This is an in-depth review of the new Nikon 24-120mm f/4G ED VR lens that was released earlier this year along with the Nikon 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6G VR, Nikon 85mm f/1.4G and Nikon 55-300mm f/4.5-5.6G VR DX lenses. The lens was kindly provided by B&H – the largest photo reseller in the world that I use more than any other to buy my photography gear.
The constant maximum aperture, mid-range Nikon 24-120mm f/4 VR zoom lens is a major update to the Nikon 24-120mm f/3.5-5.6G VR that was released back in 2003. The older, variable-aperture 24-120mm f/3.5-5.6 had some optical problems that did not make it a popular lens among photographers, so Nikon decided to address those problems by releasing this highly-anticipated Nikon 24-120mm f/4.0 lens. Why highly-anticipated? Because the 24-120mm focal range is very useful for photographers who use full-frame cameras like Nikon D700/D3s/D3x and who find the 24-70mm f/2.8 either too short on the long focal end, or too heavy for everyday use. In addition, having VR on a mid-range lens like the 24-120mm is crucial for low-light photography, even on the wide end.
Nikon 24-120mm f/4 ED VR
Did Nikon address all problems the Nikon 24-120mm f/3.5-5.6G had in this new f/4 update? How does it compare to the legendary Nikon 24-70mm and the new 28-300mm lenses? Is it really on par with the 28-300mm when it comes to performance, making it a worse buy than the 28-300mm like some of the reviewers stated? In this review, I will do my best to provide a detailed analysis of the lens’ performance, including sharpness tests and comparisons against other mid-range lenses and answer the above questions.
The Nikon 24-120mm f/4G ED VR is a constant maximum aperture lens with a 5x zoom range that is designed for professional and advanced amateur photographers that need a mid-range lens with image stabilization to be used for many types of photography, including street, nature, travel and wedding photography. Unlike variable-aperture lenses that typically have an aperture of f/5.6 when zoomed all the way in, the Nikon 24-120mm stays at f/4.0 throughout the focal range, giving a one-stop advantage to the 24-120mm f/4 over variable-aperture lenses on the long end. For example, the older Nikon 24-120mm f/3.5-5.6G lens has a maximum aperture of f/5.6 beyond 85mm and the new 28-300mm is at f/5.6 beyond 105mm.
In addition, the lens comes packed with plenty of new optical features from Nikon, including the latest generation of VR II (vibration reduction) technology, which offers camera shake compensation equivalent to a shutter speed increase of approximately four stops. Thanks to the AF-S silent-wave focus motor, the lens focuses quietly and accurately in various lighting conditions, and the 77mm filter thread makes it easy to use specialized filters (polarizing, neutral density, etc) without having to mess with adapter rings. The complex optical formula of 17 elements in 13 groups with two ED, three aspherical elements and Nano Crystal Coat all contribute to great performance throughout the zoom range.
1) Lens Specifications
Main Features:
- Compact and versatile 5X standard zoom lens with f/4 maximum aperture is perfect for landscapes, portraits, weddings and distant subjects offering a constant maximum aperture to maintain exposure settings throughout the entire zoom range and VR II Image Stabilization.
- Nikon VR II (Vibration Reduction), engineered specifically for each VR NIKKOR lens, enables handheld shooting at up to 4 shutter speeds slower than would otherwise be possible, assuring dramatically sharper still images and video capture.
- 2 Extra-low Dispersion (ED) elements offers superior sharpness and color correction by effectively minimizing chromatic aberration, even at the widest aperture setting.
- M/A Focus Mode Switch enables quick changes between manual and autofocus operation.
- Exclusive Nikon Silent Wave Motor (SWM) enables fast, accurate and quiet autofocus.
- Rounded 9-blade diaphragm renders more natural appearance of out-of-focus image areas.
- Nano Crystal Coat further reduces ghosting and interior flare across a wide range of wavelengths for even greater image clarity.
- 3 Aspherical Lens Elements virtually eliminate coma and other types of aberration, even when shooting at the widest available aperture.
- Internal Focus (IF) provides fast and quiet autofocus without changing the length of the lens, retaining working distance throughout the focus range.
- Nikon Super Integrated Coating (SIC) enhances light transmission efficiency and offers superior color consistency and reduced flare.
Technical Specifications:
- Mount Type: Nikon F-Bayonet
- Focal Length Range: 24-120mm
- Zoom Ratio: 5.0x
- Maximum Aperture: f/4
- Minimum Aperture: f/22
- Format: FX/35mm
- Maximum Angle of View (DX-format): 61°
- Minimum Angle of View (DX-format): 13°20′
- Maximum Angle of View (FX-format): 84°
- Minimum Angle of View (FX-format): 20°30′
- Maximum Reproduction Ratio: 0.24x
- Lens Elements: 17
- Lens Groups: 13
- Compatible Format(s): FX, DX, FX in DX Crop Mode, 35mm Film
- VR (Vibration Reduction) Image Stabilization: Yes
- Diaphragm Blades: 9
- Distance Information: Yes
- Nano Crystal Coat: Yes
- ED Glass Elements: 2
- Super Integrated Coating: Yes
- Autofocus: Yes
- AF-S (Silent Wave Motor): Yes
- Internal Focusing: Yes
- Minimum Focus Distance: 1.5ft. (0.45m)
- Focus Mode: Auto, Manual
- Filter Size: 77mm
- Accepts Filter Type: Screw-on
- Dimensions (Approx.): 3.3×4.1 in. (Diameter x Length), 84x103mm (Diameter x Length)
- Weight (Approx.): 23.6 oz. (670g)
- Supplied Accessories: HB-53 Bayonet Lens Hood, LC-77 Snap-on Front Lens Cap, LF-1 Rear Lens Cap, CL-1218 Soft Lens Case
2) Lens construction and handling
When compared to the older 24-120mm, the barrel of the 24-120mm f/4 is thicker, I would say about the same size as the barrel of the Nikon 28-300mm lens. Zoomed out to 24mm, it is certainly more compact than the 24-70mm or the 28-300mm lenses height-wise and also weighs much less than both. Here is how the Nikon 24-120mm f/4 compares against Nikon 24-70mm (left) and Nikon 24-120mm f/3.5-5-6G (right):
Nikon 24-70mm vs Nikon 24-120mm f/4 vs Nikon 24-120mm f/3.5-5.6
When extended to 120mm, the lens gets bigger and almost reaches the height of the fully extended 24-70mm (obviously not quite as tall as the Nikon 28-300mm):
Nikon 24-70mm vs Nikon 24-120mm f4 vs Nikon 24-120mm f3.5-5.6 Extended
The lens is built very similarly to the Nikon 28-300mm, with a plastic exterior and focus ring. The zoom ring is also made of plastic and is covered with rubber for resistance. Most of the recently-announced lenses by Nikon have a plastic exterior, which does not necessarily mean that the lenses are not solid – the interior of the Nikon 24-120mm contains plenty of metal (which obviously contributes to the weight) and the lens mount is also made of solid metal. When you zoom in, the first extension tube by the zoom ring is metal, while the second one that connects the front of the lens is plastic. The front part of the 24-120mm does not wobble when the lens is is fully extended either. In many ways, the construction of the lens is very similar to that of 28-300 – a very high quality build. The lens should be able to withstand cold and hot temperatures, but I would not leave it under rain, extreme moisture and dusty environments.
Weight-wise, it is not a heavy lens when compared to the Nikon 28-300mm or 24-70mm lenses. Weighing about 670 grams, it is 230 grams lighter than the latter, which is a big difference. The lens feels very solid in hands and the zoom action is smooth and easy to rotate from 24 to 120mm and vice versa – it takes a half turn to go from 24 to 120mm. The focus ring is made of plastic and is located on the back of the lens, which I find backwards. I am used to the zoom ring being close to the lens and the focus ring to be near the lens barrel. But if you have shot with other DX lenses before, you should have no problem with getting used to it.
The Nikon 24-120mm f/4 VR lens comes with a relatively compact “HB-53″ bayonet lens hood that is specifically designed for the lens, which is about the same size as the “HB-25″ hood that comes with the Nikon 24-120mm f/3.5-5.6G VR. The lens is shipped with the newly-designed LF-4 rear lens cap, which I personally like better than the old LF-1. For some reason, only the new Nikon 55-300mm and the Nikon 24-120mm are shipped with this cap – Nikon 28-300mm and Nikon 85mm f/1.4G are both shipped with the old LF-1 rear cap. When changing lenses, try to do it with the lens fully zoomed out to 24mm. The rear lens element moves deeply into the lens when extended to 120mm and you could end up with a lot of dust/debris inside the lens if you are shooting in windy and dusty conditions. This is nothing to be scared of – even some of the professional fixed-width zoom lenses such as Nikon 16-35mm do this.
3) Focus acquisition speed and accuracy
Similar to other modern lenses, the autofocus motor of the Nikon 24-120mm f/4G VR is quiet and accurate even under challenging lighting conditions, thanks to the AF-S Silent Wave Motor. Autofocus speed is quick, certainly much quicker than on the 28-300mm lens. If you took 24-70mm, 24-120mm and 28-300mm lenses and tested AF speed on all three at the same time, the 24-70mm would be first (blazing fast), with the 24-120mm second (fast) and the 28-300mm last (slow). If you measure the AF speed and compare against the 24-70mm, the 24-120mm is about 2x slower, while the 28-300mm is about 3x slower than the 24-70mm. Focus tracking works very well, with the lens getting accurate focus almost every time in continuous mode. Unlike the turtle-speed AF on the Nikon 28-300mm, the lens reacquires focus instantly, I would say on par with the new Nikon 85mm f/1.4G. I took many shots of my fast-moving kids with this lens and I had no problems getting accurate focus.
4) Lens sharpness, contrast and color rendition
As I reveal in my sharpness tests in the subsequent pages of this review, the performance of the 24-120mm is outstanding. Center sharpness is top notch, even wide open, while the corners start out a little weaker at f/4.0, but get much sharper by f/5.6 and f/8.0, with the best results between f/8.0 and f/11.0. Unfortunately, there is plenty of vignetting and distortion at all focal lengths, which is a nuisance, but certainly fixable in post-processing. Contrast and colors are superb and the lens does not suffer from any major chromatic aberration issues. You can see many lens sharpness examples in the next page with comparisons against other lenses.
Click here to download the full-size version of the file (7.1 MB).
5) Vibration Reduction – VR II
I am a big fan of Vibration Reduction (VR) lenses – I wish every lens had VR in it, because it is one of the most useful lens features for low-light photography. VR certainly does work very well on zoom lenses and the Nikon 24-120mm f/4G VR comes with the latest version of Vibration Reduction called “VR II”, which is supposed to deliver sharp images up to four stops the shutter speed. What this means, is that you might be able to get sharp images at 1/8th of a second when shooting at 120mm (general rule of thumb is to keep your shutter speed at your focal length and 4 stops from 1/120th is 1/8th) – VR II certainly does work as advertised.
If you have used the Nikon 24-70mm in the past for hand-held, low-light work and try the 24-120mm, you will suddenly realize how useful VR would be on the 24-70mm. When Nikon released the 16-35mm lens (which was the first image-stabilized short-focal zoom lens in the world) so many photographers at first stated that VR for such short focal lengths would be useless. Those who tried out the 16-35mm quickly discovered that VR actually works great even for short focal lenses.
Here is a shot that I captured hand-held at 1/6th of a second zoomed out to 24mm with VR turned on:
Click here to download the full-size version of the file (4.8 MB).
6) Bokeh
When it comes to bokeh, the Nikon 24-120mm yields a somewhat busy bokeh, similar to how other zoom lenses render the background. Obviously, it is not a portrait lens and the lens’ maximum aperture of f/4.0 is very limiting in terms of subject isolation, but overall, the results are very comparable to those of the 28-300mm. Here is a quick comparison with the Nikon 24-70mm shot outdoors in daylight (50mm @ f/4.0 on both):
Looks about the same, doesn’t it? However, when shooting bright light sources in the background, the situation is a little different:
The Nikon 24-120mm here looks busier or “dirtier” than the 24-70mm.
Here is another example with some bokeh:
Click here to download the full-size version of the file (3.2 MB).
7) Vignetting
Another bad similarity to the Nikon 28-300mm is also in heavy vignetting that is visible throughout the zoom range. Here are some vignetting tests shot at 24mm, 35mm, 70mm and 120mm:
Vignetting seems to be worst at 24mm when shot wide open, but as you can see, it is quite evident at all focal lengths. At 35mm, it gets a little better, but the problem returns at longer focal lengths. Another thing you have to be careful with, is using filters when shooting at 24mm, just like on the Nikon 24-70mm. Take a look at what happens when I used a polarizing filter on the 24-120mm:
As you can see, the corners are even darker with a polarizing filter attached, so just be a little careful when shooting at the shortest focal lengths with thick filters attached (using a regular clear filter did not seem to make a difference). Please note that the Nikon 24-70mm also has a similar problem when using thick filters – if you want to shoot at the widest focal length with a polarizing filter, my advice is to use slim versions of polarizing filters. This problem is gone once you zoom in a little. At the 28mm focal length, I could not see much additional vignetting when using a thick filter.
8) Ghosting, Flare and Distortion
Ghosting and flare are controlled very well, thanks to the Nano Crystal Coat. I shot images with the sun in the center and different corners of the frame and could not get any images with nasty flare/ghosting. Take a look at this example with the sun on the right top:
Besides seeing two small ghosts on the top right and bottom left corners of the frame, I do not see anything else. No color changes due to flare either! Obviously, Nano Crystal Coat does not completely eliminate ghosting and flare, so you just have to be careful how you position the sun in your frame. Using filters might also potentially introduce more flare and ghosting.
As you can see form the last image above, barrel distortion is very noticeable at the widest focal lengths. Once you zoom in, like most other lenses, barrel distortion changes over to pincushion. Take a look at the following example at 58mm, where strong pincushion distortion is visible on the top:
These kinds of distortion issues are present across the focal range with the strongest effect at 24mm (barrel) and beyond 35mm+ (pincushion) and weakest at 28mm. Distortion is something that is easy to fix in post-processing. As of Lightroom 3.4 version, the Nikon 24-120mm lens profile is included in Lightroom Lens Correction sub-module, which means that you can quickly fix the above issues with a single click of a button.
