Old Nikkor 24-120 f 3.5-5.6 vs newest Nikkor 24-120
Mar 4, 2017 15:08:45 #
I purchased the old 24-120 when it first came out. Don't remember the year but it was about the same time as the D100. It has been a great go-to lens. But I recently bought a D7100 and I wonder if the newer lens would be more compatible with the D7100. BTW I am still learning the multi-capabilities of the 7100 and haven't used it enough to decide if the various "auto" setting are accurate enough.
Mar 4, 2017 15:12:05 #
If I'm not mistaken, isn't the newer version a constant aperture and the older one a variable?
Mar 4, 2017 17:28:57 #
Mar 4, 2017 19:04:15 #
Don't know about the newer but the older, yes: 3.5-5.6. What is the newer? And is the lens architecture different?
Thanks for getting back
Thanks for getting back
Mar 5, 2017 08:11:09 #
Both are compatible but...."The 24-120mm VR is among Nikon's 10 worst lenses of all time. This is because it's not sharp at the wide end (even stopped down), vignettes at the long end, and it's slow (about f/5 for most of the range).
The new Nikon 24-120mm f/4 VR is a great lens. It is worlds sharper than its predecessor, the fuzzy 24-120mm f/3.5-5.6 AF-S VR (2003-2010). Both these 24-120 AF-S VR lenses are much better ergonomically than their predecessor, the clunky 24-120mm AF-D (1996-2002). All three Nikon 24-120mm lenses are loaded with distortion.
This new Nikon 24-120mm f/4 VR would be a game-changing, earth-shaking do-it-all lens on FX, except that the 28-300mm VR was announced on the same day, and is even more useful, for less money."
The new Nikon 24-120mm f/4 VR is a great lens. It is worlds sharper than its predecessor, the fuzzy 24-120mm f/3.5-5.6 AF-S VR (2003-2010). Both these 24-120 AF-S VR lenses are much better ergonomically than their predecessor, the clunky 24-120mm AF-D (1996-2002). All three Nikon 24-120mm lenses are loaded with distortion.
This new Nikon 24-120mm f/4 VR would be a game-changing, earth-shaking do-it-all lens on FX, except that the 28-300mm VR was announced on the same day, and is even more useful, for less money."
Mar 5, 2017 10:53:28 #
Very helpful. Thank you. But in defense of the old lens I have shot magazine covers with it. Looks like I will be buying the new one, though. The 300 sounds great but I never need that legth.
Mar 5, 2017 11:24:46 #
Mar 5, 2017 11:47:38 #
The 24-120 range is a very useful lens. Although the 3.5 vr model is not sharp on the edges when used with a FX camera, it does a nice job for the price on a DX camera such as your D7100. Obviously the f4 vr model is a greatly improved lens and loved by a lot of people. I still have the 3.5 vr but I don't use it a lot. If you shoot wide and crop off the edges a little, you would probably like the lens. It sell quite cheaply. By the way it was Ken Rockwell who states it is one of the worst Nikon lenses produced, but in other writings he amends his statement to reflect what I just said regarding cropping off or using it on a DX camera. Just my opinion.
Mar 5, 2017 12:01:43 #
I have the first version and the latest version.
The first wasn't very sharp....anywhere.
I use the newest version most of the time.
Amazing value for the price.
The first wasn't very sharp....anywhere.
I use the newest version most of the time.
Amazing value for the price.
Mar 5, 2017 12:23:06 #
Interesting question. I owned one of those older Nikon 24-120 lenses and considered it a poor performer. That said, I had plenty of published photos I shot with that lens as it was very versatile, especially for its time, basically the film days on a F5. Long sold, replaced with the 'holy trinity' and now with a Sigma 24-105/4 ART. My understanding is that the newest Nikon version is pretty good. Best of luck.
Mar 5, 2017 12:38:12 #
rfmaude41
Loc: Lancaster, Texas (DFW area)
Tim Stapp wrote:
If I'm not mistaken, isn't the newer version a constant aperture and the older one a variable?
Yup ! It was also a "staple" long before the D100 came out, its nickname was "the Street Sweeper"
Mar 5, 2017 12:40:27 #
rfmaude41
Loc: Lancaster, Texas (DFW area)
cjc2 wrote:
Interesting question. I owned one of those older Nikon 24-120 lenses and considered it a poor performer. That said, I had plenty of published photos I shot with that lens as it was very versatile, especially for its time, basically the film days on a F5. Long sold, replaced with the 'holy trinity' and now with a Sigma 24-105/4 ART. My understanding is that the newest Nikon version is pretty good. Best of luck.
You must have had a "poor copy". I still have mine and use it with both my film and digital cameras. The resolution and contrast is "top notch".
Mar 5, 2017 12:46:27 #
DavidPine wrote:
I love my 24-120 – it's sharp as a tack.
Which version, there are several?
--
Mar 5, 2017 18:27:18 #
rfmaude41 wrote:
You must have had a "poor copy". I still have mine and use it with both my film and digital cameras. The resolution and contrast is "top notch".
Respectfully, it was a mediocre lens at best and Nikon agreed as they have upgraded it several times to its latest version which is known to be decent. My comparison was based upon other lenses in my kit as it was, and is, a perfectly useable, but not a great, lens. The biggest downside of the newer, better versions is that they are heavier and, as I get older, weight matters more. YMMV.
Mar 6, 2017 00:10:05 #
I don't own the old Nikon 24-120mm, but I do own the new version of it, which is fixed aperture of f4. I use a Nikon D800 and I find the lens to be outstanding. It is usually always on my camera, unless I am going to be shooting something which would require one of the other lens's I own. If you want to read a good review of the newer lens, check out this link.
https://photographylife.com/reviews/nikon-24-120mm-f4g-vr/
https://photographylife.com/reviews/nikon-24-120mm-f4g-vr/
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.