Which is the better value? Nikon 24-120 F4 or the Nikon 24-120 F3.5-5.6 & tell me why (Page 3): As far as VALUE goes, and only value, the 3.5-5.6 is a better value if your not going...

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

SuperflyTNT wrote:

Well these are actually both zooms, both with the same range, one being slightly faster wide open but the f4 being constant aperture. I know nothing about IQ of either, but I’m guessing it would go to the f4. Actually Ken Rockwell calls the 3.5-5.6 one of Nikons 10 worst lenses. I don’t think they even make it any longer. Of course it is the much cheaper option, being about $250 used. Are you shooting FF? If not something in the 18-200 range is a better option.

As far as VALUE goes, and only value, the 3.5-5.6 is a better value if your not going to use it full time. I have seen many on ebay far less than $250.00.

RKL349 Loc: Connecticut

DAN Phillips wrote:

I'm seriously debating between these 2 lens and need some honest info on both of them. I value the opinion of most of the people here, so please help.

F4. Constant maximum aperture through the range.

RKL349 Loc: Connecticut

rjaywallace wrote:

Prime lens vs. a slower zoom lens. If you are still confused, look up the definition of “prime lens” and “faster lens” and compare those two with the definitions of “zoom lens” and “slower lens”.

Ralph, aren’t both of these zoom lenses?

Rab-Eye Loc: Indiana

rjaywallace wrote:

Prime lens vs. a slower zoom lens. If you are still confused, look up the definition of “prime lens” and “faster lens” and compare those two with the definitions of “zoom lens” and “slower lens”.

Neither is a prime lens.

saxman71 Loc: Wenatchee

The verdict is in Dan. Get the f/4. I see two used ones on sale now at KEH in Ex condition for round $550. I own this lens and have used it extensively. I believe it to be a good lens that will deliver excellent images if you do your part right.

Retina Loc: Near Charleston,SC

RKL349 wrote:

F4. Constant maximum aperture through the range.

Does any selected aperture available through the zoom range also stay constant, not just the largest aperture?

GoofyNewfie Loc: Kansas City

Retina wrote:

Does any selected aperture available through the zoom range also stay constant, not just the largest aperture?

Yup.

Retina Loc: Near Charleston,SC

GoofyNewfie wrote:

Yup.

Thanks, I thought so. I asked because of the posts about the max aperture being constant. I don't have any but I see the value for it as I usually shoot manual and recompose with zoom a lot depending on the subject.

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

DAN Phillips wrote:

I'm seriously debating between these 2 lens and need some honest info on both of them. I value the opinion of most of the people here, so please help.

As others say, the f4 constant is the professional level lens and is better in all ways over the other.

therwol Loc: USA

Flickwet wrote:

They were also made in Thailand and I gotta believe the Japanese ones are sharper due to higher construction standards

I don't think that Nikon would tolerate lower construction standards at their facility in Thailand. My Nikon D810 was made there. No issues. Japanese manufacturers have had to deal with a rising cost of manufacturing in Japan, and they're farming out work to other countries as we do. Do you honestly see any increase in quality control issues with branded electronics made in Thailand, or China? I don't. Seagate hard drives are made in Thailand. Apple products and many other computer brands and parts are made in China. It's all about profit, and if companies accepted poorly made products, it would reflect in consumer dissatisfaction and sales. Whether more affluent countries should be doing this is also a political issue, and I'm not going to touch that.

Oh, and everything I've read about the older 24-120 says it's garbage. I use the 24-120 f/4 on my D810. It's sharp and quite versatile, but I don't find it to be as sharp as some of my primes.

CWGordon

The f4 has proven sharp for me. I also have the 24-70, which is a bit more sharp. However, size wise the 24-70 is vastly more large and heavy, not to mention the price difference. I hardly ever use the 24-70 because every time I need a walking around lens I opt for the convenience of the f4.0. There is no competition quality-wise between the f4 and the variable aperture lens. Easy choice for me. Get the f4, I say.

jsfphotos Loc: New York, NY

rjaywallace wrote:

Prime lens vs. a slower zoom lens. If you are still confused, look up the definition of “prime lens” and “faster lens” and compare those two with the definitions of “zoom lens” and “slower lens”.

I thought a "prime lens" had a fixed focal length, and a "zoom" does not. Both of these lenses are zoom lenses so not sure why we should look up definition of prime lens. Thanks for clarification.

GoofyNewfie Loc: Kansas City

jsfphotos wrote:

I thought a "prime lens" had a fixed focal length, and a "zoom" does not. Both of these lenses are zoom lenses so not sure why we should look up definition of prime lens. Thanks for clarification.

You are correct.
Prime lenses have a fixed focal length and are not zoom lenses.

twillsol Loc: St. Louis, MO

DAN Phillips wrote:

I'm seriously debating between these 2 lens and need some honest info on both of them. I value the opinion of most of the people here, so please help.

I have the 24 - 120 F4, G lens. Great lens, my favorite walk around lens. Does cost around $1,000.00 but well worth it.

Screamin Scott Loc: Marshfield Wi, Baltimore Md, now Dallas Ga

rjaywallace wrote:

Prime lens vs. a slower zoom lens. If you are still confused, look up the definition of “prime lens” and “faster lens” and compare those two with the definitions of “zoom lens” and “slower lens”.

They are both zoom lenses. One is a fixed aperture and the other is a variable aperture... The fixed aperture is better...