9) Chromatic Aberration
Chromatic Aberration (CA) is controlled quite well, with a little bit of purple fringing present in the corners. Here is an extreme example with some purple CA in the corner frame:
Nikon 24-120mm Chromatic Aberration Example
Gladly, chromatic aberration can be quickly fixed in Lightroom or Photoshop.
10) Focus Breathing
This lens does NOT suffer from the focus breathing problem the Nikon 28-300mm has, which means that you get the “true” 120mm focal length on the long end. What this also means, is that if you were to shoot a very close subject with this lens at 120mm and with the 28-300mm at 300mm, you would only get a very marginally enlarged image with the 28-300mm…talking about usefulness of the long focal length of the 28-300mm! Obviously this is not true for subjects shot at infinity, so the comparison depends on how close you get to your subjects.
Click here to download the full-size version of the file (3.3 MB).
Let’s now move on to the good stuff – Sharpness tests. Select the next page below.
About Nasim Mansurov
Спасибо Насим за тест. Надо будет дочке прикупить вместе с Д7000:)
Всегда пожалуйста! D7000 обещают в конце недели прислать, посмотрим :)
Outstanding review ! Well worth the wait.
Thank you Anders!
Very comprehensive and convincing analysis. I second the vote: Well worth the wait.
I also appreciate the comparison to the 70-200, which I have.
My new 24-120 will be on the way today from B&H.
Thanks again. Your reviews are the best on the Internet!
And thanks for putting up with my nagging.
Thank you Peter!
Let me know what you think of the 24-120mm when you receive it :)
I didn’t expect it to be this good!! Thanks Nasim for the great review, I’m ordering mine now.
Hessam, you are most welcome!
Hi Nassim,
Love the site and once again a very thorough review, but I have just a few questions. How would it perform on DX? Would the vignetting and distortion be less noticeable? I would also assume I could use filters with no problems on DX even at 24mm.
I have the 12-24 f4 dx lens and would love to pair it with the 24-120 f4 to keep the weight down to a minimum for landscape photography by carrying just two lenses. That would give me an effective focal range of 18-180mm on dx.
Thanks for all the info,
Steven
Steven, the lens was tested on the Nikon D700 and Nikon D3s bodies, but will certainly work very well on DX. Since only the middle portion of the lens is used, you will get very sharp corners and you should also see much less vignetting. Distortion should be slightly less noticeable too. And yes, you should be able to use thick filters on DX at 24mm without much added vignetting.
12-24mm f/4.0 + 24-120mm f/4.0 sound like a great combo! I love the 12-24mm – it is a great lens too.
Great review, well worth the wait! Now my question for you is: Are YOU planning to replace your 24-70 for this one? because that is my dilemma! I can NOT afford to have them both, is either one or the other, so if you were in my shoes, what would you do? I’ll be looking forward to your response! And thank you so much for the the work, time and effort you put into this reviews!
Hi Maryvel, really like your blog and website – your photos are very impressive.
If you need the additional tele range – then it is great lens, as is VR. I find this lens is great for portraits – although the bokeh is not like the 85mm f1.4 or the 70-200mm, it models faces very pleasing.
Depends on your needs, the 24-70mm is a stellar lens as well.
Thank you pasquier! I am quite pleased with the 24-70mm but I often find myself it would reach a little bit further and that’s what really appeals to me about this new lens but I was afraid it was going to be a bit of disappointment as the new 28-300mm was for me being so soft when wide open as you have seen was also Nassims finding about that lens. So I was REALLY waiting for his review. I think I am quite convinced now, so I am getting one tomorrow and putting my 24-70mm up for sale, since I can NOT afford to have them both, is either one or the other! Hopefully I won’t have to regret my decision later on!
Maryvel, there is only one reason that is holding me back right now – the rugged construction of the 24-70mm. I shoot in extreme weather conditions a lot and I am not sure how long the 24-120mm would survive with my abuse. It is a tough decision to make :)
What is the reason for wanting to replace the 24-70mm, if I may ask?
Thanks for great review. It appears that my fear has been realised. The new 24-105mm exceeds or at least as good as my 24-70mm. You definitely makes me think if I should keep mine or sell it now and get a new 24-120mm. I bought a 16-35mm F4 after reading your review and I have to say new VR often works wonders. I haven’t used 14-24mm F2.8 before but this lens is way better than Sigma 12-24mm and Tamron 17-35mm. A rumor has it that Nikon is bringing out a new replacement lens for 24-70mm F2.8 this year and it will be 24-105mm F2.8 VR. I have no doubt that it will be another SUPER lens. Now the question is: which one will hold the value better until then, a 24-70mm or a 24-105mm? I would appreciate your thought.
The “rumoured” Nikon 24-105 f2.8mm VR is sheer “speculation”.
There is no substance to this rumour, other than what some person envisages Nikon could produce in future……
Duncan, the Nikon 24-70mm is still a great lens! I have taken it everywhere with me – from humid coasts and sandy dunes to extremely hot and cold temperatures and it has never failed me once. More focal range, VR and less weight obviously sound very intriguing, but I don’t think I’m ready to fully part with my 24-70mm yet. I will probably buy this lens as a backup and will see how it survives in my bag.
Hi Nasim,
great review – very impressed – you’ve made a lot of effort and added excellent detail – thanks.
I’m very impressed with this lens – haven’t had any time to do any major testing – but I like what I see so far.
Best, P:)
Did you get one Pasquier? I’m holding on to my 24-70 and saving up for a 70-200 to go with it. If I didn’t already have the 24-70 I’d jump on this in a heartbeat! VR would have saved my bacon quite a few times.
Hi Aaron, year I got one last month – but has been o busy or the weather too gross to really try it out.
I have a few pics and an initial impression on my blog.
I kept drooling about the 24-70mm, but my past experience was that I really use longer focal lengths more… so I’m glad that I held out.
Aaron, I would save up for the 70-200mm instead of worrying about replacing the 24-70mm :)
I agree with that assessment. The new 70-200mm VRII is a STUNNING lens – period.
Yup, that’s what I was thinking! Maybe add a TC-20E III for a poor man’s 140-400mm f/5.6. :-)
If you can find the TC-20E III…!
Mine has been order for quite a while.
All is all, the new 70-200 is an incredible lens, and one of my favourites.
The aAFS is stunningly fast – and it works very well with the TC1.7 – I’ll post some pics on my blog.
PS Nasim, I hope you don’t mind us misusing your blog as a “chat-board”.
Thank you Pasquier! Would love to hear more from you about this lens to see if your findings are on par with mine.
Hi Nasim
I finally had a chance to test this lens over the past WE – we had glorious weather.
I’m very impressed with this lens – and have posted a brief summary on my blog:
http://pasquierphoto.blogspot.com/2010/11/nikkor-24-120mm-f40-afs-vr-colour.html
The colour, saturation and contrast is really impressive. It really makes my older generation of Nikkor lenses look “stale”.
Best, P:)
Another great review Nasim! Thank you very much!
I hope Nikon will make more f4 lenses (70-200 f4 VRII) he he!
Thank you Michael, I too hope that Nikon releases more f/4 lenses! We have already received two this year and hopefully Nikon will release the 70-200mm f/4 next year.
Thanks and more thanks Nasim, for another authoritative review. This one was reaaallly interesting, as I’m in the market right for a pro Nikon midrange zoom.
You are most welcome Terje, glad you found the review helpful.
Great review Nasim (as usual!). I was pleasantly surprised to see how well it held up against the 24-70mm in sharpness when wide open. I haven’t used this lens myself yet, but it appears that Nikon did a superb job designing it for it’s intended market. It’s always good for the consumer to have choices!
P.S. I forgot to mention, I LOVE your bird shot on the first page!
Thank you Aaron! Yes, I was surprised about the sharpness myself – ran the tests three times just in case and the lens performed well in all three tests.
Yes, more choices are great, especially for those on lower budget…
well establish review of the lens..as i owned 24-70 before now going for this great lens..now every single day i hv free peace of mind without to think to bring many lens as for Walkround lens..as this lens serve me better…
Thank you for your feedback Zul!
Thank you for your down to earth review. Covers all the points that interest me in a lens I’m considering.
Thanks Nasim,
Always appreciate the insights and information. I will definitely be purchasing this lens asap.
Steven
Oddly, I have seen this lens slagged off in some reviews (including a 2/10). There is an interesting post on this lens at http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1030&thread=36870316 where the poster complains about it. He has kindly posted some original JPEGS which once shown some sharpening in LR or PS look very detailed indeed, though there’s quite a bit of CA going on. His pics and your review have sold me this lens and I shall acquire one without delay!
Hi again Nasim,
I’m sure you rmemebr that I followed your review of the 28-300 with great interest. Based on your 24-120 review I’m picking one up to-morrow replacing my 16-85 and 70-300. I now have the 28-300 as a great carry around lens and an f/4 combination of 12-24, 24-120, and 70-200+tc1.4. i’ve been hoping to move this way for some time and was just awaiting a convincing report that the 24-120 would out perform the 28-300 (a lens of which I am more than well pleased!). Thanks for that missing piece of information Nasim!
Nasim,
Great review of the 24-120 f/4 VR AFS Lens, best I have read anywhere on the internet.
One of my faviorite articles you wrote is “What are the best Nikon lenses for wedding photography?” So where would you list the 24-120 f/4 VR AFS Lens on your favorite Nikon Lenses for Wedding Photography? Behind the primes and f/2.8 lenses or inbetween because of its versitility and VR?
Cheers, Bill Creech
I’d be very interested to hear its suitability for weddings, and I suspect it’s just the job. Using primes as I do on the D700 is a real pain.
Based on Nasim’s review, I bought the lens.
I just got the lens from B&H and tested it today.
Conclusion: Nasim’s report is accurate. I’m glad I bought it.
Very interesting to read. I bought the lens and was very impressed as well but I feel confirmed by this test.
One thing: nobody talks about this lens for DX. All the good things but no problem with vignetting and less distortion.
I think this lens combined with a ultrawide lens like the 12-24mm is a “dreamteam”. My 17-55mm lens is used mostly in the two ends, missing often more tele and missing more wide.
No I have an extremely great range splitted in only two lenses and exactly the most used range in “normal” photography in a very light package. I can recommend to every DX shooter!
Thank You for this in-depth review af this new optical instrument.
I have used my sample during the past four weeks, and I am more than satisfied not to say excited !
Having used various samples af its predecessors this is groundbreaking jump-up in performance in every aspect.
On my D3 I can now cover 12-600 mm vith 4 items in my bag.
Sigma 12-24, Nikkor 24-120, Sigma 120-300, 2xconverter.
Despite having some more specialized and excotic lenses to sweeten my photograpic life, my new Nikkor 24-120 F4 has become my favorite tool.
It recently occurred to me, how does the 24-120 f4 compare with the Nikon 70-300, which I find fine when used within its limitations. If it is as good as or better than this, it will suit me fine.
Anyone done a comparison?
Hi Per,
having just traded in my 70-300 against a 24-120 I cannot make the actual comparison any more …. but I feel that in the overlapping range they are not too disimilar – although you get an extra stop with the 24-120. I always felt that my 70-300 was more like a 70-200 which woked at 300 at a push – it was not pin sharp above 250.
It has been a tough call for me to make this change and Nasim’s review finally convinced me (as you may have followed above). The reason for trading the 70-300 also has a lot to do with my new 28-300 which, on my copy, is the equal of my old 70-300 in IQ, although (as Nasim has pointed out) not the equal in AF performance. But I have always had to carry two lenses when using the 70-300 (I also carried a 16-85 also px’ed for the 24-120!). now I can cover the whole range (for me – I don’t shoot much wide angle) with just one lens. And if I need the AF performance I can now carry my 24-120 and 70-200
with TC1.4 which gives me fast coverage and the best AF performance for my money over the same range!
Incidentally, I use a D300s in case this affects your decision. Good luck with your choice and I sympathise with your dilema!
Sorry I should have said Stefan, not Per!!
I compared the 24-120 at 24mm & f/4 with (1) the Nikon 17-35 at 24mm & f/2.8 and (2) the Nikon 20mm prime & f/2.8. I judged the lenses using the vertical edge of a partially opened door on the right side of the photos.
The photos were take at 10 feet using a Nikon D700.
The least distortion (door edge curve) was from the 17-35 lens. It was a no-brainer. The lens costs $1760 at B&H, however.
Although a much tougher choice, I would give second place to the 20mm prime lens ($565) with the 24-120 just very very very slightly behind it.
Overall, I was very pleased with how well the 24-120 did against the tough competition. I later fixed the distortion in Photoshop in a few seconds .
Lastly and obviously, I get great range in the 24-120 that I don’t get with the other 2 lenses. All are keepers.
Hi Nasim, Great review, Im glad I found it via the thread on the DPR forum. I was an early adopter of the new 24-120 as mine arrived at the end of September, and I love it! I bought it for DX use on the D300, and the 36-180 range works really well for me as a single lens travel solution. Having used the lens for six weeks or so, I agree with virtually everything you report.
As as former 24-70 user (it was simply too heavy for my hobbyist use) I was waiting for the 24-120 as a replacement in terms of similar (but not quite the same quality) IQ, at a lower weight and with a bigger range, and I’ve not been disappointed. It has now accompanied me across Europe, and the results are great!
Thank you for taking the time to pull these reviews together, I guess they take a lot of time and trouble so your endeavours are highly appreciated! I shall enjoy looking at your site in the future.
Hi Nasim,
Following your review I went ahead and purchased a 24-120 and I am very well pleased with it. It performs exactly as you have predicted. There is one observation, though, in which I differ. I have compared the magnification between my 105f/2.8, 28-300 and 24-120 on a subject at around 6 feet distance. I found the following focal lengths required for a consistent sized image:
105 = 105 (suprise suprise!)
