Leon S Loc: Minnesota

I have read almost all the internet writings regarding the Nikon 24-120 vr 3.5-5.6g. I bought it cheep from someone who got it as a kit lens with the d700. Much like what went on with the D600 and the excellent 24-85 vr. Rockwell and a few others said the 24-120 vr was the worst lens Nikon ever produced. I own one now and can not see why they are so critical of it. Obviously its not as sharp as my 28-70 or my wife's 24-70, but it appears to be just fine for dx purposes or slightly cropped fx shots up to 8x10. I would appreciate opinion from other members as to this lens. I love the range, nothing wrong with the speed for outside usage, well constructed, and I can't justify the $1200 for the f4 model. Did I just get a unusually good piece of glass? Please comment.

SharpShooter Loc: NorCal

Leon, I shoot Canon, and have said many times that cheap lenses are very good, especially form Canon and Nikon, as they don't have the focus issues of 3rd party glass.
The consumer glass is NOT as good as the best pro stuff, but it is darn good, especially when used with good light. The differences are mostly seen when trying to resolve tiny details like flowers and leaves at a distance, or vignetting and flare in direct sun. There is very little difference in normal shooting. Of course the build quality is where a lot of the cost difference is.
Have fun with your new lens. ;-)
SS

GoofyNewfie Loc: Kansas City

You must be lucky and got a good one.
I really didn't like my 24-120 (older version)
The idea of it sounded good but it wasn't very sharp and not fast enough for me, as I shoot inside a lot. I didn't think the build quality was very good either. I have heard the new constant-aperture f/4 version is very good.

brucewells Loc: Central Kentucky

You piqued my curiosity, so I went to see what Rockwell had to say. I rather suspect he sums up his view of this lens in one small paragraph he wrote:

"It's sharp enough in the center, but the sides and corners are poor if you look reasonably closely. For most photography this is fine, but it drives me crazy."

So, it's a bit soft around the edges? Most lenses tend to do that to some degree, but it was likely a bad day for Ken and he took it out on this lens. :-) That's my opinion.

The worst lens built today is superior to what was around 20-30 years ago. I'd advise you to enjoy the lens, and the images that come through it, and count yourself lucky that you like it. :-)

Leon S Loc: Minnesota

I know the original 24-120 non vr wasn't that good, and can understand where it left a lot to be desired.

Leon S Loc: Minnesota

That's kind of what I was thinking. The lens for whatever reason has gotten a bad rep without desiring it. But its interesting to see that it seems to have been selling for unusually low prices for what it seems to do. That's why I thought that I may have an unusually sharp copy. Thanks for the post.

rborud Loc: Minnesota

Leon
I too have read all the material about the 24-120mm lenses. Without comment I am including an image of machinery I shot with the old original 24-120 pre VR, on a monopod, and with a nikon D-200.
What do you think of the lens and the comments?
Rborud

rborud Loc: Minnesota

Leon
Sorry I forgot to tell you to look for the fly on one of the pulleys.
Rborud

Kuzano

I tend to disagree on your assessment of Ken Rockwell giving the lens a bad rap.

First, it should be anticipated because of the CaNikon Fanboy expectations that all Nikon lenses would be good or better. The fact is they are not all exceptional lenses and never have been. The odds just favor them because of the numbers sold.

Both canon and nikon have designed, built and dispensed some really loser lenses over the years... I said SOME.

Secondly expectations should be higher for quality control from the OEM maker of the camera than for third party lenses.

Ken, if anything, is blunt and whatever about a camera or lens that he does not like, he throws that information into his reviews. I don't anticipate that Ken receives any money for his views from the camera makers. Ken is a qualified user of both Canon and Nikon, as well as a few others. Again I suspect that is by personal choice of his own equipment.

He was very clear about the fact that the lens is center sharp and fuzzy around the edges, followed by the comment that such a lens really P-ss-s him off. Probably not as technical in information as most like.

He may have been a bit strong on the "worst Nikon lens ever", but it certainly causes one to think before buying.

Your comment that the lens is OK by your standards simply means that your standards or expectations from your equipment is not the same as other people's standards.

Now let me say that is not an indictment of your standards. You are perfectly within your right to have different standards, and not have that be an insult to you.

Me, I prefer to demonstrate my poor standards in choice of friends and girlfriends, wives, etc. I see nothing wrong with the standards we personally choose to work with.

When I go lens shopping, one of the very first reviews I want to see is a "ken rockwell" review. I appreciate his style.

I have avoided some real mistakes per Ken. I will go on to say that I have purchased some of the best lenses, and at very reasonable prices, by Ken's recommendations,

One such is a Nikon G lens in 28-80 f3.3-5.6 G lens (no aperture ring) auto focus. I've used is on Nikon bodies and all of my Fujifilm S2, S3 and S5 pros.

It was sold in massive numbers as a kit lens on most of the N series entry level Nikon bodies, N55, N65, and so on.

There is such a vast inventory on the used market that it is often found in pristine condition for around $50 on ebay and craigslist, and that's usually on the front of the Nikon N film camera, still working.

Here's Kens review on that lens. I've purchased about a dozen of these lenses without problems, and they are better, notwithstanding the G (gelded) designation, and a half stop faster than any of Nikons 18-55 kit zooms... and sharper as well throughout the zoom range. (my opinion):

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/28-80mm-g.htm

Classic Rockwell review. It's a cheap plastic lens with plastic mount, but a super $50 performer. Oh yes, and it's sharp edge to edge, which is the way Ken likes his lenses. Me too.

Anyone want to buy one of all of the N65, or N75 bodies I bought to get these lenses?

Leon S Loc: Minnesota

Great shot: Great Color: I see no vignetting or distortion to speak of. Yes I did notice the fly on the fly wheel. I would also be quite happy with this shot. Hard to believe shots like this are coming from a lens with has been written up so poorly or have you done loads of post processing on it? Thanks for showing me the picture.

Leon S Loc: Minnesota

Thanks for your comments. I'm not trying to criticize Rockwell or judge his opinion, just see if other photographers like the 24-120 vr as an all around outside lens.

Kuzano

My apology.... Ken gets hammered frequently for his style. Can't say I though you were going at him, just sensitive to the phenomena.

DickC Loc: NE Washington state

I agree, a great shot, such vivid color....that lens seems to work okay!