is not a good match for my Z 7. I have a 24-120 f/4 S now, it is the best of the midrange zooms I've had. It is all around equal or better than the 24-70 f/4 S that came with my Z 7.

    FWIW, I also had an AF-S 16-80 f/2.8-4 DX with my D500. At some lengths and f-stops, its image quality was stunningly good, even through an FTZ on my Z 7. But then there were times when it just turned in lousy images. I think I got a bad copy of that one. I've since moved on from DX.

    YMMV.
  • PistnbrokePistnbroke Posts: 2,397Member
    You need the fine focus adjust spot on and the sharpness at +9 to get a good image on any lens
  • MrFotoFoolMrFotoFool Posts: 326Member
    I am still F mount (D850) so I am only looking at the older F mount version. (I imagine the new Z mount is quite sharp). My 24-70 f2.8 E lens is quite sharp and I think I am best keeping it. The only reason I was looking at this again yesterday is to save size and weight (plus the extended range). The 24-120 is about two inches shorter and quite a bit lighter than my 2.8 lens (for some reason the Nikon 24-70 f2.8 E is much longer than any other 24-70 f2.8 out there). However, I read reviews on a handful of different sites (including this one) and enough users report sharpness issues that I am fairly sure it would not satisfy me, since I sometimes make prints as big as 40x60 inches. In fact the reviews of the Sigma 24-105 f4 are more positive with at least one user saying they compared it to this Nikon lens and the Sigma was better. Still not quite as good probably as my current lens (and obviously without the added stop of f2.8 ). Sometimes best to be content with what we have...
  • spraynprayspraynpray Posts: 6,510Moderator
    You may find that the Sigma loses you at least some of the weight advantage, possibly size too. Having said that, we all know how great their Art lenses are, so their 24-105 is a good bet to be better than the mediocre 24-120 f4 VR Nikon.
    Always learning.
  • SearcySearcy Posts: 798Member
    I bought the 24-120 F4 S. It's a great focal range for walking around. I do find it struggles in bad light. For that I have to use my 24-70 2.8 S.

    It depends a lot on what your shooting and light conditions.

    These are the 24-120 F4 S
    Laura
Sign In or Register to comment.