28-300 = 115
24-120 = 120
And just in case it was the 105 (Unlikely!) I had yesterday compared my 70-200 VR1 with a similar conclusion (hence this retest against the 105 prime lens). So it appears as if the ‘focus breathing’ tendency is common to both 28-300 and 24-120 . . . or am I misunderstanding the comparison?
You will also be pleased to hear that the 24-120 at 105 mm is almost as sharp as the 105 lens ( a known sharp one) and colour rendition appears identical; both were set at f/4. The 28-300 is not quite as sharp and needs f/8 to keep up . . .when it gets a bit dark!
Keep up the good work please Nasim . . . I think your site is gaining a good reputation with the ‘thinking’ photographic community for your fair and objective reporting.!
Well thanks a lot. :-) I am planning on moving to FX soon and was going to buy the 16-35mm f/4 and just use my 50mm f/1.4 in between 35 and 80mm (as I have the lovely 85 f/1.4 and also the 80-200mm f/2.8), but now after your raving review of the new 24-120, I find myself in a bit of a quandry (I cannot afford the move to FX and TWO new lenses!). Thanks for the thorough review!
Had the same problem, so I sold off lots of lenses and used the money to buy new stuff.
I sold all 3 DX lenses, bought the Nikon 18-200 V.2 which remains on my D300 as the only DX lens I own.
I sold my 35, 50, and 85 full-frame lenses used on my D700. Used the money toward the new 24-120.
Just wanted to thank you very much for this very fine review of this lens. I know this is very time consuming for you. Looks like it’s a keeper. All the best with your work!
Byron, thank you for your feedback! Yes, reviews do take a lot of time, which is why I have a hard time keeping up with posting more stuff on the blog :)
Many thanks for your review, I’m sure i’ll go for this when funds allow. Having upgraded from a D70 to a D700 i’ve enjoyed digital photography like I didn’t think was possible. All my lenses were full frame Nikons having previously had a F70. My collection now has 18-35mmF3,5-4,5, 85mm F18, 50mm F1.8, 180mmF2,8, 300mm F4 +1.4 TC ( thanks to your review) and my oldest lens a very compact and high quality 28-70mm F3.5-4.5, I’ve never had any issues with sharpness or distortion with this lens only its rather limited range. The 24-120mmF4 appears to be good replacement as a walk about lens. I’m not put off lugging equipment around but there are plenty of times when there’s no time to change lens to capture the shot. Thanks for the great review
Adrian, you are most welcome, I’m glad you find my reviews helpful.
Have a wonderful week.
Hi Nasim,
I stumbled upon your blog and I’m glad there is actually someone out there that can review lenses and not sound like a clown the way Ken Rockwell does. I used to take his advice on lenses only to find out through my own experiences that he doesn’t know what he is talking about. Also, I was never impressed with his images. Glad I found your blog!
Fred
Fred, thank you for your feedback, I truly appreciate it.
I’ve finally decided to purchase this lens after reading a lot of good feedbacks, including your thorough review. I tried it a couple of days ago to see how it fares in landscape (although I intend to use this as a walk-about lens) photography.
I noticed that when I use the P-series Cokin adaptor to fit in ND grad, there is a dark shadows at both left and right side of the frame @24mm. They disappeared at 28mm and above. The lens produce more decent images compared to my existing 18-200mm but I suppose I’d have to purchase a wider adaptor.
Floyd, I’m glad you like the lens. As I have pointed out in my review, you have to be extra careful when using filters, since it does vignette quite a bit, even with a circular polarizer. If you use ND filters, simply holding the filter in front of the lens will do the trick and it won’t vignette…
I enjoyed reading all the extensive reviews on this site.
Based on the information you have here with all your testing/reviews, which of the two lenses—AF-S 24-120 f4 VR and AF-S 24-70 f2—would you buy? Why?
Thanks.
What other lenses do you have? What camera(s) do you have? What kind of photography do you do?
What’s your budget?
Allan, for day to day/general photography, I would get the 24-120mm, because it offers a great range to work with. For mission-critical work or shooting in challenging conditions with extreme weather, I would get the 24-70mm instead.
Nasim thank you for the great review of this lens and the 28-300.
I am looking at buying a travel lens for my D700 (I currently use a Nikon 50 1.4, 70-300 VR and 24-70).
I notice optically you are a supporter of the 24-120 compared to the 28-300, however if you had to pick one to take on a trip, which would it be based on your own experience? 24 is wide enough for me, and I think 120 is as long as I need, but the long end of the 28-300 is enticing!
Thanks!
Kevin, I would pick the 24-120mm over 28-300mm any time! It is sharper, more accurate and has better colors than the 28-300mm.
And don’t worry about the long end – that’s what your 70-300mm is for! :)
Thanks for your reply Nasim. I ended up getting the 24-120! I plan to take only the 24-120 and my 50 1.4 with my D700 on my next trip. I will leave the 70-300 VR at home and see how I go. Hopefully I don’t end up regretting it (ie not bringing the 70-300)!!
Hi Nasim
I ended up getting the 24-120 f/4 VR, and paired with my 70-300 the two made a great travel combo. Thanks for the advice!
My only question is if you can recommend any specific slim profile polarising filters? When shooting with my existing normal polarising filters, I also experienced heavy vignetting at 24mm. Any suggestions on specific models?
Many thanks!
Thanks for your comprehensive review of the new 24-120 F4 lens. I have the 24-70 F2.8 G which is a beautiful lens (sharpness/AF speed) but at times is a little “short” in reach. I also have the older F3.5/5.6 24-120 which I basically stopped using (despite the extra tele) because it was too soft for critical work. I’m glad the new faster upgrade of this lens is much improved in terms of sharpness, and will probably get one to use as an “all purpose/street” lens to replace the old one. Thanks again for your thorough review.
James, I agree with the 24-120mm f/3.5-5.6 being too soft for critical work – I tried two versions of that lens and both were soft at large apertures. I’m sure you will like the new 24-120mm much better than the old one!
Dear Nasim
Firstly , I take your website to be the Bible of Nikon. Thabks for being the Messiah to us novices.
I just bought the D700 and now been looking for a Wide to Tele Lens for the same. I was using NIKON FM3a Film Camera with 24-85 f2.8 – f4 Nikkor Lens.
Should now change to Nikkor 24-120 f 3.5 – f5.6. The 24-120mm f4 constant aperture is quite out of m y league.
Would you recomend Nikkor 24-120 f 3.5 – f5.6 ( It has ED glass and VR too )
Await your reply … oh our Guide.
Nimesh
Hi Nasim,
and anyone who wants to offer an opinion
Always seem to end up on your site when searching for things, so thought this was the best place to ask a question! Really admire your images too, you capture emotion brilliantly.
I’ll keep it brief…currently shoot weddings and portraits with d300 and 17-55 – am purchasing a d3s and will need one lens to stay on the camera: either 24-70 or 24-120. Question is, at the business end, with low light in churches, up at 1600iso and engagement shoots where i want to bokeh the background, will the latter really step up? I love the idea of extra length, but worry it is too much of a compromise in the end.
Thank you for your feedback Marcus! When it comes to low-light photography the 24-70mm is sharp at f/2.8 in the center, so it is certainly usable in low-light situations. For business work, I would certainly get the 24-70mm over the 24-120mm for two reasons: a) construction/sealing (I bump my lenses all the time and people have spilled their drinks on it too) and b) better bokeh for tight shots, as you can see from the review.
Not that the 24-120mm is not great for weddings – I really enjoyed it while shooting a wedding. If you occasionally take weddings and portraits, then the 24-120mm is certainly a great value. But if photography is your bread and butter, then go with the 24-70mm.
I used the 24-120 for a portrait shoot of nieces, nephews, and pets. I tested indoor lighting arrangement along with 105mm and 70-200mm and decided on the new 24-12o . Am I glad I did. Great flexibilty of range, very sharp pics at f/8, no distortion, shooting at ISO 200 and 400.. I am beginning to wonder if i should keep my 105 and 70-200 after this experience. I was using a D700.
Marcus: This is a perfect wedding lens.
Hi Peter, thanks for that, not bothered about the distortion…the wonders of LR3! I did read quite a bit about that elsewhere though.
It’s mainly how it performs wide open at f4, and whether the d3s is good enough to give me fast focussing in a dark church, when paired with it, or whether the 2.8 24/70 is in a another league or not when getting ‘the shot.’
Marcus, see my response above.
By the way, if you want to get a D3s with the 24-70mm or 24-120mm, now is the good time to buy them. Nikon is giving away $300-400 on each lens you buy. Here is more info on the rebates.
Another camera you might want to take a look at is the Nikon D700 for low-light work or perhaps a used Nikon D3.
Peter, you mentioned sharp at f/8 – how about wide open performance? My sample tested to be sharp at f/4…
I would not sell the 70-200mm if I were you. Love that glass! :)
I decided to keep the 105 and the 70-200. Checking internet info on both lenses they have very little distortion. The 105 supposidly has zero distortion. I think I’m set for a while.
Peter, good decision there, I fully support it :)
What an excellent review! Extremely detailed with some lovely pictorial examples. You have convinced me to part exchange my Nikon 24-85mm f3.5-4.5 for this new lens. It will be nice to have a zoom where the front section doesn’t wobble! The VR is a tremendous plus and the new 24-120 will be great on my D700, especially for weddings.
Thanks,
Brian
Thank you Brian! Let me know how you like the 24-120mm!
Большое спасибо за тест! Несколько дней назад я продал свой 24-70/2,8 в пользу этого объектива. Всё это время меня не покидали сомнения в правильности принятого решения. Теперь немного успокоился. Нашёл много интересного на Вашем сайте. Спасибо, удачи!
Василий, рад что Вам понравился мой обзор – 24-120 очень хороший объектив! Конечно же не без проблем, но если бы не было этих проблем, он бы и стоил Бог его знает сколько :)
Thank you for a very thorough review. I just bought this lens but have yet to play around with it. At one point in your review you say “this is not a portrait lens”. Why do you say that. Certainly the focal length range is perfect for that. Is it because it’s an f4 lens vs a f2.8? If I take a head shot at f5.6 is it any different if the lens maximum aperature is f2.8 or f4? Thanks again for making me feel good about my purchase!
John,
Portrait lenses create beautiful bokeh and are normally very fast lenses with apertures larger than f/4.0. You can certainly take portraits with the 24-120mm, but don’t expect the bokeh to be as creamy as the one on Nikon 50mm f/1.4G or Nikon 85mm f/1.4G…
Hello mr.
For portraits I usually use an aperture of 5.6. Using 1.4 or 2.8 gives a too shallow depht of field wich means only the eyes are sharp and it is difficult to focus. If you are working on 5.6 or even 8 is there still a big difference? I found the bokeh of this lens not bad at all! Does working on 120mm in stead of 85mm improve the bokeh?
Greetings Flax.
Flax, depth of field changes as you change the distance between yourself and your subject. When shooting at large apertures, move away from your subject a little and you will get a larger depth of field. And in terms of f/5.6 vs f/8.0, yes, there is a difference between the two apertures. I would not shoot portraits at f/8.0…
Just read a report about the 24-120 in the latest Nikonian on-line magazine. While it was as extensive as the one by Nasim, it reached the same conclusions.
Thank you Nasim,
due to your sensitive positive report i got now a Nikon D700 with that lens; Just set AF-Fine Tuning to -10 with my lens and now I get amazing results – a really good FX starting pair.
/Karl
Glad you like that lens Karl and congratulations with the purchase :)
Yes Nasim I like my D700!! – it’ s a solid reliable working tool;
/Karl
Thank you for letting us know Peter, appreciate it!
Thanks for this thorough and well supported review! Having read Ken Rockwell’s comments on both the 28-300 and 24-120, I was lead to believe these were actually 100% exchangeable between one another and perform the same, whereas it is now clear to me, based on your specific test results and comments, that they are, in fact quite different and perform very differently too!
I might have been inclined to go with the 28-300 as an all-purpose single lens or travel lens, but you have convinced me to go wtih the 24-120 instead, since I do care about the quality of the pictures I get.
Thanks again and best regards,
CEB
Claude, you are most welcome! Yes, the 28-300mm and 24-120mm are not the same lenses when it comes to performance :)
Dear Nasim
Thank you and this is another great review (the last time i got the 16-35mm and have never looked back).
I would be keen to hear your thoughts on how it compares with the 28-200mm ED which is dinky but sharp as well (no VR of course)
Also how does it compare with the 16-35mm in the 24-35mm range ? (of course that range is the sweet spot for 16-35mm but short end for this lens).
I also hear you saying that ‘for day to day/general photography, I would get the 24-120mm, because it offers a great range to work with. For mission-critical work or shooting in challenging conditions with extreme weather, I would get the 24-70mm instead.’
Kindest regards
nadeem
Nadeem, if you like the 16-35mm, then you will definitely like the 24-120mm, since both lenses perform very similarly!
great review . have got my new D 700 . was confused about getting a good travel lens . Now after reading this review convinced abt buying this lens .
This Lens is really in short supply even in Hong Kong as I have been waiting for three weeks. The salesman replied that he did not know the shipment date.
However， the 24-70 2.8 lenses are available and the salesman asked me if I wanted to swithch to this. I think this 24-120 is really good for all purposes no matter indoor or outdoor and bright or dark environment.
I hope I will get it soon.
Lawrence, if you need the extra range, then I would recommend to wait until the 24-120mm is available.
Thank you for this review. I had purchased this lens based on your recommendations and went out to shoot on Christmas eve. It is fantastic indeed.
Thanks so much.
Wow, Alex, you have some amazing images on your NYC site!
I’ve used it for 2 months now and am very happy – look forward to seeing some of your results with it!
Thanks! :)
This is the first posted image, with some more holiday NYC images to come: http://www.flickr.com/photos/nyc_blues/5296505983/
Alex, I’m glad you like the lens, congratulations with your purchase :) I really like your photographs, keep it up!
Fantastic, in-depth review of this lens. Your site is rapidly becoming one of my favorites to stop in when I am considering a purchase. Thank you for taking the time to do and post this extensive review !
