Lens input please (Page 2): Your friend is NOT a role model for most working photographers. I am a good role model and used mostly 28, 105, and 300 when using small cameras. When NOT...

User ID

Harry13 wrote:

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

Your friend is NOT a role model for most working photographers. I am a good role model and used mostly 28, 105, and 300 when using small cameras.

When NOT making $$ only *then* do I operate similarly to your friend.

kcooke Loc: Alabama

It is a good lens. My wife keeps hers on her D7200 90% of the time

kcooke Loc: Alabama

While the 24-120 is a bargain now it was not low cost when purchased new. It was close to $1100. Not chump change

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.

billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont

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 used that lens for years on my D500, D850, D4s, and D5. It is a great lens, a little heavy. In the right hands it produces sharp images and I like the range from semi wide to medium telephoto.
My carry around lens was a Nikon 18-200 on my D500, a little lighter walk around lens.
Nikon currently produces a Z version of that lens because of it's popularity.
Good luck and keep on shooting until the end.

RKL349 Loc: Connecticut

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.

It was attached to my D750 most of the time for general shooting and I was very satisfied with the results. Now that I am shooting Nikon Z cameras, I acquired the Z version of that lens for my Z6II.

mrozzoo Loc: Illinois

I have owned the Nikon 24-120 f4 lens F mount and loved it.... I used it on a Nikon D850.... my friend bugged the heck out of me to sell it to him.. I did... felt bad after not having it then. I did replace it with a 24-85mm f 3.5-4.5 which is lighter and lived on my D500's and D850's...

Then it happened...NEVER THOUGHT IT WOULD... I went Mirrorless.... my first lens was the 24-120 f4 Z lens.
GREAT LENS..... did I say GREAT LENS. The Z8 and 24-120 Z... made in heaven for me.

I do recall owning the 2 eariler 24-120 f mount 5.6 versions (SUCKED)... do not purchase them in my opinion

just another story from an old shooter....

larryepage Loc: North Texas area

kcooke wrote:

While the 24-120 is a bargain now it was not low cost when purchased new. It was close to $1100. Not chump change

I am aware. But the 70-200 f/2.8, which I presumed was the one referenced by the OP before he clarified, has typically been between $2400 and $2800. That's a huge difference.

leftj Loc: Texas

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 that lens in mint condition which I bought earlier this year. I shoot it on my DSLRs and my Z6. I paid $360 for mine and memory serves me I bought it from a hogger. It is a beautiful Pro level lens and renders beautiful images.

whatdat Loc: Del Valle, Tx.

Can’t give any input on that lens. I do use an 18-140 Nikon lens on a dx camera and find it a very useful walk-around lens with good results. Just my thoughts.

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

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 am not a Nikon person and cannot comment on the 24-120 except to say it is a bit long for APSC.

If you are not married to Nikon, like most here on UHH, the Sigma 17-70 2.8-4 Contemporary is a great lens on APSC - LOTS of used in Nikon mount. I have it, use it ( Canon mount) and I am persnickety.
.

photoman43

larryepage wrote:

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

When I bought my Z9, I got the 24-120 f 4 S lens. Why? Less money than a f2.8 and more versatile and not as heavy. The same logic works for you in buying a used F mount version. It all depends on how and where you will use it. If outside in sun light, just stop it down to f 8 and 99% of your images will be just fine. I have purchased many used Nikon lenses and they all have served me well.

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

Look for online reviews and comparisons.

https://www.google.com/search?q=Nikkor+AF-S+24-120+1%3A4+G+ED%2C+N+VR+review&oq=Nikkor+AF-S+24-120+1%3A4+G+ED%2C+N+VR+review&aqs=edge..69i57j69i64.7956j0j4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

yorkiebyte Loc: Scottsdale, AZ/Bandon by the Sea, OR

User ID wrote:

Your friend is NOT a role model for most working photographers. I am a good role model and used mostly 28, 105, and 300 when using small cameras.

When NOT making $$ only *then* do I operate similarly to your friend.

Wait...... What?? ....you use a Prime lens in a personal capacity?! Oh, My!! That's against the Zoom Haven here!

Harry13

User ID wrote:

Your friend is NOT a role model for most working photographers. I am a good role model and used mostly 28, 105, and 300 when using small cameras.

When NOT making $$ only *then* do I operate similarly to your friend.

I didn't say he was a role modal; I said that he made a good living. He did a lot of contract work, traveled all over the damn world. I once canoed him down the Hudson so he could do some contract work on industrial spillage. Apart from that, he was a great guy; a pleasure to be with. And since you btought yourself into the conversation, I suspect he was better with one lens than you are with however many you think you need. Ever heard of GAS? Typican amateur, gotta have a different lens for every shoot. Iwas that way 25 years ago, then I grew up.

yorkiebyte Loc: Scottsdale, AZ/Bandon by the Sea, OR

Harry13 wrote:

I didn't say he was a role modal; I said that he m... (show quote)