How do they compare: I often read Hogs sing the praises of the Nikon 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6 VR lens. I have one. I like it. But I am wondering about the newest version (2010) of the Nikon...

cameraf4 Loc: Delaware

I often read Hogs sing the praises of the Nikon 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6 VR lens. I have one. I like it. But I am wondering about the newest version (2010) of the Nikon 24-120mm f/4 VR G. Would any Hogs have experience with it (or preferably, both) and like to pass on your opinion?

PixelStan77 Loc: Vermont/Chicago

cameraf4 wrote:

I often read Hogs sing the praises of the Nikon 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6 VR lens. I have one. I like it. But I am wondering about the newest version (2010) of the Nikon 24-120mm f/4 VR G. Would any Hogs have experience with it (or preferably, both) and like to pass on your opinion?

You are comparing Apples and Oranges because of the 120 vs 300mm and a consistent F4. Stick with what you got. Want a full technical comparison?

https://nikonrumors.com/2010/10/24/nikon-24-120mm-f4g-ed-vr-vs-nikon-28-300mm-f3-5-5-6-ed-vr.aspx/

and bottom line...what you have is better

cameraf4 Loc: Delaware

PixelStan77 wrote:

You are comparing Apples and Oranges because of the 120 vs 300mm and a consistent F4. Stick with what you got. Want a full technical comparison?

https://nikonrumors.com/2010/10/24/nikon-24-120mm-f4g-ed-vr-vs-nikon-28-300mm-f3-5-5-6-ed-vr.aspx/

and bottom line...what you have is better

Thanks, Stan. Actually, I hang-out much more often at the Wide end than I do at Tele. I was thinking that the 24mm would serve me better on a European River Cruise. I've read the reviews. They say that both lenses are equally sharp. Just wondering if anyone has experience with both.

CO

I rented the Nikon 24-120mm f/4 lens for a week. What I didn't like are the high levels of barrel distortion at wide settings and pincushion distortion at long focal lengths.

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

cameraf4 wrote:

I often read Hogs sing the praises of the Nikon 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6 VR lens. I have one. I like it. But I am wondering about the newest version (2010) of the Nikon 24-120mm f/4 VR G. Would any Hogs have experience with it (or preferably, both) and like to pass on your opinion?

Throughout the similar focal length range, the 24-120 is slightly better. I really don't care for the 28-300, especially beyond 150mm - it is too soft and the edge and corner sharpness is non-existent. The edges and corners never exceed fair, regardless of focal length, in my opinion. I've tried three different copies, and each was similarly awful. But if you are happy, who am I to tell you you shouldn't be. Just sayin'

Dan Mc Loc: NM

I am a big fan of the Tamron 18>270....that covers all bases for a river cruise.

The Villages Loc: The Villages, Florida

cameraf4 wrote:

I often read Hogs sing the praises of the Nikon 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6 VR lens. I have one. I like it. But I am wondering about the newest version (2010) of the Nikon 24-120mm f/4 VR G. Would any Hogs have experience with it (or preferably, both) and like to pass on your opinion?

Might want to review the attached which I posted in March http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/user-topic-list?usernum=35211

DavidPine Loc: Fredericksburg, TX

I think the 24-120 is an outstanding walking around lens.

cameraf4 Loc: Delaware

CO wrote:

I rented the Nikon 24-120mm f/4 lens for a week. What I didn't like are the high levels of barrel distortion at wide settings and pincushion distortion at long focal lengths.

Thank-you for your comment, CO. I appreciate it. I had thought that the "Auto Distortion Control" in Photo Shooting Menu would tame that problem. In Rockwell's review, he mentioned that the lens is "loaded with distortion" but that the camera will "remove it automatically." Sounds like you found that NOT to be the case. Thanks for the "Heads up".

cameraf4 Loc: Delaware

Gene51 wrote:

Throughout the similar focal length range, the 24-120 is slightly better. I really don't care for the 28-300, especially beyond 150mm - it is too soft and the edge and corner sharpness is non-existent. The edges and corners never exceed fair, regardless of focal length, in my opinion. I've tried three different copies, and each was similarly awful. But if you are happy, who am I to tell you you shouldn't be. Just sayin'

Thank-you, Gene. I read a review that echoed your opinion that the 24-120 was slightly sharper in those focal lengths that they share. Thanks for confirming. I thought that I was seeing the same as you re: edge sharpness on the 28-300. I usually just bury the edges in foliage.

cameraf4 Loc: Delaware

Dan Mc wrote:

I am a big fan of the Tamron 18>270....that covers all bases for a river cruise.

Thanks, Dan. But unfortunately, your Tamron is designed for APS-C size (crop) sensor cameras and I use Full Frame/35mm size. But I agree, if I could find a sharp, FX lens in those focal lengths, I'd buy it.

cameraf4 Loc: Delaware

The Villages wrote:

Might want to review the attached which I posted in March http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/user-topic-list?usernum=35211

Thank-you very much, "Village person." I read all the threads with great interest. BTW, did you choose one over the other? What was your deciding factor?

cameraf4 Loc: Delaware

DavidPine wrote:

I think the 24-120 is an outstanding walking around lens.

Thank-you, David. I'll be "walking around" some narrow, old European streets soon and I think it might do me well.

Lagoonguy Loc: New Smyrna Beach, FL

I do a good bit of foreign travel and I find that the 24-105 or 24-120 lenses are ideal for most of what I shoot. However, the river cruise is a good fit for your 28-300 because you may like the shots you can get of castles and other vistas that the 24-120 can’t reach. On the other hand I find that the 28mm is a little narrow for those village and interior shots you will come across. Always compromises but you could take both. Put the extra one in the cabin safe and enjoy. I do find the IQ much better with a 24-105. Good luck and enjoy your trip.

cameraf4 Loc: Delaware

Lagoonguy wrote:

I do a good bit of foreign travel and I find that ... (show quote)

Thanks, Lagoonguy. First, which 24-105mm are you using. One of my favorite lenses for many years is my Nikkor 28-105mm, but I have often wished that it went down to 24mm. Sounds like you may be a Canon guy (not that there's anything wrong with that).
My "go to" lens for some time is/has been my 28-200mm. It is shorter and lighter than my 28-105 and sharp-as-hell. But while in Europe a couple years back, I found the 28mm just a tad confining. Now, a 24-200mm would be practically perfect. But as you say, "Compromises!"