Hello Nasim and forum,
I’m trying to decide between the 24-70/2.8 and the 24-120/f4. The one thing I’d like to know is if the
24-70/2.8 has a certain “something” that doesn’t show up on test charts, etc. For instance, in actual prints from a high-end ink-jet printer, can one see better color translation, clarity, etc in the 24-70 vs the 24-120, or is there any other “quality” in visual terms (ie, non-verbal, non-measurable) that the 24-70 has over the 24-120? I realize this is a purely subjective question; still, I’d like to hear what 24-70 owners have to say on this if they’ve had the opportunity to compare both lenses as Nasim has. Thanks!
Bob, in terms of color and contrast, I personally feel that both the 24-70mm and 24-120mm are about the same, maybe with a very slight edge by the 24-70mm. The 24-70mm obviously has a better/more solid build and will survive tough weather. If you don’t shoot in very challenging conditions, I would just go with the 24-120mm.
Hi Nasim, great site. Please let me know if the Nikon 24-120mm f/4 will be best suited for D90. Thanks a lot.
Yes, 24-120mm will work on D90.
Hi Nasim,
I just saw another review in youtube that score this lens very low like photozone did, I’m really confused why the reviews its so different?
http://www.photozone.de/nikon_ff/574-nikkorafs24120f4vrff
http://dxomark.com/index.php/en/Lens-with-Camera/All-tested-lenses/Nikon/AF-S-NIKKOR-24-120mm-f-4G-ED-VR/%28camera%29/628/%28cameraname%29/Nikon-D3s
Thanks a lot!
Take the plunge and get this lens. It is pin-sharp and walks all over my 24 f.28D, my 35 f2D and my 70-300mm VR. It is also not far off the quality of the 105mm VR. I did try the 28-300 VR and the quality is nowhere near. Yes, it has some bad reviews but I don’t know why. Contrast and colour are also spot-on. It has some distortion though mine does not have a CA problem. It is sharp, sharp, sharp.
Hi Richard,
maybe the resolution test against a D3(s) would look different, I am not sure what the max resolution for this sensor is but testing against the Nikon D3x is challenging;
On my D700 the lens make a good job
/Karl
Richard, seems like similar to the 28-300mm, there are some bad samples out there. Mine was very sharp as you can see from the provided 100% crops and it performed well against the Nikon 24-70mm and 70-200mm lenses (which I often use as “benchmark” lenses to test against). Looks like Nikon is not doing so well with their QA process in Chinese factories, which is very unfortunate…
Oh and one more thing Richard, while I very much respect photozone.de, their lens ratings have gotten much stricter lately. Take a look at their Nikon 24-120mm f/3.5-5.6 VR review, which they gave 3/3/4 score on DX sensor and gave a much worse 2.5/4.5/2.5 score for the new Nikon 24-120mm f/4.0 VR. As you can see from my comparison shots, the older Nikon 24-120mm is really crappy compared to the new one. I’m sure their score for the 24-120mm is going to be a little better on a DX sensor, but I rank the new 24-120mm much higher than the older 24-120mm f/3.5-5.6.
At the same time, their tests are based on a much more demanding Nikon D3x sensor, which does require lenses to provide a lot of resolution. My tests are based on 12mp D700/D3s sensors.
Now if you look at the DxOMark test results, they are showing better results on D3x rather than on D3s, which is even more confusing :)
At the end of the day, it is whatever works out for you. Give this lens a try and see how you like it. If you get a good sample like many of us, I’m sure you will absolutely love this lens.
I find these comments rather interesting. IMHO, Nasim has written one of the most objective appraisals of this lens. I’ve used it under a variety of conditions and am very pleased with it. My suggestion, take want you read on the internet with a grain of salt!
Thank you very much guys!
@Lord Beau, I had 28-300 for 1 week and send back… the quality of this lens for me not acceptable for me that use primes lenses most of time.
@Nasim Mansurov, I will order mine 24-120 and post some pictures here when I received, this lens will be my first zoom, I use most of time AFS 24mm f1.4G and 85mm f1.4G but I need something for travel/family/events.
Thanks you guys and Nasim this review.
Richard, you might get slightly disappointed by your first zoom lens after using the 24mm f/1.4G and 85mm f/1.4G :)
Agreed. I hope it was clear that I meant the 28-300 was nowhere near as good as the new 24-120 which has a very crisp and clean look.
I am in the process of buying a D300s and was wondering what your opinion of the 16-85 was compared to the 24-120. I was thinking of getting the 16-85 and then a 70-200(or 300). Or do I go with 12-24 and 24-120? any thoughts?
Rick, the 16-85mm is a DX lens, while the 24-120mm is an FX/DX lens – that’s the biggest difference. If you use a DX camera, you might be better off with the 16-85mm if you work with wide angles, since 24mm on DX is more like 35mm.
If you can afford the 12-24mm and the 24-120mm, then that would be a superb combo that gives you great quality and range.
I used to have the D300 with 16-85mm and now have the the D700 with teh 24-120mm, The 16-85mm performed very well and also the 24-120 does this on FX;
The 24-120 for DX brings three disadvantages to it:
a) more expensive
b) very heavy and bulky compared to the 16-85mm
c) the range of the 16-85mm is better balanced – more wide angle
And I wold go for the 70-200 2.8!
so I would prefer your first combination.
/Karl
/Karl
Thanks for the advice Karl. You think that the 16-85 on D300s = 24-120 on D700 for sharpness and overall image quality? If that’s the case then my only concern is that I plan to upgrade to full frame sometime in the future so if I had the 24-120, I would already have a great lens to start.
Rick, if you are planning to upgrade to FX, skip the 12-24mm and 16-85 – go with the 24-120mm.
If you plan to migrate to FX and would not waste money
the 24mm-120mm should be fine but you start on DX with 37mm
so you would have to need to change the lens very often dependent
on situation;
/Karl
I agree with Karl here.
Great review! I am planning to get a d7000 and upgraded glass (as I’ve heard its more demanding on the optics). I was torn between the 24-70 and 70-200, but it sounds like this lense may be the happy medium (since I’m not doing a lot of travel yet). Thanks!
Thank you Joe! Obviously, the 24-120mm is not going to give you the same quality as 24-70mm + 70-200mm, but it is a nice compromise :)
Dear Nasim, I’ve waited for a lens like this for long for my D300. While 24-70 f/2.8 is the obvious star, Its end at 70mm coupled with the lack of VR always stopped me short in the tracks from acquiring one, not to mention the fact that it would be a serious investment for a tramp like me. Sadly though, 24-120 f/4 has been at the receiving ends since it saw the light of day. In this light, I am grateful to your review as it has put quite a few issues in perspective. The extensive tests and the gorgeous shots of your review have inspired me enough to choose it as a mate for my D300.
Umashankar, you are most welcome! Glad you found the review to be useful, the 24-120mm is a great lens!
I’m glad I read your post. Due to this, I bought this lens and I have been really enjoying it from Christmas. Thanks a lot.
B’Rob, glad you like it! :)
Nasim,
Hi. First I would like to thank you for the very helpful reviews on your site. I’m a new Nikon user (I recently migrated from Canon) and your reviews have helped me “find my way” around the Nikon offerings.
I got the 24-120 f4 VR for my new D700 as a general walk-around lens and I’ve been very happy with it so far. It has a very useful focal length and the VR on it works great (I got some very nice pictures of the inside of a very dark church the other day).
The only aspect of it I’ve been slightly disturbed with is the bad vignetting when I put a “standard” (read: non-slim) filter on it, like the B+W MRC UV/CPL (but you did warn us about that in your review!). It’s OK at around f8 but wide open is very distracting. I like having a protecting filter on my lenses. Do you know of any filters that would not vignette on it at f4 (or at least: not this badly)? Are the Nikon NCs better in that respect?
Thanks again and happy shooting!
Tony
Tony, thank you for your feedback! I agree about the use of a CPL filter – I encountered the same problem at 24mm. At longer focal lengths, this is not a problem, but at 24mm it certainly is. If you use a non-CPL UV filter, the effect is not as bad (since CPL is thicker), but it is still visible. As for other filters, I really like B+W and would refuse to use anything else :) I don’t think you will find other filters to be that much slimmer. I don’t like the slim versions of B+W filters either, because you can’t put a lens cap on those…
My advice – if you really need to shoot at 24mm, simply take off the filter, take a picture, then put it back on :) That’s what I did a couple of times in the field.
Hope this helps, have a good weekend!
Nasim,
Hi. Thanks for the reply. Yes, I’ve been using B+Ws almost exclusively too! I know that their slim CPLs do not have front threads (even though apparently they will be fixing this soon). Out of curiosity: have you tried XS Pro line of protectors that does have front threads?
Tony
Tony, sorry for a late response. No, I have not tried the XS Pro line yet…sorry! :)
Masim,
Thanks for the review… Should I be concerned with the plastic tube?
“When you zoom in, the first extension tube by the zoom ring is metal, while the second one that connects the front of the lens is plastic.”
I mean even my 16-85 DX has both tubes made from metal. What’s up with this plastic thing?
Thanks,
AC
Alessio, I would not worry about it, unless you work in tough environments where you can occasionally bump the lens on a hard surface. Most of the new Nikkor lenses have plastic exteriors now and I have not seen any cases where the plastic exterior presents any problems.
Thanks Nasim. You say most of them, I assume the 24-70 has no plastic tubes/parts…Really want to get these lens as later I might transition to full frame. I now have a d7k and I’m very happy with it. I wish for this performance they made them a bit wider say 20…I saw the maximum angle of view is 61 or something…
What are your thoughts on that?
Also on D7k i should get superb performance since I basically use only the center of the lens.
Really trying to decide between 24-70 and this. 24-70 is way heavy long and no VR. Tempted to pick the 24-120, better gaining 4 stops SS then 1 stop AA. What do you think? What lens/cameras you own, curious?
Thanks a bunch!
AC
PS: Sorry for misspelling your name.
Alessio, no worries. I personally own and use the 24-70mm, but I bought it when it was announced and have been using it for several years now. I shoot a lot in bad weather and the construction/build is kind of important for me, which is why I kept the 24-70mm. I shoot with Nikon D700/D3s and have some different Nikkor lenses, including the big telephoto ones.
Bonjour Nassim,
Mon mari vient de recevoir un D3100 (il avait auparavant un D70 avec un 24-120 ancienne génération) pour son anniversaire. J’aimerais lui acheter un objectif polyvalent (pouvant allier un grand angle et un zoom de qualité), j’ai longuement visité et lu le net à ce sujet et j’hésite entre le NIKKOR AF-SDX 18-200 G EDVR II (bien que l’ancienne version IF-ED me semble tout aussi bonne à en croire les commentaires et tests) ou le NIKKOR 24-120 nouvelle version.
Vos commentaires seraient très appréciables et appréciés.
En vous remerciant,
Laurence
Laurence, I apologize if I responded too late. If I were you, I would get the 24-120mm instead of the 18-200mm lens.
Hi Nassim,
I am a DX camera user. Hopefully you can test this new Nikkor lens using a DX camera. Like Laurence Backbo, I am also trying to decide which lens to buy – whether the heavy 24-70 f2.8 or this 24-120 f4 VR.
Will appreciate your feedback.
Thanks.
Ian
Ian, if you shoot DX, I would go with the 24-120mm instead of the 24-70mm, unless you shoot in tough weather.
Hello Nasim,
After all i dont regret that i got the 24-120 f4.
On d7k stays perfect.
There is one thing. Seems like the lens VR is little bit noisy compared to other lenses. Especially when i put it on the D40.
Stoyan, thank you for your feedback. I did not notice much difference on VR noise between the sample I tested and my other lenses…
Hi Nassim,
Thanks so much for a detailed review. I am about to buy a D700 and have been searching for the first lens. Based on your review, I have decided to buy the 24-120. Can’t wait to get try it out.
Best,
Rod
Rod, glad my review helped you in your purchasing decision! Good luck!
Great review, the best on the web.
I got this lens and love it, sold my 24-70, glad I didn’t get the 28-300.
Thanks!
Chuck, you are most welcome and congratulations with your purchase.
I have now used the 24-120 for about 2 months under a wide variety of situations. It is a terrific lens.
I now use it as my main lens on the D700.
Same experience – like that lens on my D700
/Karl
Your lens (and other) reviews are the best I’ve seen online. By far. I’ve been internally debating the purchase of this 24-120 iteration for some time now and have been enjoying the luxury of not being able to afford it…until now. I’ve read many positive reviews of this lens but, reading your review last, convinced me this would be a very useful tool for me. The layout of your tests “as a photographer would prefer to know most” in a simple, informative and illustrative style with the best sample photos I’ve seen from any review site, has convinced me to make the purchase (today) and to put you on my short-list of very informative and useful websites.
Thank you.
Michael, thank you for your feedback, I truly appreciate it. Glad you found the review useful and congratulations on your purchase! I am sure the 24-120mm will not disappoint you.
anybody compared the 24-120 to a GOOD copy of Tamron 28-75? from f4 down the tammy is quite good… I have read that it is really a minolta design, like the t. 17-35. I have one, and it is VERY good. the only problem is, sometime, compatibility with nikon exposure system (especially with internal flash).
I love this lens so much that I worked with the software designer who sells PTLens (an automatic distortion-correction program) by providing test shots for him to update, calibrate, and insert correction data in his program. Now, I can automatically correct all distortions at any focal length with my lens.
Nasim’s report was what I needed to decide to buy this lens. Since then, I have rarely removed the lens from my D700.
Hi Nasim,
Thanks for the very helpful reviews and tips !
I own a Nikon D300s body and consider upgraging my lenses.
I read your excellent reviews on the following:
24-120 f/4g VR-II
70-200 f/2.8g VR-II
My question is whether there is any issue with these (FX) lenses on my (DX) D300s body that I need to care about.
looking forward to your reply and thanks in advance,
Men
Hi Nasim,
Thanks for your reviews on 24-120 and 28-300 lenses. I am mainly a landscape photographer who owns a 24-70 f/2.8 lens and felt that it is too short at times and heavy for backpacking trips in the Canadian Rockies where every gram matters. I bought a 24-120 /f4 last week and in the process of testing it for my purposes.
