Just how poor is the 24-120 VR?

Here in photo.net, there is an old saying: Don't dress Miss America with a burlap bag: http://photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00QQYa

I wouldn't buy a D700 unless you can put some good optics in front of it. Good optics doesn't have to be expensive, but any super zoom that only goes to f5.6 within 200mm is more geared towards convenience rather than quality. f5.6 by itself is already a very serious limitation for any short lens.

Hi Shun,

Aside from the maximum aperture issue, does the lens leave a lot to be desired from a sharpness point of view? I could live with f5.6 for the sake of convenience. If I'm wandering about a city all day doing travel stuff then convenience is well worth the sacrifice - as long as I can still produce good, sharp images. VR and the D700's good high ISO performance would help balance things out anyway.

If the 24-120 is a bit of a dog, can you recommend a lens for around $800 - £400 - that might be a good alternative. If Nikon made the equivalent of Canon's 24-105 L zoom for the same money, I'd get the D700 in a second. As it is, I'm still considering the Canon 5D.

Having had one. . .then a second. . . Well, I do love Nikon, but this lens is a dud as you say. Poor optics, not sharp, not befitting of a D700. I was very surprised Nikon paired this with the D700 at all. I eventually sent the first copy back, got another to only find the same. Not a good word at all. Here is a review from one of the few I trust with another option for you: http://www.bythom.com/24120ens.htm. You have not mentioned in general your subject matter for your work. That might help in suggesting replacement(s) lenses. Good hunting.

I have been considering selling mine. I don't really notice any problems with softness with it but I rarely use it so I considered letting it go. If you'd like maybe I could shoot a couple photos with it of a test chart and post the results here. I'd have to do it after work so it would be later tonight.

it's a middle-of-the-road lens on a high-end camera, and that give some people heartburn. as you note, it's got a very useful zoom range, especially for FX -- which is why it's bundled with the D700. i personally find my copy is not super-sharp, so i tend not to use it a lot. on the other hand, i know of others on PN who think it's just fine. so there may be some sample variation. overall i wouldn't consider it "crappy" or "a dud," but you have to reconcile yourself to either ponying up for something like a 24-70 f/2.8 or settling for a consumer-grade product. you get what you pay for, as the saying goes.

The mid-range zoom I would get for the D700 is the 24-70mm/f2.8 AF-S, despite the fact that it has serious vignetting at 24mm, f2.8. Nikon currently doesn't have any constant f4 zoom similar to Canon's 24-105mm/f4. As an alternative, I would try the 24-85mm/f3.5-4.5 AF-S G, but that lens is already discontinued. Most of these 24-xx type zooms will have some moderate amount of barrel distortion on the 24mm end.

Personally, I would spend less money on the body and more on lenses. For example, the combo of the D300 and 17-55mm/f2.8 AF-S DX works very well.

David,

In general use, I'd like focal lengths covering approx. 24-135mm. That would be fine for 95% of my stuff. I do a bit of most things ranging from portraits to travel to studio to sports. The sports stuff is more wide angle to modest tele photography so I don't need long lenses with fast apertures. Thom's review of the 24-120 is another that kind of puts me off this lens. The 24-85 seems quite interesting, though.

Nick,

Thanks for offering to photograph the charts but I don't want to put you to any trouble. I think from the reviews I've read and what people seem to say about the 24-120 generally, it's not a great lens. I posted the question here in the hope that some people would step forward and say they find it perfectly good but that hasn't happened.

Would someone shoot me if I run around with a 50mm f1.4 D lens on a D700? :) :) :) Still contemplating on getting a 20mm f2.8 or a 17-35mm lens...

'Would someone shoot me if I run around with a 50mm f1.4 D lens on a D700?'

I would hope not - restricting yourself to one focal length can paradoxically be one of the most liberating things to do photographically and the 50mm f1.4 turns in excellent results.

I owned and used the lens (it was my only lens at the time) a lot on my D70. I really liked it. Mine gave very good results. Even though I used it on a DX camera, I liked the zoom range as I just more recently become a wide angle shooter. It is a perfect zoom range for FX. I happened to be looking through some backup hard drives last week and came across pictures I had taken with it. They looked really good to me. I may have just gotten lucky and had a really good copy, but...

I have read many issues with different lenses in photo.net, then tried the lens out myself and found the negative comments to be different from my own experiences. I am not saying that in general the lens is perfect or great, only that my copy was.

Best bet... be cautious and try it out for yourself before you buy it or at least purchase it at a store that accepts returns. It may perform well for you, and depending or you intended use of it, it may fully satisfy your needs. Or you may hate it.

