frjeff Loc: Mid-Michigan

First, I am an amateur. I shoot for pleasure and have never sold a photo.
I am shooting with my first FX Body, the Nikon D700. I use ON1 exclusively for post and I shoot RAW + Fine JPG (for quick online posts).

Just pulled the trigger on a very clean used copy of the subject lens. I read extensive reviews on the lens and am aware of the distortion and vignetting issues some mentioned. However, for my purposes, I believe that those issues will be pretty well be addressed by the lens correction in post.

So, in addition, what other tips and tricks can fellow UHH users of this lens share with me? My gratitude.

photostephen

I use this lens, the Nikkor AF-s 24-120 f/4 VR lens as my main lens on my FX cameras.
I have zero problems with vignetting. Any distortion (very minor) is handled by Lightroom.

I absolutely LOVE this lens. Very sharp, very versatile.

Use it and i hope you love it as much as I do.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

Probably all the ideas in the first link below are applicable. Personally, I'd find online reviews that discuss where the lens is sharpest, where typically the widest aperture on a zoom usually isn't the sharpest. And definitely, the smallest apertures just make matters worse. Use your own test shots to confirm ideas you find from reviews. Also, given the pixel resolution limits of your D700, use that zoom focal length, along with your feet, to assure you fill the frame with your subject.

How to obtain sharp images in digital photography

If you really want success, give up on RAW+JPEG and begin to shoot your RAW for processing, especially ETTR - Exposing to the Right. Another way to maximize a relic of the DSLRosaur age of photography is ETTR, so your RAW images are packed full of detail in the shadows and the ISO amplification is minimized with wide(r) apertures and slow(er) shutterspeeds via the lens VR support. Then, edit your RAW to the proper exposure of the desired composition.

ETTR in Practice

ETTR in Practice II

Bridges Loc: Memphis, Charleston SC, now Nazareth PA

I have used the D700 and find it to be one of the better cameras for noise. The low noise comes from the receptors on the sensor being large and well spaced compared to a sensor containing smaller more tightly spaced ones. So, don't be afraid to push the ISO up to 2500 if needed to get your shot. I have even gone to 3200 with that camera with good results.

pendennis

I always avoided using that lens wide open. My "go to" f/stop was around f/11, and I avoided some of the "pitfalls" you mentioned. However, I also had problems with pincushion and barrel distortion, but I could always correct in post-editing.

My main complaint was that it was a bit "broad" in it's reach; i.e. too much focal length range. I thought Nikon engaged in "overreach" on the 24-120. Eventually, I figured that I was spending added time in post-editing straightening out lines, when there were other tasks on which I could concentrate. The color rendition seemed fine, though.

I eventually traded it for a 24-70 f/2.8E ED. At the same time, I shed the 70-200 f/4 in favor of the 70-200 f/2.8G ED VR II, but I've kept the 16-35G f/4 as my "triumvirate" of Nikkors for my kit. Looking at a 17-35 f/2.8, though.

Earnest Botello Loc: Hockley, Texas

My 24-120 3.5-5.6 g VR is my walk around and favorite lens. I use it on all my cameras, D750, D600 and D500.

larryepage Loc: North Texas area

I've been doing photography for a long time...digital photography for about 17 years. I was mostly a loner until joining this forum about 5 years ago and a local photography club a little after that. The main thing I've learned since joining the groups is that groups of photographers in general have a lot more opinions than they have knowledge. There's really nothing wrong with that as long as you recognize it and take what you read and hear appropriately. And to those who will feel compelled to ask, yes, this applies to what I say and write as well.

As an example, there has already been a response here from one member singing the praises of a lens that I own and have found to be a really stinky lens when used on a full frame camera (yes, it's a full frame lens). But I have found it to perform wonderfully on a crop frame camera, so I've kept it and use it in that manner.

I have and love the 24-120mm f/4G lens. There was a time, though, when I had been conditioned to think ill of it, But when I was shopping for a sometimes alternative to my 17-55mm f/2.8 DX, I felt that the 16-80G f/2.8-4 was just too average and too expensive, despite the fact that it has a pretty strong following here and elsewhere. The sales person showed me the 24-120 (which is the full frame "equivalent" of that lens). It was a very nice used lens priced at $425, and turned out to be just what I was looking for. It is now an important lens for both my DX and FX cameras. There is no question that it is not the same caliber lens as either the 24-70 or the 17-55 (even though it does have a gold ring), but it is much better than many other lenses that lots of people love.

I'm not addicted to VR in lenses in this focal length range, but have to admit that it is very effective and very nice to have. It more than compensates for the maximum aperture being f/4 instead of f/2.8. By the way...I've never seen any ill effects from using wide apertures. I shoot robotics practices and matches with this lens in classrooms and gyms without any ill effects. The team has used my images in their promotional materials, and the school has used them in their yearbooks.

