Lens input please: I would appreciate any thoughts on the Nikon, Nikkor AF-S 24-120 1:4 G ED, N VR lens. I found a good condition used one for $379. Is this a sharp lens? I want it for...

bobburk3 Loc: Maryland

I would appreciate any thoughts on the Nikon, Nikkor AF-S 24-120 1:4 G ED, N VR lens. I found a good condition used one for $379. Is this a sharp lens? I want it for a general walking around lens, mainly landscapes and cityscapes.

DaveO Loc: Northeast CT

I enjoy my copy. From walk around to kids basketball games, it's a nice sharp lens. Taking it to Yellowstone next month in lieu of my Tam 24-70 2.8, anther sharp lens.

Sounds like an excellent price.

Orphoto Loc: Oregon

They are coming down in price. Should be available for even less than that...so the first moral is don't feel compelled to make a fast decision. I have been meaning to sell mine for about $250 or so.

Secondly, the answer depends on which body you use it with and how persnickety you are. On bodies up to say 24 MP it works quite well and covers an incredibly convenient range. Once you jump into 36 or 46 MP bodies its weaknesses become more apparent. You will hear from quite a few here who are in love with their copy. Take that with a grain of salt. If you do use a higher resolution body consider the later version of the 24-85. Not quite as convenient a range but a fair amount sharper and smaller.

bobburk3 Loc: Maryland

Orphoto wrote:

They are coming down in price. Should be available... (show quote)

I have the D7200 (24mp) and love it. I'm looking for a sharp lens to go with it.

bobburk3 Loc: Maryland

Orphoto wrote:

They are coming down in price. Should be available... (show quote)

I saw this used lens at Adorama for $239. Used Nikon 24-120mm f/4G ED-IF AF-S NIKKOR VR. They have added the "IF" to the description of the lens but I don't know if the IF designation is common to this lens.

Orphoto Loc: Oregon

The formal name on the front does not say IF, but the less flashy one on the back does.

As you manually turn the focus ring, the lens does not extend...so it is in fact Internal Focus.

User ID

At its used price its a great buy, but far from perfect. However, most of its shortfall will be outside of the image area on an APSC sensor.

OTOH its kinda an oversize load for an APSC outfit. Mine came bundled with a FF camera and it nevvvvuh crosses my mind to put it on my APSC bodies ... just too ridiculous since I do have an 18-105 and a 15-85 for APSC.

larryepage Loc: North Texas area

bobburk3 wrote:

I would appreciate any thoughts on the Nikon, Nikkor AF-S 24-120 1:4 G ED, N VR lens. I found a good condition used one for $379. Is this a sharp lens? I want it for a general walking around lens, mainly landscapes and cityscapes.

I have two of these lenses. One is the default lens for one of my D850s, the other for one of my D500s. It would be completely idiotic for anyone to claim that this lens is the equal of either a 24-70mm f/2.8 zoom or a 17-55mm f/2.8 DX zoom, but it would be equally idiotic for anyone to argue that either of those lenses can match the versatility of the 24-120mm f/4.

A lot of folks claim that 24mm is not wide enough on a DX camera like you are shooting. I've found that mostly not to be a problem. I refuse to be enslaved by the sharpness cult, but I do find the results from the 24-120 a little better with a notch or so of saturation boost, whether in-camera or in post processing.

You have to decide whether this lens will work for you. It offers a ton of flexibility and benefits at some costs in performance which are in reality pretty small.

User ID

larryepage wrote:

I have two of these lenses. One is the default len... (show quote)

Although I agree 101% I would point out that you are waaaaaay too pragmatic and realistic for the denizens of Hawgsterville.

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

User ID wrote:

Although I agree 101% I would point out that you are waaaaaay too pragmatic and realistic for the denizens of Hawgsterville.

bobburk3 Loc: Maryland

larryepage wrote:

I have two of these lenses. One is the default len... (show quote)

Larry, thank you so much for your thoughts on this lens. I wonder if you would mind posting a couple of your shots taken with this lens. I'm looking for sharpness (I understand what you are saying about being a slave to the sharpness cult). I have a Nikkor AF-S 70-200 that I like. Not the sharpest lens but pretty darn good and a little saturation boost does improve the sharpness look as well as a little sharpness boost in Photoshop. So if the 24-120 is as good as the 70-200, I'm ok with that. I shoot a lot of sports with it and it does pretty good. I have attached a couple of shots that I took with the 70-200 lens and the D7200.

(Download)

larryepage Loc: North Texas area

bobburk3 wrote:

Larry, thank you so much for your thoughts on this... (show quote)

The 24-120mm lens is not as sharp as the 70-200. If that is your primary criterion, my suggestion is to consider other alternatives. But the 70-200 sets a pretty high bar for sharpness. You are going to have a lot of trouble matching it with a "low cost" lens. Im away from my computer right now, but will post an example when I can get in pisition to do so.

bobburk3 Loc: Maryland

larryepage wrote:

The 24-120mm lens is not as sharp as the 70-200. If that is your primary criterion, my suggestion is to consider other alternatives. But the 70-200 sets a pretty high bar for sharpness. You are going to have a lot of trouble matching it with a "low cost" lens. Im away from my computer right now, but will post an example when I can get in pisition to do so.

My 70-200 is the f-4 version.

larryepage Loc: North Texas area

bobburk3 wrote:

My 70-200 is the f-4 version.

Understood. I am not specifically familiar with that lens.

Harry13

If I had to go with one lens it would be a 50 whic I would call true normal. My friend, pro Charlie Harbutt used a 50 Leica for everythig and that's how he made a living, lived in NYC, traveled the world etc. Harry