My guess... with the proper in-camera settings and with reasonable post processing, the results from that lens could be very favorable.

Other than the obvious differences - focal range and image circle - my copy of the 24-120 VR was virtually identical in performance to the 18-70 DX. Same virtues, same flaws. If you like the 18-70 DX you'll like the 24-120 VR. If not, then not.

The demands for optical quality are pretty low for typical microstock photography. Getting a unique or vibrant image that looks good in a small JPEG is no big trick for any lens. You could accomplish pretty much everything you need with the cheapest Nikkors or third party zooms.

Bruce, if you haven't found anyone who'll admit to actually liking the lens you apparently somehow have managed to avoid stumbling across the dozens of identical threads in which I've talked at length about the pros and cons of the 24-120 VR. I suspect it's because naysayers make more noise. So I'm going to try upping my snarkasm level in these threads to see if it makes more noise than the folks who yak about lenses they've never owned or tried. Like Ken Yakwell, always my first source for credible information.

This folder contains full resolution, unedited JPEGs, straight from my D2H, taken with the 24-120 VR:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/27861231@N04/sets/72157606221394348/

Thanks, Lex. I've had a look at your folder and, to be honest, these files don't look any better than I'm getting just now with my Pentax K10D and DA primes - probably not as good, in fact. I'm going to see if I can do some direct comparisons between the K10D and a pal's D700 just in case I end up spending money with no - or marginal at best - benefits.

I admit it -- I like mine and I've got a lot of good glass. For the times it's useful (travel, general) it's better than good. I have had 3 of them and still have two versions.

Conni

If your budget is limited and your primary use for a dSLR is microstock, your money is probably best spent on items that will enhance efficiency. With microstock that's the name of the game. You might be better off first being sure that you have all the computer, storage, data tracking software, fastest ISP, etc., before worrying about a marginally better camera or lens.

FWIW, the 24-120 VR is a decent consumer grade zoom. That's all. I suspect the reason why it's unfairly maligned while the 18-70 DX receives undeserved praise is due to expectations. The 18-70 DX is cheap, nobody expected much from it, so folks were pleasantly surprised when it delivered good performance (I've become a grudging admirer of the lens). The 24-120 VR is relatively expensive for a slowpoke, variable aperture moderate focal range zoom. Expectations from some folks were high because they were expecting superior optical performance. Well, guess what? It's the same as the 18-70 DX. The extra money is for the VR, not for optical superiority. If you don't need the VR, it's not a good value. If you can make use of the VR and need the extra focal length more than you need the wider end, it's a good value.

A friend of mine who may be forgiven for being a Canonite has the comparable IS zoom for her dSLR. We've compared photos. They're virtually the same. Yet Canonites don't seem to suffer from inferiority complexes over their equivalent lens, possibly because the Canon lineup is blessedly free of being "reviewed" by lamebrains like Ken Yakwell.

I'm seeing similar complaints now about the more recent 16-85 VR. Between the 24-120 VR and 16-85 VR some folks grumbled about the 18-200 VR. Perhaps the latest inexplicable variation of this lens from Nikkor will finally satisfy folks.

Nahhh...

I thought Lex's pix with the 24-120 looked sharp.

However, which 24-120 is in discussion here, the VR or the VR2? or, is it the same glass with differenct VR?

There are only two versions of the 24-120mm/f3.5-5.6, and only the 2nd version has VR and AF-S. The first version was an AF-D introduced in the late 1990's prior to any VR lens from Nikon. In other words, there are no VR and VR2 versions.

It indeed all comes down to expectations. If the 24-120 yields similar quality as the 18-70, that is exactly where the problem lies. The 18-70 was a $400 zoom that formed a kit with the then $1000 D70 in 2004, and that is a perfect match. The 24-120 is fine as a consumer zoom for the likes of the N80, etc. What I am against is putting it in front of an expensive D700. If you have $3600, you are much better off spending half of that on a body such as the D300 and the other half on some good lenses instead of 80% of that on the body.

Incidentally, I would never evaluate sharpness based on small JPEGs such as those in Lex's portfolio. Those images may indeed be sharp, but a lot of unsharp ones will also look sharp as small JPEGs.

Lex,

Couldn't agree more about the need to work as efficiently as possible for microstock. Unfortunately, both cameras and lenses have a major say in that. A lot of time can be spent in post-processing to get rid of CA and noise. Choosing an outfit that minimises both of those can cut the workflow quite significantly. In fact, since we end up uploading jpegs, the ideal camera would be one that gives the best quality jpegs straight from the memory card. I'd always work in RAW if I thought I might need to do a lot of post-processing but a jpeg that is relatively untouched after emerging from the camera will be quite competitive quality-wise.

