Boone Loc: Groundhog Town USA

If you have and use this lens I would like to hear your opinions on:

1) Do you like this lens? (Image quality, etc..etc..)
2) How is it for "Portrait Images"?
3) Have you ever used "Extension Tubes" with this lens?
4) What do you know about the "Renewed Version" of this lens?

I so thank you in advance for any information "YOU KNOW"!

Thanks,
Boone.

GoofyNewfie Loc: Kansas City

I have the latest model of it.
Much better than the first, which I found to be pretty bad.
Also have the 24-70, but the 24-120 is used more.
I shoot a lot of events (or did before covid) and found the range so much more useful.
The 24-70 is a bit sharper and contrasty and I use it when sharpness is critical, but it's heavier.
I usually use my 70-200 or 85mm for portraits.
The bokeh on both of those is better.
Never used the lens with extension tubes.

Orphoto Loc: Oregon

Likeable range, good for travel, somewhat large and heavy, satisfactory but not great IQ on higher resolution bodies, reasonably quick.

Unsure what renewed is. If you mean refurbished, that is a process not unique to this model.

larryepage Loc: North Texas area

I have the second iteration of this lens, which I bought used at my local camera store for $425 (I then had to find my own lens hood).
1) I like this lens quite a lot. Originally bought as a smaller, lighter alternative to the 24-70mm f/2.8 on my D850, now used mostly on a D500.
2) I find it OK for the very limited portraits that I do. I do not care about bokeh, which I consider to be simply a current fad.
3) I have not used extension tubes with this lens, but do not see why they would be any worse with it than with any other good lens.
4) I have no basis for comparison with the original version of the lens. There are a number of "first generation" lenses which have poor reputations.

There are a lot of folks who warn that using anything but the most premium lenses on high pixel count cameras will lead immediately to the apocalypse. I have found this position to be garbage. Any lens used on those cameras will yield better results than when those lenses are used on lower pixel count cameras. There are also those who caution that the 24-120mm f/4 is full of terrible distortion. I do not find that to be the case. I find that the lens delivers perfectly acceptable results except that it does not seem to transmit as much color intensity. Bumping saturation up by one notch in Picture Control fixes that painlessly. Also...I do not find it to be a "large and heavy" lens. It is significantly shorter, lighter, and more agile than the 24-70mm f/2.8, even the non-VR version.

For portraiture, my preference for more than 35 years has been 85mm for what little bit I do. Longer focal lengths render faces too flat and uninteresting, in my opinion. A Nikkor 85mm f/1.4 AF-D serves me much better for that purpose. In my mind, almost any zoom is more bulky and heavy than what I want to be dealing with when taking portraits...it's not something that I really enjoy in the first place.

One comment about the extension tubes...because you lose some exposure when you put extension tubes behind a lens, it may be better to have a faster lens, depending on what you are doing.

ecurb Loc: Metro Chicago Area

I shoot a 24-120 and think it's a fine general purpose lens. It's in my grab/go bag along with a 20mm and a 70-300.
As my macro work is all copy stand work, I do not use the 24-120 with extension tubes, I use a 50mm with tubes and/or closeup filters.
Factory refurbished equipment is an excellent buy.

lerrad Loc: Marietta, GA /Suches, GA

My 24-120 (3.5-5.6?) On an old D-90 has served me well and has taken some of my favorite pics.
(Fuji velvia slide)

Thomas902 Loc: Washington DC

Boone I have and shoot the first iteration of this lens the Vintage (circa 1996) AF 24-120mm f/3.5-5.6D Nikkor on my Nikon D700. Love this stellar 25 year old optic, excellent build quality and well controlled distortion. Got lucky and found "old stock" still in it's box with warranty card at a local camera shop. Paid $125 for literally a brand new lens! It does a decent job for portraiture (see below) and editorial fashion.

As for extension tubes? That lens is really too heavy for the third party tubes and Nikon doesn't support AF with it's more robust PK-11; PK-12; and PK-13 and the lens your asking about doesn't have an aperture ring so Nikon's tubes aren't really an option. Kenko's tubes will work albeit they are really not designed to handle the weight of this lens in my humble estimation. While I actually can use my vintage AF 24-120mm f/3.5-5.6D Nikkor with the PK-11; PK-12; and PK-13 Nikon tubes I have much more appropriate glass a.k.a. the AF 105mm f/2.8D micro which you can find used in good condition for couple hundred dollars. I have and use that 105mm micro... it's a winner.

Best advice Boone? Check out the Flickr Group for the Nikon AF-S FX NIKKOR 24-120mm f/4G ED
https://www.flickr.com/groups/1473165@N20/ You'll likely find a wealth of qualitative information there along with epic imagery captured with the lens you're interested in...

Below is a sample portrait image taken with the Vintage AF 24-120mm f/3.5-5.6D Nikkor on a D700.
Also one of the actual piece of kit...
Hope this helps Boone... All the best on your journey...
.

AF 24-120mm f/3.5-5.6D Nikkor on a Nikon D700 in HSS (1/400) f/5.3; ISO: 400; FL 78mm illumination with a Nikon SB700 (bounced)

(Download)

AF 24-120mm f/3.5-5.6D Nikkor on a Nikon D700

(Download)

Boone Loc: Groundhog Town USA

Thank you for your informative answer. Much appreciated indeed. I am a portrait photographer of many years, and your thoughts and time is really well taken, and "I thank you"!!!

Much appreciated indeed!

Thanks,
Boone.

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

1. Yes
2. Yes, it can be used for portraits, at f4 in blurs the background.
3. No
4. I have the newest version of this lens, much better than the older version. Buy the latest version.

Manglesphoto Loc: 70 miles south of St.Louis

I have been using the 24-120f4 for years, and have no plans to change to something else.
Take a look at my web page www.pbase.com/manglesphoto most of the images were taken with a 24-120 and 24-120 f4 lens.

yssirk123 Loc: New Jersey

I've shot both the much maligned 24-120 f3.5-5.6 as well as the improved f4 version of these versatile lenses, and found both able to produce excellent results. Here's a sample image using the older lens from my wedding days.

(Download)

dugeeeeeee

Love it. It was the “kit” lens that came with my D810. I have lots of lenses 80-200 2.8, 35-70 2.8, 80 1.8, 35 2.0 etc all that said to say I use this lens more than any other. I think it has adequate Bokeh for subject to background separation. Never tried tubes with it. If it’s Nikon refurbished I’d think it’s a good as new.

n4jee Loc: New Bern, NC

For years, from my F5 through all my digital bodies, I used a 35-70 F2.8 as a normal lens. Last year I changed to a 24-120 F4. While I hated to give up a stop, the extra zoom range makes up for it. I don't own extension tubes, so can't comment there. I'm happy with the lens.

pendennis

The newer 24-120 f/4 is my walk-around lens. It has most of the range I need for general photography. I can't speak to the older 24-120, but this one is sharp at the corners, and has always produced good results. I have my own "triumvirate" of f/4's - 16-35, 24-120, and 70-200. Yes, some overlap, but they're great for my needs.

ColoPete

I use the Nikon 24-120 f4 on my D850 most of the time that I am not using a telephoto. It is very versatile for travel, etc., and plenty sharp for my needs, including occasional portraits but have never used it with extension tubes. I am pretty sure I bought mine refurbished from Nikon and it works perfectly.