Nikon 24-120mm f3.5-5.6 D -???????

nyoung

Member

Joined

Dec 10, 2006

Messages

388

Format

Medium Format

• Jan 3, 2007

• #1

Bought one of these five years ago to shoot a wedding reception. It worked fine for that - all flash, indoors, 10-20 foot range, SB-28 on an F5. Since then, I've tried to use it in other applications - b&W landscape, street shooting etc. - and have been generally disappointed with the sharpness. Is there a trick - certain f stop - where it works available light or is it just a dog like the old 43-86?

 

firecracker

Member

Joined

Jan 22, 2005

Messages

1,950

Location

Japan

Format

35mm

• Jan 3, 2007

• #2

nyoung said:

Bought one of these five years ago to shoot a wedding reception. It worked fine for that - all flash, indoors, 10-20 foot range, SB-28 on an F5. Since then, I've tried to use it in other applications - b&W landscape, street shooting etc. - and have been generally disappointed with the sharpness. Is there a trick - certain f stop - where it works available light or is it just a dog like the old 43-86?

Click to expand...

It sounds like a dog. I think that kind of a convenient zoom lens is good at its widest or a mid-range somewhere with the F stops no greater than F5.6. Or if you know what perspective you want, like 24mm or 28mm, get a prime lens just for that.

 

Eric Rose

Member

Joined

Nov 21, 2002

Messages

6,842

Location

T3A5V4

Format

Multi Format

• Jan 3, 2007

• #3

I've got one of these lenses and you could cut yourself it's so sharp. Very impressive zoom.

 

Tom Hicks

Member

Joined

May 28, 2006

Messages

50

Format

35mm

• Jan 3, 2007

• #4

works best at f8 -f16. so so lens.

tom

 

PhotoJim

Member

Joined

Oct 9, 2005

Messages

2,314

Location

Regina, SK, CA

Format

35mm

• Jan 5, 2007

• #5

From all I've read (and what you see here is good evidence supporting it), this is a very variable-quality lens. Some samples are outstanding. Some suck. Some are in between.

I have the 24-85/3.5-4.5 G (AF-S) and am very happy with it, if you're looking for an alternative. It's faster, but has a shorter zoom range.

 

resummerfield

Subscriber

Joined

Jan 28, 2005

Messages

1,467

Location

Alaska

Format

Multi Format

• Jan 5, 2007

• #6

I have the Nikon 24-120mm f3.5-5.6 D, and the 28-200, and they both are soft. Real dogs!

 

tony lockerbie

Member

Joined

Feb 16, 2006

Messages

2,349

Location

Merimbula NSW Australia

Format

Multi Format

• Jan 13, 2007

• #7

Just found this thread so I can tell you my experiences with this lens. I traded my first one for the new Vr version and the first one I received was appaling. I sent it straight back to Nikon and duly received a new one.
This one is fine, just don't use it at full aperture! Needs to be at F8 or smaller for best results, which are really good BTW. Also excellent is the flare control which is outstanding for a lens of this complexity.
Seems to be a case of try before you buy with this lens, Nikon's QC seems to be slipping somewhat.
All said and done, this is the perfect lens for wedding photography. Just keep a good prime for those wide aperture photos.
Tony

 

André E.C.

Member

Joined

Dec 21, 2004

Messages

1,518

Location

Finland

Format

Medium Format

• Jan 13, 2007

• #8

The not so wide and not so long AF 28-105mm D, is a much better optic in every department, the levels of distortion and softness the 24-120 presents are unacceptable IMHO.

Cheers

André