Is the Canon lens your friend has the 24-105? That seems to have a much better reputation than the Nikkor, whether for the reason you've cited or not.

24-120 VR threads make me want to go out and buy one, just to see for myself what all the fuss is about.

I'll be surprised if we don't see some more mid-range zooms in the 24-x or 28-x range as FX becomes more mainstream, perhaps reviving some of the focal length ranges of the discontinued 'film' lenses that nobody was buying when DX was the only digital option. The big f/2.8 zooms, with their limited zoom ranges and heavy designs, aren't the best solution for all situations, even on an expensive camera like the D700. It doesn't matter how sharp and fast the 24-70 is if you miss the shot while changing lenses because you need something a bit longer, and at the wide end there are situations where the (only 2/3 stop slower at 24mm) 24-120's VR might well do better than the non-stabilised pro zoom. So I'd say it's perfectly valid to ask how this particular lens behaves on the D700, for those times when its particular features might be put to good use.

I have the older 24-120 non VR nikkor, which I use with my F4, and I've always thought it a great lens. Reading about this crappiness of image issue with the 24-120VR, I was wondering, is the image quality an issue to the VR current lens or does this supposedly apply to the older lens also ? I'm hopeing to go digital soon with a D700, but retaining my trusty 24-120mm, so its an important issue here.

I used the 24-120 VR for years and always thought it was Ok until I switched to digital and got the 18-200 and realized just how soft that lens was.

There have been some recent posts showing excellent examples of 80-400 VR shots, but I don't seem to be able to replicate the clarity, even with the lens being tripod mounted, no VR, f/8 and using the camera's timer.

I've made perfectly sharp film shots & scans with the 80-400 VR, but with digital it eludes me. Seems like the 24-120 VR has a similar effect on people.

I'm not claiming the 24-120 VR is equivalent to a pro quality zoom. The 35-70/2.8 D AF Nikkor beats the pants off it. But it's not a bad or poor lens, which is the only fallacy I'm interested in refuting, due to the tiresome repetition of unsubstantiated interwebs lore.

I have provided full resolution, unedited JPEGs from my D2H and 24-120 VR. Full rez views can be seen by clicking on the appropriate buttons on Flickr. Warts and all. It's obviously not a great lens, but neither is it a poor lens. It is virtually equal to my 18-70 DX, with a few relatively minor differences.*

If you study those JPEGs you'll see good resolution out to the corners and edges, even with handheld shots at near maximum aperture (note the handwritten document on the wall of the staircase in the museum). If you observe the straight lines along the edges of some of those snapshots (and that's all they are, snapshots), you'll see some barrel distortion at 24mm, but nothing that would matter for most non-critical applications a lens like this would be used for. You'll see some minor purplish color fringing and CA in the extreme contrast areas of some shots, but not nearly as bad as with some lenses.

*The differences between the 24-120 VR and 18-70 DX are few:

1. The 18-70 DX is slightly more resistant to ghosting and veiling flare. Neither has serious problems with flare, amazing for complex zooms.

2. The 18-70 DX is slightly contrastier, giving the illusion of greater sharpness. But actual resolution is very slightly inferior to the 24-120 VR. My 18-70 DX JPEGs seldom need tweaking. To get maximum "sharpness" from the 24-120 VR I'd shoot NEFs and use very careful, selective tweaking and sharpening.

3. The 24-120 VR is sturdier. The 18-70 DX has that nifty rubbery O-ring seal at the rear.

4. Both suffer from funhouse mirror barrel distortion at the widest focal length. Both straighten up a few mm from the widest setting. Neither suffers from excessive pincushioning.

5. Neither is very sharp wide open, but neither are they bad wide open. Both sharpen up nicely stopped down even a little.

These are consumer grade, walkaround, casual photography lenses. Let's keep things in perspective. If you demand better performance, get a better lens. But grousing about an inexpensive lens not performing up to the standards of a lens costing many times more is ridiculous. So is repeating unsubstantiated interwebs lore. Leave that to TMZ, 4chan, dpreview, Faux Snooze and Ken Yakwell.

And the next person who claims the 24-120 VR is a poor lens had better put up or shut up. Either post some full resolution, unedited JPEGs as I've done or put a sock in it.

