catfish252

I know the new 24-120mm f/4 is a very good lens but how is the original VR lens? Is it good at certain focal lengths -- why was it replaced so quickly in the Nikon lineup? Is it a bad buy at $100.00?

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

Ken Rockwell has some interesting reviews on all the 24-120's .......it is a lens, it does work, and does say Nikon on it.

MtnMan Loc: ID

I can't imagine any Nikon lens in good working order with no scratches on the glass to be a "bad buy at $100".

Since it is VR I suspect it also has the focusing motor in the lens?

I don't know specifically with this lens but they also replaced the 18-300 VR after a short time. My wife has the first edition and loves it. I believe that they came up with what they thought was a worthwhile upgrade to the VR and, in that case, lightened the lens a bit. But I also believe that the glass is the same. Something like that may be the case with this the 24-120.

Since it starts at 24 can I presume it is an FX lens? If so at $100 it is a real steal...kinda like my nifty fifty.

oldtigger Loc: Roanoke Virginia-USA

i have the early non-vr. if it broke i would not repair it.
i had the latest vr, it was much better but i found something better.
Nikon says the latest vr is much improved over the early vr.

for only $100 the early vr is a good deal if you aren't ready to drop $800 for something else in that range,

MtnMan Loc: ID

I followed up on the Rockwell source mentioned. Here's the link:

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/24-120mm.htm

As you can see, he is not a raving fan.

I have the 28-300 he recommends and it is a good all around lens. But it cost about ten times what you are looking at. It doesn't produce near the image quality of my 16-35, nifty 50, or even my Sigma 150-500. Since I got the 16-35 I find myself using the 28-300 less and less.

catfish252

I found an article about the lens on the Photography Life website:

http://photographylife.com/category/lens-reviews/page/4

and I quote:

This is an in-depth review of the Nikon 24-120mm f/4G ED VR lens that was released in August of 2010. 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.

I did find a couple of these lenses on ebay for under $200, but I think I will stay away from this lens since I really don't know how to judge/test a used lens properly. If I buy new or refurbished at least I have some assurance of it being corrected. Thanks for the help.

AntonioReyna Loc: Los Angeles, California

I am a Canon guy but there was a period of time that I shot Nikon. I had a Nikon FM2A body and my favorite lens was the 24-120. Loved it. I then used it with my D100, which was my first DSLR and then I went back to Canon. I wish Canon had a lens with that range as I used the 24-105/f.4/L lens and sometimes miss the extra range. So I will throw on, when not in the studio, the tried and trusty 28-135 EF lens, very underrated. But I am off topic and I loved the Nikon 24-120. I assume the new one is every better, and very expensive. $100 is a good price.

cjc2 Loc: Hellertown PA

I had the original version (non vr) for quite a while. In fast I just sold mine! It was a good, but not exceptional lens. I had several photos on the front page of the local newspaper I shot with it. For Newspaper work, it was a nice range to work with. I wouldn't mind a copy of the new f4 version, but I have that range well covered and I use my 24-70 for that work a lo now.

bennetphoto Loc: Knoxville, TN

I have the 24-120 f3.5-5.6G IF ED AF-s VR lens, and am happy with it. It is my workhorse along with my 70-200 VRII. Currently on Amazon, they are listing at $250 - $299 new. For $100, I would grab it in a heartbeat!!!

drmuttillo Loc: NorthEast Florida

I have both the AF 24-120mm d and the AF-S 24-120mm VR and the difference between them is nothing more then weight. I like them both but on a FX body I rely on the older AF, and AF-S on my D300 both work well I have yet to see a AF-S 24-120mm anywhere for $100 so I would be very cautious as to what you are getting. If you are that interested in that lens try KEH they usually have some and those folks you can trust for giving you your monies worth.

catfish252

I'd really like to get the lens but it's over 70 miles away - I believe the guy is on the up and up, but it is a Craigslist ad so I was leery, at any rate I'm off to the Okefenokee Swamp and the Jacksonville area on Friday for 10 days and wouldn't be able to get it until after. It will probably be gone by then anyways, there will be some real good deals to be had with Christmas coming along soon. I'll just wait and see. Thanks everyone for your input.

romanticf16 Loc: Commerce Twp, MI

The original version had sharpness issues. It may be worth $100, but don't expect the same performance as the new f4 version. If you can try it with return options it might be worth the risk? I have the no VR 24-85 3.5-4.5 and it is a sharp lens, but cost more than $100 used at KEH.

drmuttillo Loc: NorthEast Florida

Just bought a AF-S 24-85mm non VR from KEH love it works great was on their sight today they had them from $234, bought mine for under $200 because it did not have the lens hood or caps. Try finding a HB-28 they are like hens teeth none existent, not even from china which I would not buy from anyway. got burned for the last time on that had to file a Ebay refund, not going there again either.