I have never had any issue with either distortion or vignetting in any situation on any camera. Distortion control firmware allows the camera to make immediate JPEG corrections, and LightRoom (which I realize is not what you use) can fix both raw vignetting and distortion with one click. I have used it to make panoramas which stitch together with no problems at all.

One thing I did notice immediately when I started using this lens is that it did not seem to transmit quite as much color as either the 24-70mm full frame or 17-55mm DX lenses. So I made additional Picture Controls in both my D500 and D850 with Saturation bumped up one notch for when I am using this lens. That change has improved my JPEGs and gives me a better starting point in LightRoom for raw editing. I know that process works differently in your D700, so you'll have to figure it out if that turns out to be something that you want to do.

My lens did not come with a lens hood. The correct one is the HB-53. I ordered a new one from B&H for $25 or 30. While it is a pretty modest hood (not particularly deep), I find that it makes a difference and would suggest ordering one if you didn't get one with your lens.

frjeff Loc: Mid-Michigan

Thank you.

frjeff Loc: Mid-Michigan

Agreed!

therwol Loc: USA

I have the 24-120 VR and have used it on my D810 and D850, both of which are unforgiving when it comes to lens sharpness, or lack of it. I go back and forth between an old 28-105 AF D and this lens. The older lens is sharper, especially below 85mm, and it's easy to see the difference if pixel peeping or heavily cropping a picture. On the other hand, the VR of the newer lens trumps that in challenging light conditions. These are my direct observations and based on personal experience. I think that the D700 would be more forgiving of any lens deficiencies, and you'll probably be satisfied with the 24-120 on your camera. It's not a bad lens. It's just that there are better.

User ID

Likewise, no tips ir tricks required. Enjoy !

frjeff Loc: Mid-Michigan

Thanks. Will do.

alandg46 Loc: Boerne, Texas

I bought a 24-120 f/4 when I bought a D800 some 6 years ago. In fact, I also bought a 16-35 f/4 and a 70-200 f/4. I bought the camera and the lenses because I needed a full-frame rig. My choice of camera and lenses was influenced by Michael Melford, the National Geographic photographer. When he switched from Canon gear to Nikon that was what he bought. I figured if it was good enough for him it was more than good enough for me. Since I bought this setup, I've taken 15,000+ images with the camera and the 24-120 f/4. I love the combo.

Only one other thing I like the combo best at f/10.

camerapapi Loc: Miami, Fl.

I do not own a 24-120 f4 VR lens but I used a non VR copy of the same focal lengths years back when all reviews of that lens were not favorable. I was very pleased with its performance in spite of the poor reviews.
From what I have read and know the 24-120 is a pretty good all around lens. Like the gentleman that mentioned it before the 28-105 D lens is my go to lens when using my FX camera that happens to be a Nikon D610.This lens is sharp, it has been excellent for portraits and when I carry it I also take with me a prime 24 mm f2.8 AI-S manual focus just in case I need the wider view.

A majority of zooms starting at 24 mm or less have ugly distortions but they are easily fixed in post, many of them in camera if shooting JPEG files. I cannot talk about color rendition with the 24-120 because I have never used the lens. Color rendition with the old 28-105 is superb.
Using the lens at different focal lengths and apertures with different subjects and examining the images should give you a good idea of its performance. That, in my humble opinion, should be better than gathering opinions from other users who could shoot in different ways than you do.

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

[quote=frjeff]First, I am an amateur. I shoot for pleasure and have never sold a photo.
I am shooting with my first FX Body, the Nikon D700. I use ON1 exclusively for post and I shoot RAW + Fine JPG (for quick online posts).

Just pulled the trigger on a very clean used copy of the subject lens. I read extensive reviews on the lens and am aware of the distortion and vignetting issues some mentioned. However, for my purposes, I believe that those issues will be pretty well be addressed by the lens correction in post.

I have used that lens extensively for my trip to Iceland along with my 500 mm 5.6 FL lens. I never have found vignetting an issue, never. To protect your lens I always have the lens hood attached, I do not like to use any filters on my lenses (it's a personal thing) however, I used a CPL filter when I did Iceland because of the beautiful blue skies, again, with the B&W CPL filter(https://expertphotography.com/cpl-filter/) I had NO vignetting.
I like to underexpose my shots by at least a 1/2 stop especially when using a CPL filter.
I like foreground/background shots that I can get at 24mm on landscapes.
And with the zoom I like to zoom in or out to get just what I want in the shot.
Below are examples of the 24-120 from Iceland, you will notice that I like to do foreground/background with this lens.
Good luck and keep on shooting until the end.