Your reviews have helped a lot and also I very much enjoyed your photographs as well. It is safer to trust a lens review by a person who can take photos (other than brick walls) and also display them.
Many Thanks!
I, also, am mainly a landscape photographer and have used this lens for about a month.
You will encounter distortion, as I have, but it can be fixed in Photoshop if you don’t use PTLens.
Distortion correction values for both FX and DX cameras can be found on http://www.kenrockwell.com if you search for his f/4 24-120 evaluation. The values are near the end of the article. They work – I’ve tested them myself with photos of office building facades and at all focal lengths.
PS: I’m glad I did not listen to Rockwell but followed Nasim’s advice. You will love this lens. Test it against your 24-70…you may leave that lens at home on your next trip!
Thanks for a very thorough review – it has helped me making up my mind and I’m will be going for the 24-120F4 rather than the 24-70f2.8. Just like I did with my 16-35F4 which took my by surprise. That new line of lenses presented work great for me.
I only wish it had internal zoom…. but I guess I’ll have to live with that.
Hi Nasim,
Using D700 with Tamron 28-75 F2.8 and Nikon 50 F1.4 .
Tamron AF is too slow under low light. can advise which lens to get:
1)Nikon 24-120 F4 replacement for tamron
2)Sigma 24-70 F2.8 (out of budget for Nikon 24-70 F2.8 )
3)get a nikon 85 F1.4d
mostly taking portrait for my kid indoor and outdoor.
kindly advise.
I’m not Nasim, but here’s my 2 pence.
- Your Tamron (f/2.8) is FASTER (better for low light) than the Nikon 24-120 (f/4). No gain here.
-The Sigma is a duplicate of your Tamron. No gain here.
-Your Nikon 50 can be used for portraits.
If you want to stand further back than the 50, I’d get the 85 (1.4) or a 105 (2.8).
The 85 is called the “cream machine” – beautiful bokeh/blurred background.
lastly, I’d improve my lighting environment so you don’t need to shoot at minimum aperture.
Thanks Peter
Just trade my tamron n get myself a 28-300 for outing with kids without having to change lens n longer focal.
Now left with 28-300mm n 50mm f1.4.
Thinking of getting another lens to bring along daily with my 50mm when I can leave 28-300mm at home for light travel.
Should I get a prime 35mm or 85mm to match with my 50mm F1.4 for daily light travel or get another light Zoom lens like 24-120mm ?
By the way anyone can give feed back on sigma 24-70mm F2.8 . Is it much better than tamron?
I sold most of my prime lenses except for the 20mm (light weight) and 105mm (perfect for portraits and macro).
For my D300 (DX) I have only 1 lens: the 18-200 II which I never remove from the camera. It’s my snap-shot- journalist camera.
For my D700, I also have a 24-120 f/4 which I’ve used for about 2 months. If I want to take only one lens on a shoot, this is the one I take. It is a perfect all-around lens for me…it covers my normal shooting range. It is sharp at all ranges.
For the D700 I also have a 17-35, 35-70, 70-200, and a 1.7 extender. These are extremely sharp lenses that I use for VERY VERY serious work.
Thank you for your advise Peter.
But if I just want to get another lens to pair with my 50mm F1.4 for daily light weight . Should I go for 35mm or too close range to 50mm.
The 35mm is a good walking around lens. If I were going to tour Rome for a day, for example, I would rather have a 35 than an 85. If I had my choice of two lenses, I’d rather have a 35 and an 85 and I’d dump the 50.
I don’t own a 50 prime now because I never used the one I had. Sold it and not sorry it’s gone.
In the final analysis, it all depends on what kind of shooting you do. That determines what lenses you need.
Hi
Currently having 28-300 n 50 1.4 ( seem ok to me for holiday)
Looking for a set of daily lens
Can someone advise is it better to go for
1) current 50 1.4 + 105/135 F2
Or
2) 24/35 + 85mm 1.4/1.8
Using 80% portrait
Just wish to have a light bag for daily usage , mostly take portrait for my son and family. I do agree that 35 and 85 is a good combination of travel light and good coverage. But too bad I just got my 50mm. Hmmm
Hi Nasim
I bumped into your website after checking out Photozone and ByThom and I have enjoyed exploring your website. I do have a question though. I have a D700 and I am looking to add an all around lens to my collection. I presently have 50mm f1.4 as well as an older but lovable 105 Micro Nikkor. I would like to add a wide angle zoom to my collection but after reading your reviews of the 24-120….16-35…and the 24-70 I am a bit uncertain. I was leaning towards the 24-70 but your review of the 16-35 had me wondering? I just sold my 16-85VRII and I have saved enough to buy the 24-70. I was a bit disconcerted by the results in your review. I like the focal range of the 24-70 but it seems like you have a soft spot for the 16-35. I am new to Nikon so I am trying to build a good set of Nikkor lenses. Your opinion would be appreciated.
Thank you
Orest
Hey Orest,
I’m not Nasim, but I thought I’d chime in. Since you had a 16-85mm, and that had a bit more range on each end than the 24-70mm, where did you find you spent most of your time shooting? I’d look through your images the last year or so and figure out what focal length you cater to the most. If it was 18-24mm range, then the 16-35mm would be great for you. If it was often 16mm and you were wishing for more, then the 14-24mm is probably more your ticket (I rent it for architecture work occasionally; alas, it has no filter threads, but it has very little distortion). If you were often over 50mm and not often wider than 28mm, then the 24-70mm is probably going to be more useful than 16-35mm, but you said you were looking for wide angle. If you were often 70-85mm, then I’d wager the 24-120mm would suit you better.
I own a D700 and the 24-70mm and 70-200mm, and rent the 14-24mm, but I’ve never used the 16-35mm or 24-120mm. I personally have more use for f/2.8 than f/4 for my style/subjects, but by all reviews the f/4 series appear to be incredible lenses for the price, and occasionally there are days I wish my 24-70mm had VR. :-) Nasim could answer this better than I, but I suspect the 16-35mm would cover the 24-28mm range better than the 24-70mm, I don’t know from experience. When I use my 24-70mm that wide, I’m often doing landscapes or panoramics and I’m stopped down to f/5.6-8 minimum where I don’t have an issue with soft corners, or I’m doing portraits at f/2.8 and don’t care about or even desire corner sharpness (I rarely shoot a portrait wider than 35mm though). If I really needed edge to edge sharpness at 24mm wide open for lack of light, I’d be doing interior architecture or real estate and using the 14-24mm anyway–I rent it enough in a year that it’s next on my list to purchase.
Anyway, that’s my opinion, probably others will have better advice or experience with the 16-35mm to offer you more. It’s great to have choices though. :-) Someday I’ve got to get a good 105mm micro, that would be a lot of fun!
Hello Aaron
I’ve read many of your comments. Thanks for the reply. I think I was all over the range when I had the 16-85 on my D300.When I switched to my D700 I sure missed it. I shoot a lot of Macro as can be seen here. http://www.flickr.com/photos/35346225@N03/sets/72157624294618591/ but I often shoot events like a kids ice fishing derby for a friend so I am all over the focal range. After reading the reviews by Nasim I sure thought the 24-120 was the way to go. Then I read the review on the 16-35 and reread the review on the 24-70. Talk about indecision. I have a NIkkor 20-35 f2.8 that a friend has lent me and is willing to sell to me and I am considering buying it as I understand it is a great lens. I wish the 24-70 had VR and that seems to be my stumbling block. I don’t do much landscape at the moment but that doesn’t mean that I won’t in the future. I have only shot digital since 2008 having come from a film background. I appreciate your input on this subject and I’m thankful that there is a site that I can ask for and get valued opinions. I am leaning towards the 24-70 although the 24-120 was probably closer to what I had in the 16-85VRII. Thanks Aaron!
Orest, your macro work is beautiful!!! I really need to get a good macro lens someday, maybe the 105mm VR; I’d do it in a heartbeat if I was shooting paying work that justified that lens. It sure would be fun! :-)
I’ve used my 24-70mm as my primary lens for over a year and love it. I recently got a 70-200mm and it’s barely left the camera since, but the newness will wear off in a couple more months and the 24-70mm will probably go back as a primary lens. Nothing inspires creativity like fresh glass–the whole world looks new all of a sudden. :-P I had the first gen 70-300mm, so the 70-200mm is my first VR lens and I really enjoy that feature. I never missed VR on the 24-70mm until a few weeks ago, LOL.
The 24-70mm is a great lens: tack sharp with flawless, instant autofocusing and very little noticeable distortion. It even feels light now compared to my 70-200mm, haha! I use the MB-D10 vertical shutter grip and EN-EL4a battery to get 8fps for HDR panoramics, so the 24-70mm balances well and does not feel front heavy to me. I’m still young with a strong arm, and I have a handstrap for a better grip, as well as an RS-7 R-Strap to manage the weight on longer shoots. I also use a tripod often for landscapes. My wife isn’t as comfortable with the heft though. If I was going on a long hike where weight was a concern, like mountain climbing, I would certainly ditch the vertical shutter grip for the day and rent the 24-120mm after reading this review to shed a lot of weight. I’d leave the heavy 70-200mm home too and give up the extra 80mm (not as big a difference as you’d think with the VR II model anyway on closer subjects). It really all depends on what you shoot and your circumstances. I really love f/2.8 for what I do though, and I feel no need to run out and purchase a 24-120mm, nor sell my 24-70mm. However, I could easily be persuaded to upgrade to a 24-85mm f/2.8 VR should Nikon ever design one, damn the extra weight it would have. Haha!
14-24mm vs 16-35mm is a lot easier decision in my opinion, though I’ve never used the later. If you aren’t doing precise interior architecture where lines must be straight, I think the 16-35mm would be a lot more versatile under most circumstances, especially with filter threads for landscapes. I’ve read VR makes a nice improvement in low light, the difference in aperture isn’t as noticeable at wide angles as far as depth of field goes anyway, and 35mm is a whole lot more reach for less lens swapping. But, for me 2mm difference on the wide end can make all the difference indoors when your back is to the wall, and the sharpness and lack of distortion on the 14-24mm make it the perfect interior lens. Outside or off the tripod, I think I’d rather have the 16-35mm with the option to use filters for landscapes, but I’ll have to rent one someday to find out. I’d wager most people walking around without a tripod would have more use for the 16-35mm with VR, especially journalists.
If I was just starting out today with the D700 and had no paying jobs, I’d no doubt start with the 24-120mm and add the 16-35mm, I don’t think I could choose one or the other. Though I haven’t used them yet, they seem to me to be a very practical combination. If I was an established pro and had plenty of paying jobs and future goals, I think the three f/2.8 lenses are the better investment, or especially three or four primes if you can move your feet a lot and your subjects are stationary. I also think it would be easier to handle three lenses if you had two full frame bodies, which I haven’t been able to afford yet. Having plenty of film experience you are probably like me and stuck somewhere in the middle. :-)
Orest, I will reflect on my experience because I pretty much made the same switches.
I switched from D300 to D700, and have extensively used a 16-35mm. I have sold the 16-35mm as I was constantly changing lenses (wide to mid range) and have now moved on to a 24-70mm. With the 16-35mm I was using only occasional wide angle with loads of mid range. My experience is pretty the same as Aaron has reported. 24-70mm is a phenomenal lens and performs in all conditions. Con – it is a bit heavy but trust me every single photo is a joy.
Nasim’s review on the 16-35mm is very accurate. Personally I found mega distortion with the 16mm of the 16-35mm quite disconcerting. Effectively I was using it between 18mm – 35mm. My 24-70mm now is wide enough for me.
Although the 16-35mm was great, if I do dive into wide angle having experienced the 14-24mm, I will only consider the 14-24mm hence coming to a similar conclusion as Aaron.
There is a reason why the 14-24mm F2.8, 24-70mm F2.8 and 70-200m F2.8 are called the Nikon holy grail. They are the Nikon’s best (havent used the 24-120mm though and dont think will – never say never).
May I take Aaron’s suggestion one step further. Even if you are NOT a pro, it is a joy and pleasure to have great equipment which just takes phenomenal pictures, performs 100% of the time with NO fuss.
Very quickly I have become recognised as ‘the’ photographer who will always take good pictures.
Hello Nadeem and Aaron
I would love to sit down and have a coffee with you and talk Nikon. After much soul searching I am quite confident in my decision to get the 24-70 f2.8. I sold my 16-85 yesterday and that put me over the hump so I can get the 24-70. I had a gut feeling that it was the best lens choice for me. I am going to go with that feeling. Aaron I had a chance to try the 105mm Micro Nikkor VR yesterday when I sold the buyer my 16-85mm and I was surprised at how much larger it was than my old 105 Micro Nikkor. It was at least twice the size. It was a gorgeous lens but I am happy with the old 105mm Nikkor I have. I can handle it much better because of it’s compact size. Nadeem I appreciate your input and I agree with you on the narrow range the 16-35 has and I look at my images and I am more in the mid range. I don’t do any architectural shooting and so far very little landscape shooting. The weight of the 24-70 won’t be a factor for me as I am confident that I can hand hold the D700 and 24-70 with out any problems. Aaron while I am not making any money on my shots I have always striven to get the best equipment that I could afford( now isn’t that the big problem) because it always pays in the long run. By the way Aaron thanks for the compliment I love shooting Macro. Here are a few shots I did some edits on
http://www.flickr.com/photos/35346225@N03/sets/72157626135090709/ I am looking forward to getting the 24-70 and I will let you know how I like it. This site is terrific I mean where else can you get input and encouragement so easily. Thanks Aaron and Nadeem!
Aaron
Fantastic decision. I will await feedback.
I forgot to mention the corner to corner sharpness of the 24-70mm which is just amazing.
Overall 24-70mm is so good that in my non-professional, non-scientific comparison I believe it to be comparable to the MACROS Nikkors 105mm macro & 55mm F2.8 macro (I currently own the 55m F2.8 AF macro a lens I would never sell and previously used a 105mm Ais F4 macro). I am not surprised that you wish to keep that 105mm – i believe all genres of the 105mm are fantastic. My other FX lens is a 70-200mm F2.8.
For holiday snaps or a light back pack I carry the Nikon D5000 17-55mm F2.8 DX (such a shame that there is no 17-55mm FX version). Although another great combo, it is not in the same league.
Finally I will apologise to Nasim for talking about other lenses in a 24-120mm forum (without even owning the lens) but I guess I keep on coming back to this place as I find it informal and fantastic.
Also, you have mentioned two of my favourite subjects a good coffee (latte from fresh ground beans) and Nikkors. You are on !
BTW- lovely flowers.
The distortion factor on the Nikon 105 micro VR at 1:1 ratio is 0.0
Hi Nasim,
Have just found your website and would like to join the many people offering their thanks – its great to find such a professional, yet concise and easy to understand opinion on so many topics in the photography sphere! Well done.
I was very interested in your review of this lens – I am thoroughly enjoy travel (who doesn’t?) and am looking at updating my gear. I got into photography a little while back when I made the jump to dSLR for a 2 month safari through africa. I currently use a D90, tokina 12-24 f4 dx pro, 18-55 AF-S Nikkor VR (original kit lens), 70-300 AF-S Nikkor VR, and also have a Sigma 70-200 2.8 which I use for sports (karate, football etc). I am soon to be heading off for 3 months to travel the silk road from china to istanbul through the various “stans” and am very excited by the photographic opportunities on offer here but I am thinking of upgrading some equipment and was hoping to bounce an idea or 2 off you? I was thinking of upgrading my body vs getting some better glass. I was thinking of adding this lens as the main one on my D90 (replacing the old 17-55 VR) and maybe throwing in a fast prime (either the 35 or 50) and was weighing this against upgrading the actual body. Sadly I am no millionaire and can’t just do both (otherwise no eating for the 3 months on the road ;-) ) and was wondering your opinion on the matter? Or any other lens alternatives to look at? I don’t mind carrying the lenses with me (that being said, probably won’t be taking the 70-200 2.8 due to size/weight restrictions) as I much prefer that to using a 28-300 type lens that is slow and possibly not as good a quality final photos. Any thoughts or opinions would be greatly appreciated – none of my friends are really into photography so noone to really kick ideas around with!
Thanks again for the great site, will be viewing this site on a daily basis from now on I believe!
Regards,
Anthony
Hi Nasim
I have decided to look at some better lenses instead of upgrading the d90 – wait for the d800 or d400 and see what happens from there w.r.t. the body!
However I have another question – I have recently heard some good reports about the 16-85mm VRII variable aperture lens. Do you have any idea how these 2 lenses stack up against each other as a walk around, general leave on type, travel lens? or again, any other mid range zoom options?
Thanks again Nasim-keep up the great work!
Hi guys
Can I have some advise?
Mainly shooting my own kids
Currently on 28-300 w 50 1.4 (d700)
Somehow it kinda heavy to bring 28-300 out for daily use unless I need to zoom alot and it seem too slow for my kids under lowlight.
Is it advisable to get 35 f2 (wide) + 85 1.4 (portrait) for lighter n faster daily walkabout lens and keep 28-300 for touring use and dump the 50
Or
Dump 28-300 and get a 24-70 n pair with my 50mm 1.4.
Mainly use for portrait .
Hey Kevin,
The 24-70mm f/2.8 weighs just a little more than the 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6 VR. It would let in more light and focus better in low light conditions, but lacks VR. It’s my favorite lens and spends a lot of time on my D700. I use it a lot to shoot photos of the kids running around. Sometimes I hit the 70mm wall when doing portraits and crop a little in post or switch to the 70-200mm f/2.8 VR II if I’m outside and taking candids at a distance. I’d like to get an 85mm f/1.4 for portraits some day as that seems to be about the perfect focal length, and it would be a lot of fun with static subjects. I tend to use both the 24-70 and 70-200 around f/4 to get a little more depth of field and keep the kids faces sharp. f/2.8 is very challenging to nail focus with running children! :-) So having said all that, I wonder if the 24-120mm f/4 might not be the perfect lens for your application? It has VR, a little more reach into a nice portrait range, and a constant f/4 aperture for more light and better autofocusing than the 28-300mm. It’s also a little lighter than the 28-300mm (25oz vs 28oz, the 24-70 is 32oz). I haven’t used it myself, but those that have it generally give it great reviews.
Thank you for your good review. I already own the 24-120 and the 24-70. I just got back from a trip to New Mexico and found the lens performed perfectly for me. in addition it was so dusty that I didn’t want to change my lens and it was all the focal length I needed. I have thought about selling my 24-70 but can’t part with it yet. It is good for indoors and with flash. It truly is a great lens as well. I am glad you compared the 70-200. I love the lens but it is getting too big and heavy for this old man to carry so I may sell that lens. My hope is that Nikon comes out with a 70-200 f4 lens like cannon. Thanks again for your review. Eric
When I’m in a quandry about two lenses with similar focal lengths, I do a side-by-side comparison with them on the same scenes…all exposures, openings, etc. being equal. Then I bring them into Photoshop and magnify them, etc. and compare them by increasing the magnification. I also run them through PTLens ( http://epaperpress.com/ptlens) to check and correct for distortion. They have the specs for the 24-120 f/4 which I helped to provide.
If you do this, I would be interested in your results. This process is also a good test of your objectivity!
Also, I’m glad you got back from Mexico safely.
Hi Eric!
I am also waiting on a 70-200mm VR II G 4.0 lens from Nikon. The Canon one outperforms the 2.8 variant at aperture 4.0.
/Karl
Nasim,
Fantastic website….thanks for all the info. Boy do I have a lot to learn.
The more comments I read the more confusing I get. I’m a novice sports shooter (4-kids) and I would like to do some landscape shooting. I tried out the 24-120 while I was on vacation and noticed the vignetting right away when shot wide open so I was disappointed. Anyway I currently own the 300 2.8VR, 70-200 2.8 VRl and an older 35-70 2.8. I’m thinking I should buy the 24-70 2.8 so I can use it for everyday shooting as well. I’m looking for the best image quality possible. can you help?
Thank You,
Fred
Fred,
I think the 24-70mm f/2.8 would fit nicely in your lens collection! It is certainly on par with the 300mm f/2.8 VR as far as build quality, focusing speed, and sharpness. You won’t find a better zoom lens in that focal range for image quality. What camera are shooting with? DX or FX format?
Aaron,
I shoot with the D700. I tend to over think on the lenses instead of getting out there and experiment. I just like to feel confident that I have the best equipment to start of with.
Thank you very much.
Fred
My two cents:
I have the 24-120 and use it sometimes for landscape but at f/8 with no problems. My primary lenses for landscape, however, are the Nikon 17-35 and the Nikon 20mm…and rarely or ever shoot them wide open, too. BUT, I would not give up on the 24-120 for landscape, just shoot at higher f-stops before you run out and buy another lens. It is a perfect for “everyday shooting” as you say.
As you do, I own the “older” 35-70 and love it-extremely sharp. Why buy a 24-70 for an additional 11 mm unless you plan to sell the 35-70?
Lastly, you can get rid of vignetting in Photoshop or Capture NX2, so it’s really not a problem unless you don’t do your own post-processing.
Re-read Nasim’s review of the 24-120 before you do anything.
Peter
I do my own post-processing with Aperture 3. I love NX2 but I found it too be very slow. I’ve also used Capture one 5 pro which I really liked but no DAM features. I was using Aperture 2 but was not happy with the raw conversion so I looked at NX2 and C1 but now back to A3. Do you think the 35-70 is of equal image quality and sharpness as the 24-70? Maybe I should keep it then?
Thank you very much.
Fred
You’re using a Mac (I use a PC-Windows 7) so I can’t comment based on any actual experience. My gut tells me to use Aperture 3 or make the switch to Photoshop if you like steep learning curves.
What I can tell you about the 35-70 on my D700 is that I used it recently to photograph a crumbling 12×18 embroidery piece for our local historical society and had it enlarged to poster size at Costo (they use Fiji Crystal archive paper) for $9.00. Yes, $9.00. I photographed it from about 8-10 feet distance and used strobe. How sharp is the lens? I could count every stictch and see all the weaving on the poster-sized photo. Sharp as sharp can be. Can’t imagine it being any sharper.
By the way, I print my own stuff but needed a poster size so I used Costo. They are GOOD!
I know nothing about the 24-70 except what I read on the Internet. I was tempted to get it myself, but I get the same range using the 24-120, so I passed on it.
One final note that applies to you, me, and many of the readers on this and other sites: We all suffer from “lens lust” which is an irrational urge to have more and more lenses whether we need them or not. Ansel Adams never had this disease. We just “want” them and make excuses to justify buying them. Bass fisherman have the same urges but it applies to the latest lures. Take it from an old bass fisherman with a basement full of rods, reels, and lures – I know the clinical nature of this common disease!!!!! Fight it.
Well said Peter. This is me for sure. Sometimes I think just having the lens in my equipment collection makes me happy. Boy am I in trouble….my wife is gonna shoot me.
Thanks,
Fred
Just adding to the discussion, Fred.
I have used the 35-70mm F2.8 (It collected quite a bit of dust on my sensor). The lens is however sharp, I agree. I have no experience with the 24-120 but in comparison to my sample of 35-70mm the 24-70mm is phenomenal – your sample may be superb though. I also like the wide 24mm bit of the 24-70mm and hence sold off the wide angle as 24mm is ample for me.
However, there is considerable more in weight, size and length compared to the 35-70mm which is a much more easy to carry lens. Convenience goes a long way too esp if you have got excellent quality.
In the discussions above I also rate the 35mm F2 and 85mm 1.4 most highly. 50mm 1.4 is excellent too.
24-70mm is simply phenomenal on my D700 and gives me the F2.8, superb corner to corner quality, no more lens changes and is permanently stuck on my camera all the time. The only time it comes off is when I use my 70-200mm F2.8.
Since the 24-70mm I have sold off all my ex-zooms and primes and have never looked back.
Nadeem makes some very good points, although I’ve never had sensor dust problems with any of my lenses.
If I didn’t have the 17-35, I’d probably dump my 35-70 and get the 24-70, as Nadeem suggests. But the 17mm is great!
OK, Nadeem, fellow lens luster, here are the Nikkor lenses I have (all f/2.8), so what would you suggest to improve my…”collection”? I shoot portraits, landscape, photo-journalism, copy close-ups, and anything that I see that I like.
Here are my lenses, go for it:
17-35
20
35-70
105
70-200
24-120
Fred and I are awaiting your critical analysis! Tell it like it is! Snap to it!
Hey Peter,
Quick question how and what tests do you perform when you buy a new lens to make sure it’s a good sample? I went to exchange my 24-120 today but Calumet didn’t have any 24-70 or 16-35 lenses in stock and they don’t when any will arrive. As I mentioned earlier that I had a lot of vignetting shooting at F4. On the D700 there is a setting for de-vignetting. Would you recommend using this?
Thanks,
Fred
To test my lens, I photograpgh a very familiar stone wall in my backyard with trees in the background and lawn in the foreground (no test patterns). I shoot it at different stops and different focal lengths (e.g., 24-50-85-120). I then open the files in Photoshop and look at them, sometimes doing a side-by-side comparison, enlarging them as I go along. I evaluate them and if I’m satisfied, I don’t care what the Internet reviewers say. Although, I must admit, Nasim does a very good pragmatic review of lens. If it were not for him, I would not have bought the 24-120.
As far as vignetting, no big deal – I eliminate with Photoshop or other software. As a matter of fact, sometimes I add vignetting to my prints for artistic reasons. Life is one big defect; why be overly concerned with minor lens defects?
nice test, thanks! :)
i owned D7000 with 35mm 1.8G, want to buy 24-120 or 16-85 , which one will you recommand?
If you are going to keep with DX Nikons then buy the 16-85, if you might buy a FX Nikon the 24-120 will work well on Both your Nikon D7000 and a Nikon FX Camera.
I read your review a month or so ago and went ahead to purchase 20-120 with my new D700. I took it to Venice (Italy) 2 weeks ago and took it everywhere with me. It is a great walk-about lens. The only other lens I had was 50 1.8d for really low light stuff. I am very happy with the results and LR3.4 made the necessary lens corrections. Its a great combination with the D700.
Rod
Correction – 24-120!
I’m also enjoying the 24-120 as you are.
I am not familiar with the lens correction capacity of LR 3.4, but PTLens has automatic corrections to the specific lens we’re using – the f/4 version of the 24-120. They also have automatic correction for lots of other Nikon lenses. See link below if you want to check it out. Great for eliminating barrel and pincusion distortion which this lens has, especially at 24mm..
http://epaperpress.com/ptlens/
Peter, as of Lightroom 3.4, the Nikon 24-120mm is supported in the Lens Corrections sub-module.
Thank you for your feedback Rod, I am glad you like the 24-120mm – it is a great lens!
Hi Nasim
Read your excellent review and have just purchased a 24-120/F4 – but now I’m having second thought’s since I have also read ken rockwell’s review who strongly suggests forgetting the 24-120 and go buying the 28-300 instead since it’s cheaper and, according to Ken, performs just as well as the 24-120.
I own D200%D700, a 16-35/F4, 50/F1.4 and 70-200/F2.8, I was looking for a glass to cover the midrange gab between the 16-35 and 70-200 and which could be used as “the” glass to bring when traveling light.
I mostly shoot landscape and potraits, but also closeups of i.e. flowers. From your review it seems that 24-120 with a fixed aperature is a quite wise choice.
I fancy the defocuse performance of the 50 and 70-200.
What du you guys think of the 24-120 vs. 28-300 are they really on par, I’m in doubt here 5x vs 10x zoom performing equally?
Hi Henry
Ok I’m clearly not Henry but I was in the same boat as you (choosing between the 24-120 and the 28-300), and in fact, I read both Nasim’s and Ken Rockwell’s websites almost daily!
Given your lenses, it looks like you must read KR’s sites regularly, as you have what he deems the perfect set up for pros (an ultrawide zoom, 50 prime, and telephoto zoom.
For travel, I settled with the 24-120 f/4 VR which was perfect for 90% of shots, but also brought along my 70-300 VR (which is relatively light) which I used for the remaining 10% (no regrets though – when you need tele, you really need it!).
Good luck!
Henry, I went throught the same procedure you did but waited for the more complete objective analysis of the 24-120 by Nasim which convinced me to buy it. I originally hesitated because of Rockwell’s comments.
I have regularly visited both sites (Rockwell & Mansurov) and compared their evaluations. I was concerned about Rockwell’s lack of objective evaluation of this lens since all he offered was an opinion. He was kind of glib about it with an “I know best” attitude. No tangible evidence was offered.
Now, his opinion probably makes sense for some, but I preferred to see actual objective results which Nasim offered. I also shoot mostly in the 24-120 range and did like the constant f/4 opening.
I have Rockwell and Nasim’s website on my desktop and visit then each day. They are both valuable resources, but I think Nasim tends to be more controlled and objective about things…not that I always agree with him.
Hmm, interesting :)
I was actually aiming (saving) for a 24-70, but I decided agains the pro glass due to costs, weight and the shorter focal length. I also chose the 16-35/F4 rather than the more expensive 14-24/F2.8. I’m realy realy pleased with the 16-35/F4 which is a lower class than the pro’s so my plan was to stay with this “in-between” pro and consumer class with the 24-120/F4. Fixed aperature, VR and ND is about right for me and then I can use the saved bucks to go traveling and make som photos :)
Looking so much forward to my delivery tomorrow.
Argh, where did that [DELETED POST] button go :) I’m completelly overlooked the buttom section of page 3, sorry about that!
I think you have already answered my questions pretty clearly – shouldn’t have vaisted my time a KR’s review.
Thanks Kevin
Yes, there was a time when I spend a lot of time reading KR reviews, however I have found other sites, like this, where I feel my times is spend better ;)
I’m happy to hear that this lens serves you well, sounds like you have about the same requirements as I do. So I guess I just have to see what’s in the mailbox tomorrow.
Hey Guys
Did any of you guys see this review of this lens at youtube?
Scored 2 out of 10 – not a very positive review if I may say so. He even accuses the more positive reviewers to be in the pockets of “sponsors” lik B&H – a bit harsh.
I’m still looking forward to on-boxing my sample of this lens though.
It sounds like Jared is trying to expand his horizons from his main work (see below). After reading his bio on the Internet, I’m not surprised that he tried to disparage other reviewers with the “B&H/pockets” crack. That tells you where he’s coming from! I’m not impressed with him, his videos, or his lens reviews, but he’s probably very good at “viral marketing.”
From the Internet:
As Creative Executive for Youguys Media, I have have worked with some of the biggest names in international modern music, developing creative marketing strategies, new media content, and cost-effective merchandising solutions, to improve brand awareness, fan interaction and financial stability.
Specialties: Photography, client branding, viral marketing, new media marketing, new media content creation, new media development, artist development, merchandise development, tour management
One other point about the Jared Polin poor review.
Go to Nasim’s review of the 24-120 and open up the photos he took using this lens. Open them up by using the “Click here to download a full version of this photo.” Then enlarge them, look at all the corners etc., and then ask yourself this question: “If these were my photos would I be satisfied with them?” The answer will be obvious, assuming you have a decent monitor.
Case closed on Jared the ” Internet Gremlin”, as far as I’m concerned
Well, I have received my 24-120/F4 and today I had to do a shooting at a race-cycling race, armed with my D200+70/200/F2.8VRII and D700+24-120/F4VRII I shot about 600 pics. most of them with my D700. I very pleased with my lens, I still have to learn get the most of it but I got a good deal of excellent keepers. I had much more troubles with my D200 and 70-200 but that’s a completly other story.
So first impression is that for my purpose, it’s sharp and fast enough. On top of that, the focal range is just perfect for me.
Great. Glad you had a good experience.
Score:
Nasim – 1
Jared Polin – 0
The Internet gremlin has been flushed out from under the bridge.
Had another optunity this weekend both outdoor and indoor, landscape, portrait and group – this is in fact a great all-round lens. Of course it doesn’t quite match my 50mm and 70-200mm, but it’s just great not to have to change lens or carry both cameras around. It also makes less attention to my making photos so people seems more relaxed when i only carry this “compact” combi.
I think this lens will grow on me, just like the 16-35 has. These semi-pro’s are really a plesant surprise :)
Oh, forgot one little con thing – when having this combo hanging in a shoulder strap I think this lens will creep, perhaps not when all new, but eventually it will. And it doesn’t have a lock…..
Oh, ye of little faith!
Henry, I have the 18-200 on my D300 which has a lock. If you put that lens on 18mm with the lock off and point it at the ground, it will NOT creep. Put it on 50mm or any focal lenght other than 18mm, for example, it WILL creep if the lock is off.
My 24-120 does not creep under any conditions listed above, and I suggest it will never creep. It is a physically shorter lens when fully extended, and it is tighter when you move between focal lengths.
Dear Nasim,
My 24-120 f/4 underexposes compared to the other lenses (24-70) by around 2 thirds of a stop. Do you have such an issue like this…
P.S. BTW My body is a Nikon D5000…
I have discovered no issues with my 24-120. But, I must admit, i don’t know if I could discere 2/3 stop difference with any lens.
Hi, Nasim. Thank you for comparing 24-70 and 24-120. I have some anniversary gift money that my wife gave me and trying to decide what lens to buy. I have D700 and D90 these days. I am not a pro, this is just a (expensive) hobby for me. I don’t have many expensive lenses, my best lens is 85mm 1.4 D. I was all about to pull the trigger on 24-70, because I value quick autofocus and nice bokeh, and wanted to have a solid performer general lens. I wanted one lens that would be solid and trusty for me. I do shoot inside often (birthdays, etc) and I do shoot in low light often. I want one zoom lens that I can totally depend on to autofocus instantly in any lighting conditions and perform adequately without having to stop down much. So I was looking at 24-70. One thing I kind of wish of course is that it goes beyond 70 so I can shoot some portraits of my wife and her friends. Here comes 24-120, it is $500 cheaper, and the range of 24-120 can cover portraits as well. Sounds good, but from all I see and hear, it does not have as pleasing a bokeh for portraits. I wish there was a 24-120 F/2.8 but it does not exist. I have a Tamron 28-105 /F2.8 but that needs to be stopped down to F/4 to get acceptable images. I guess my basic question is can 24-120 be used for portraits and low light use? I almost never shoot landscapes. Or you recommend 24-70 instead?
You already own the perfect portrait lens…the Nikkor 85mm 1.4 D. It’s called the “cream machine” because of its terrific bokeh. Coupled with your D700 you’re in hog heaven as far as portrait shooting is concerned.
I shoot the D700 with the 24-120 as my all purpose, all around lens and love it. I have yet to find any problem with it. I shoot portarits and landscape with it. Great for shooting fast moving kids – just kick the ISO up to 400.
Thank you. Do you happen to have any examples of portraits shot with this lens?
None I’ll send, but scroll up on this page and see Nasim’s shots, especially the one with the bride being “harnessed” into her gown.
Hello
I am planning to purchase a Nikon DX camera preferably D7000 or D5100, but I would be switching to FX camera in the future. So, I would like to know if I should purchase DX lenses for a DX camera or can I use FX lenses on a DX body without any limitation or problem? Plz help.
Buy FX lenses… You can use these lenses for both Nikon body types ( FX & DX): A current & good Nikon FX lens setup example is : Nikon 16-35 VR, 24-120 F4 VR, 70-300 VR, 50 mm F1.8G, 105 Micro VR
I agree with Cenk about getting FX lenses, but only if you know, for certain, you’re going to get an FX in the future. However, consider this alternative scenario:
-For your new DX camera get only one lens: a Nikon 18-200 version 2. I assume you will keep your DX even after you buy an FX. The DX makes a good all-around camera and it gives you a 300mm reach with the 1.5 factor of the 18-200. It’s will also be a great back-up camera.
-In the meantime, save your money and wait for the Nikon D800. Get the 24-120 F4 for starters and then see what other lenses you really need not really want. The 24-120 is a great shooting range, and if you ever want to shoot wildlife, use your DX.
Hello there, Nasim.
I’m not usually one to ask for advice concerning my gear – I know much about what I have and what I need, and understand that often my needs don’t match my wishes. However, I rather difficult choice has fallen on my shoulders and I feel that a second (third, actually) opinion might be of big use. So, here’s my story.
I’m a student and a full-time wedding photographer. I’ve started shooting weddings about year+ ago with some very basic gear – a D80 matched with a 50mm 1.4G and a D40 with a borrowed 18-105 + SB600. Though the gear was, as I said, basic at the best, the wedding came out rather nice, even now, after a year of pure progress (or at least I’d like to think so. There’s lots to learn none the less. You can check out the gallery here if you like – http://www.pykst.lt/galerija/vestuves/VaidaAiridas/)
Anyway, since then I’ve had quite a few couples and, again, learned a lot. I was also rather smart about my investment into gear. We, both me and my girlfriend and colleague, sold the D40, saved up some and bought an SB900. I would then rent a super wide angle (the Sigma 10-20 f3.5) and borrow some gear from my father when needed, shoot more and save up more to buy, eventually, a D300 body and, after some more saving up, a Nikkor 17-55 f2.8 lens. Both were, I believe, smart choices considering the rather limited budget – there was no room for mistakes. I’ve also bought a 85mm 1.4 lens, and, only a couple of months ago (after renting first) – a D700 body.
Now my D80 is for sale, while the 50mm 1.4G remains on the D700 for most of the time. I believe this duo was the best decision I’ve made regarding my business and, if needed, I could run a whole 10 hour wedding using just that and nothing else. I know this duo very, very well, and I know there’s still room for improvement, yet I rely on my 50mm most. I’ve checked Lightroom – about 80-90% of wedding and engagement session photos are made with this lens. The 85mm gives me amazing results and I doubt I’ll ever sell it (change for the newer one unless), but it’s just not as useful and practical as a 50mm, which allows me to get up close and personal.
You might have noticed I haven’t mentioned the 17-55mm much. Yes, I greatly prefer primes over zooms – weight, intimidation factor, size, mostly – isolation wise, I would pick a prime over a zoom any day. Not saying the 17-55 is a bad lens – oh my, no, it’s indeed very good – it just doesn’t get used nearly as much. Usually only for those random and full-body group shots that don’t involve much creativity. Yet having it makes me a lot more confident during a wedding. It doesn’t leave the D300 body, also, coupled with the SB900, I use it indoors in the evening for those wide-angled, dynamic shots.
The gear that I have – the SB900, D300, D700 and the three lenses – is more than enough to cover a wedding. However I understand very well that in close future, I will change to D300 in favor of a second D700 body. As it happened, a good chance to sell my 17-55 has come up. But the fact is – I will need a zoom, and one that I can use with FF bodies. Which brings us to the big problem (finally :)
There are three choices.
1. Get a 24-120 f4 VR. The problems: the fact that Nikon positions it as a consumer product (build quality wise; I hate that narrow focus ring) is a little unnerving. I don’t like compromises when it comes to weddings. The 17-55 is, currently, the only lens I can use under rain. Is the 24-120, officially, dust-moisture protected? I don’t mind the vignetting – I often add it in pp – but the distortion may be a problem sometimes. Would you use that lens in a wedding over a 17-55? The aperture doesn’t concern me all that much, but I would like at least some subject separation. Wide angle wise, 24 is quite enough for normal use, so the range is a big plus. I would probably buy this lens over a 24-70 eventually for those rare occasions when I need a standart zoom, but I’m still worried about reliability and usability during a such important event as a wedding.
2. Get a 16-35 f4 VR. Would be nice, and I would use the even wider angle on a D700 body, however I find it a little less useful range wise. Not as practical. Still, I believe I will get one eventually for those rare super-wide angle situations.
3. Leave everything as is until my budget grows and allows me to make sure I buy what I really need (would love a 24 1.4 or a 35 1.4 over any of these two, but at the moment, and eventually, a zoom is necessary).
If I get to buy a lens, I need one that will be most useful and one I’m going to use for years to come, not sell it when I get the chance. I need it to be a step up, not down.
So, after such a long mammoth post, what are your ideas? Appreciate your time and effort, Nasim, thank you.
P.S. I should mention I very seldom stop down my lenses. My 1.4′s are usually at 1.4, only very, very rarely do I stop them down (when doing large group shots, for example), thus I favor aesthetics over technical image quality. If I stop down, it’s because of the depth of field, not sharpness, at least with my primes.
You can also check some of my work here (http://pykst.blogspot.com/) and here (http://romesphotography.blogspot.com/)
It’s very late, so – спокойной ночи и хороших снов Вам и Вашей семье, Насим.
Роман
Roman, I typed a very long comment and while answering the phone managed to get it wiped out. Now I have to start from scratch!
Before I talk about gear, let me just say that your first wedding indeed came out very nice! You have a great “eye” and that’s what truly matters – gear is last. Your post-processing skills are also very good and I enjoyed looking at your pictures on your site. Вообщем – молодец! Talking about the site, I would seriously take it to the next level and make it photography-friendly – perhaps a better CMS like WordPress that allows for larger photos + a gallery to showcase your work.
I second your thoughts about the D700 + 50mm combo. If you were to shoot a wedding with my wife, there would be two photographers walking around with a D700 and 50mm glued to their cameras from the start till the end of the wedding. Most of her pictures are also made with this combo and year after year the 50mm has been the most frequently used lens. And that’s with us having 10+ pro-level lenses… The 85mm is also superb, but the 50mm focal length just seems to be ideal for weddings.
Now the 17-55mm lens is great for DX, but kind of useless for FX. I realize that people eventually move to FX, which is why I stopped recommending it to our readers. For its price and DX-only format, I believe it is a little overpriced.
Let’s talk about your lens selection dilemma. Skip the 24-120mm, because it won’t survive Lithuanian weather (trust me, I know – I used to have a Lithuanian roommate and I know all about your culture and weather :)) The 16-35mm is nice, but you are right – you would end up with a lot of distorted faces and the focal length is just not ideal for weddings, stopping at 35mm. I would take your third choice, which is to continue renting lenses until you can afford a pro-level zoom or a good prime like the 24mm f/1.4G. I personally favor the latter, simply because just like the 50mm it pushes me for creativity rather than convenience of a zoom. I would try the 24-70mm and the 24mm f/1.4 at weddings and see which one you like more and then make the choice. I own both and love both, but for weddings I have been taking the 24mm only lately. If you go with the 24mm, skip the 35mm. And you don’t have to worry about stopping down the 24mm – it is very sharp wide open.
Let me know if you have any other questions :)
P.S. Some Lithuanian phrases like “Viskas Gerey” are still stuck in my head. Having a Lithuanian roommate for 3 years, I fell in love with your country, its people and its culture.
Good luck with your wedding photography business! Without a single doubt, I know you will be successful.
Thanks for your time, Nasim – I was already thinking you might not have the time to read and answer, but I’m really glad you did.
Firstly, I want to thank you for your compliments. I’ve always though that listening to clients’ praise is not a good thing for a pro – if you listen to what they think, you’ll stop growing simply because they don’t know a lot of things a photographer does. In other words, you need to listen to your colleagues to get better for your clients. Right now, I’m very flattered by your words, though I’m not going to get my nose up one bit because of it. :) Secondly, I want to compliment your and Lolas’ work – you are obviously doing a very nice job. I can’t imagine how time consuming this must be – running two websites as well as a wedding business. I wish you both all the best. With luck, we might actually meet some day – I have this weird dream of having Christmas in NYC with some of my friends having never really traveled this far. :)
What’s with my site, here’s a direct link – http://www.pykst.lt
I’m sorry you won’t be able to use any translator, but it’s easy enough to navigate. Having worked on the design together with Bee, I find it to represent our style fairly well, as well as our understanding of how wedding photographers should present themselves. The gallery should probably be worked on, yes, and we plan to do it sooner or later, but at the moments is very easy to add new photos (directly via Lightroom) Here’s the wedding gallery: http://www.pykst.lt/vestuviu-nuotraukos.html
I think my website for western countries will be similar, although I have a few more ideas I could implement there to better show potential clients who I am as a person. But those are just plans – unfortunately, I’m miles away from any serious destination weddings. It’s hard to find clients where I haven’t worked yet.
Funny story with the Lithuanian roommate :) I guess we’re everywhere. I’m not a Lithuanian myself by blood – a russian, but it does give me an interesting perspective while living here.
Now, fearing I’m on to yet another mammoth post here, I’ll just get on with the lens dilemma. :)
Today I’ve decided not to buy the 24-120. I’m not particularly comfortable with it’s build quality, especially the extending duo-cam design. On the other hand, a very good chance to sell my 17-55mm (I still can’t sell the D80, not many people want a camera this old) has come up and I intend to use it. I’m selling it. One of the main reasons is that I’m not planning to stick with that D300 for long – probably going to sell it next spring at the latest – it depends on how many couples I’ll have till then.
And I’ve also decided to buy the 16-35 f4 VR. The reasons:
1. A new range for my D700 that I don’t have yet covered. The 24-120 is more or less there already with my 17-55, 50mm and 85mm lenses. What I could use is getting myself wider. Now, that doesn’t mean I’m going to get all close to my subjects – no. I just want more.. uhm.. context? Yes, that’t the word. More surroundings, more story.
2. It’s going to be a more or less good range on the D300 while I still have it. Yes, I’m gonna miss some range on the long end, but it’s still good for those group portraits and PJ during the flowers/gifts part. That’s when the fast aperture is also not such a bad thing (though I always prefer at least f2.8) – VR will be very useful with stationary subjects posing for the formal shot.
3. I also don’t want to be in a situation where a bride or her mom, for example, asks me to make a group portrait in a real tight spot and I can’t do it because I don’t have a wide-angle.
4. There isn’t a better choice for the money. Also, I want to have at least one lens well sealed against moisture, which we have plenty, as you obviously know :)
So, it’s a bit of a compromise, but I’m sure I will use this lens for years to come even when I have all the other gear. I’m not going to sell it.
Obviously I’d prefer the 24mm 1.4G or the 35mm 1.4G which would, likely, replace my 50mm 1.4G on the D700 while indoors (again – it’s a “context lens”). And, obviously, I can’t afford them yet (I still need a drivers license and a car; don’t laugh – I’m 21). So I’m left with the 16-35.
What are your thoughts?
I have a wedding tomorrow and it will be the last time I use my 17-55. I’m quite sure I will be selling it on Sunday even though it might not be the best choice. Still, I don’t want to make a serious mistake.
Best of luck,
Roman
OK, plans changed, as they always tend to do.
The guy’s not buying my 17-55 anymore – is wife won’t let him. Huh, got me thinking – it’s good to have someone who’s into the whole photography thing as well, isn’t it? You should know, too, Nasim. And your wife also cooks. :) Lucky man, though I don’t mind cooking together with Bee myself.
So, the problem remains and extends.
Now I can try and sell my D80, 17-55 AND D300 to buy.. what? 35mm 1.4 (or the more expensive 24mm 1.4) would be GREAT, but that would leave me with just one camera body. Which means I can’t shoot a wedding together with Bee. And it also means I don’t have a backup, which is very risky, and I’m not willing to take such risks.
I can also try and sell all that to buy a second D700 and, say, a 24mm 2.8 lens, to have at least some wide angle lens. But that will stop me from buying the upcoming D800, which I wouldn’t really care about, but I need a movie-capable full frame DSLR.
Choices, choices.. Starting a business is hard.
Has anyone used this lens on a DX body? I’m thinking about using this instead of the 16-85mm. The 24-120 f4 would be nice compared to the relatively slow 16-85, especially since the 16-85 needs to be at f8 for it’s sharpest shots, especially once you hit 50mm and beyond. There’s a big difference between f4 & f8.
Nasim,
Do you think the 24-120 f4 is sharper than the 17-55 f2.8 in the f4~f5.6 range on DX?
Thank you for the review. I have found your reviews to be informative and well laid out.
Hi
I want to use this lens with my D90 body?
Can you please suggest How cool can it perform ?
It will perform ‘very cool’ to use your parlance.
I have used this lens on my D700 in all kinds of situations, and I am very happy that I bought it.
My last shoot was a plein air artist outing, and i used it for close-ups, panos, and wide angle shots.
Never had to change lenses once, since the 24-120 captures almost eveything I wanted.
Buy it and don’t look back.
I’ve been a photographer for 50 years, so I’ve seen quite a bit. This is a very good (cool) lens.
What I can say is that, I enjoy my photography with this lens more than my 24-70mm while not loosing any quality so to speak of…
Насим, посоветовали бы эту линзу в качестве единственной (для начала) в связке с Д700? Или может быть выбрать другую? Снимаю свою семью, маленьких шустрых дитишек.
Заранее спасибо!
Hi Nasim:
I must say that this is a very bold review – keeping this lens up with f2.8 zooms especially 70-200 vr ii. It is very tempting for me as well but I cant afford two lenses now (hmmm). I will go with 70-200 vr ii as I shoot lot of portraits.
Also, it is great that you are willing to share and explain your conclusions. Many other reviews fall short on this so badly – feel more like coming they are from a machine.
Nasim,
I enjoy your lens reviews, in particular because you spend time in the field as a professional photographer using the equipment.
I have a Nikon D700, the original (non-VR) 24-120mm and a Tamron 90mm macro 2.8. I primarily enjoy taking landscape pics, often at 24mm (and sometimes using a polarizer) as well as shots of our kids using either lens, or a Fuji F30 point and shoot.
I am interested in a faster standard zoom as well as a fast wide angle zoom. I have long been interested in the Nikkor 17-35 which, based on your reviews, has been surpassed in quality by both the 16-35 and 14-24.
Two questions:
1) Do you anticipate Nikon coming out with a VR version of the 24-70 (i.e. 2.8, but with perhaps somewhat wider range at the telephoto end)?
2) Do you expect an update of the 17-35 2.8, given that this was introduced back in 1999?
I realize that the 24-120 F4 and 16-35 F4 might fit the bill, however given how long I have waited, I would consider 2.8 equivalents of each, if such products were in development by Nikon.
Thanks again for your very informative reviews.
Derek
Nasim, your reviews are incredible. I appreciate your time, logical layout and your thoughts. Keep up the amazing work!
Nasim
Thanks for an excellent review that finds a good balance between “too many numbers” and “too much unsupported personal opinion” which I find all too often on other blog sites. You give actual in-use imporessions, which mean much more to me than just numbers (even though I’m an engineer by profession) but also provide the numbers to support your insights. Bravo!
Andrew
Thank you for your feedback Andrew, I appreciate it.
Hi Nasim,
Loves all your reviews. I have considering to buy mid-range zoom for a while. There are 3 lenses under my consideration, the above 24-120 f/4 VR, 17-55 f/2.8 and the 16-85 VR. In terms of image quality and quality of autofocus, which of the three would you recommend?
Hi Nasim, love your reviews. Do you mind if I translate some of your reviews into chinese and share with my friends on my blog? I will specifically point out that is your works. Thank you!
Hi Nasim,
Once more, congratulations for the reviews! Excellent and to the point.
My dilemma is whether to buy the 24-120 or the 18-200 for my D90 camera, and use this lens for excursions and travel.
I already own the 50mm f1.4 and the 17-55 and I’m looking another lens which I think are ideal for outdoor, nature and travel photo.
However I cannot find an accurate comparison between these two lenses and their use so that to help me in my decision. I read that many people may have only one lens and this would be 18-200 or 24-120 but that’s not the solution as their pros and cons are not mentioned.
Thanks & regards
ps. I’d appreciate it if you had also the time to make a review/comparison between these two.
Hi.
Great website and forum. Very informative and well done.
Quick question to anyone here. I have D700 and my main all-around lens is an the older Nikon 3.5/4.5G ED, AF-S, 24-85mm. Not a bad lens, but wondering if an upgrade to the 24-120mm would be worth it for the extra length and VR, nano coating, etc, and maybe even sharpness.
I also have the Nikon f2.8 105mm Macro (great lens), and an older Nikon 70-300mm 4/5.6 ED , not AF-S which is OK but not fantastic without VR and a bit slow focus.
I was also considering the Nikon 16-35mm F4 as I have no super wide angle, but not sure which should be the first one to get. I know the 16-35mm would not get as much use however.
Thanks.
Any thoughts?
Hi.
I’m a photographer since 1976 and do photography part time. So when l had the Nikon D300, the Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8 was just perfect for me giving me the range of a 36-105mm on DX sensor. But when l switch for the D700, l found the 24-70mm a bit shorter for may needs and the size on my studio. So when this 24-120mm came out, l bought one right away. Since, i sold my 24-70 and never regret it. Since 8 months, l change my D700 for a D3s because l want to work at weddings on ambient light. So at my first wedding, i borrow from a friend the Nikon 35mm f/1.4G because l was afraid to have not enough light to work with my 24-120mm at wide open. l arrived at church 45 minutes before the ceremony to do test… What a surprise !!! With my D3s set between 3600 and 5000 iso, l’m able to do all the shoot during the ceremony with sharp picture and low noise. And in studio l love the range from 70 to 120mm that give me tho lens. Now l want a second body and the D800 will be perfect for studio and l will keep my D3s for wedding in low light.
Jean,
Thanks so much for your comments. I know I would get a lot of use out of that lens. Only because I already have a Nikon 24-85mm is what is making decision difficult. I know it is not the same lens as far as quality ( I don’t think, although the 24-85mm is not too bad considering the $350 cost 9 years ago). I am torn between the 24-120mm and the 16-35mm or some other variation of extreme wide angle. I am just a photo enthusiast for 40 years, and don’t have any lens that can give me the real wide angle that might be fun to have. Maybe I should just get an inexpensive wide-angle (18-35mm Nikon for half the price) as it probably would not be a lens used nearly as much as the 24-120mm.
Thanks.
Hi Ray.
l don’t know witch camera you have but believe me, the 16-35mm f/4 it’s just fabulous just like the 24-120mm . I have this lens too and on wedding, travel photography it is a must ! The VR system is fantastic when l do photography of the tables, cake at wedding reception in very low light. When l got travel and l don’t want to bring with me all my lenses during a day, l just put this 16-35mm and that’s it. So theses 2 lens are just great and give you superb results at full open aperture.
Thanks again jean. You’re making this a hard decision for me! I have a D700, which makes even a bad lens look reasonable I think. Good to know that the 16-35mm is useful for an all day lens.
-regards
hi,
i wanted to know if you suggest me this lens for my new d700…
i had a d200 with a 15/30 sigma that was ok for my needed (as size, not as quality image…),
because i like street p. and reportage style…
i was wondering if should be better the 16/35 f4 for the same reasons,
but i’m worried about the bigger lens aperture…
any suggestions??
Thanx and sorry about my english :-))
P.S.
I know that the 24/120 and the 16/35 are not even comparable for the different angles,
but because of my pictures target (reportage and street) i was wondering if the better “usability” of the 24/120 it’s the best compromise compare to the smaller but more appropriacy of the 16/35…
hope to have been clear…i don’t think so…
Nasim and/or all -
I’m making the jump from DX (D300) to FX (D800E) and need to upgrade my glass.
My specialty is landscapes (I just sold 26 to a client moving into new offices!)
Thanks in large part to Nasim’s analysis, I’m leaning toward the N16-35VRII and the N70-200VRII, perhaps with a TC for wildlife).
Question: will the gap between 35 and 70 cause me pain? I’m sure I could live with a gap of only 15mm….
thanks
jim
Hi,
congrats to the fabulous website and detailed reviews. I am planning to upgrade to FX and looking for a replacement of my 17-55 f2.8. After the review and numerous interesting posts I think the 24-120 is fitting the bill for me. My only main concern is the dust and water sealing. I am perfectly happy with my 17-55 which withstood heavy rain and even some sea water splashes. So, how does the 24-120 compare to the 17-55 in terms of build quality?
Thanks
Chris
Hi,
Are there situations when the lens distortion is not fixable in Lightroom?
ex buildings or other repeating patterns?
thanks!