BTW, I absolutely agree with Shun and others regarding bundling the 24-120 VR with the D700. That is inexplicably dumb. Not only is it not a good value - Nikon should cut the price of the lens 50% for this particular bundle - but it runs the risk of incurring further unsubstantiated interwebs mythology. People whose first dSLR and lens will be the D700 and 24-120 VR are likely to know nothing about photography and will be among the first to start yelling "mai d700 iz teh suxx0r! iz not as sharp as mai iphone!" (sorry, hafta resort to lolsp33k to get the general tone across).

If Nikon wanted to bundle a lens with the D700 it should be the 50/1.8D AF. It probably costs only a little more to make than a body cap, is much more useful, will deliver sharp photos without fail and may elevate the quality of photography back to 1970s standards. And it wouldn't hurt Nikon's reputation.

Lex - I admire your tenacity on this subject. If I give in to my curiosity about the 24-120 VR and buy one I'll compare images with you first.

That's meant to be a positive response, not a wise-a** reply.

Heh, I'm just practicing my snarkasm approach. The common sense method didn't seem to be working.

If there's a local shop that stocks one just try it out there. You can get a legitimate idea of the lens' performance just from a few handheld photos around the shop. I don't see the point of tripod mounting a camera for photographing newspaper to test this sort of lens. It's all about the VR. Either it's useful to an individual photographer or it ain't. If your hands are steady, a non-VR variable aperture zoom is a better value.

When I bought mine a few years ago I was still recovering from severe back and neck injuries incurred during a nasty car wreck. At the time VR was essential. I couldn't handhold my D2H steadily even in daylight. After physical therapy and time I regained some strength and stability and didn't really need four variable aperture midrange zooms. I sold the 24-120 VR last year to pay for truck repairs, but I'd definitely consider something like the 18-200 VR as an all purpose walk around lens for travel. Heck, even the 24-120 is a good focal range for the DX format, as long as your expectations are reasonable, and it's a perfect focal range for FX, tho' the variable aperture may not appeal to some folks. But it's comparable to some of the most popular midrange variable aperture zooms of the 35mm film era.

Sometimes when I look at my recent 18-70 DX event pix I wish I'd sold the 18-70 DX and kept the 24-120 VR. The VR would still be handy even tho' I'm a bit steadier now. And while the 24mm isn't very wide on a DX dSLR, I'm not shy about getting close for event photos. The problem with the 18-70 DX is that near minimum focus it loses effective focal length and becomes only a 50-55mm lens. I often need the extra reach of the 120mm end.

Thanks to Lex again for a balanced evaluation. I went through 3 copies of this lens from non-VR to 2 copies of VR when one had a malfunction which has since been fixed. To me it was the best general-purpose-walkaround lens in my mostly-film days, until the 18-200 replaced it with a longer reach for digital. I always thought the image quality was decent and I am not sure if the 24-85 is any better in my experience. The 24-70mm is a better lens of course, but now we are jumping to the heavy-metal-higher-price-shorter-focal-length-most-likely-not-for-walkaround category.

Mary

I have the D3, and 14-24, 24-70, and 70-200VR lenses for it. I also have the 24-120VR, which spends more time than the rest on the camera. Why? a) it's good enough for everyday shooting, and b) it's so much lighter. The others come out when criticality is important.

Here is an gallery all shot with D3 and 24-120VR:

http://hemingway.cs.washington.edu/Pre-Walk/

-Bruce

Regarding my Flickr folder of unedited JPEGs, straight from my D2H, taken with the 24-120 VR, I'm adding notes to point out the strengths and weaknesses of the lens. By mousing over the note boxes the text will appear.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/27861231@N04/sets/72157606221394348/

No worries, I won't gloss over the warts. As I've said, the lens ain't perfect. But hopefully this will serve as some evidence in addition to the usual rhetoric.

Does anyone have an opinion they'd care to share about the relative merits of the 24-120 VR and the (defunct) 28-200 G lenses. I have the 28-200, which I use frequently on my N80, and I find it to be one of the best all-purpose lenses I've ever had. Yes, if I want the absolute best, sharpest, fastest then I use my 24mm and 50mm primes, but if I'm just going to be walking around, not sure exactly what I'm going to see, in decent light, not wanting to carry heavy stuff, I'm usually very happy with the 28-200 results. Is the 24-120 VR a step down in image quality from my zoom?

If you're looking for run-around-in-the-city-with-a-camera type convenience, a D90 or D300 with a 17-55 would be better than getting the D700 with a poor lens.

If you can't get the 24-70, there are prior versions of the same topic in the form of the 28-70/2.8 and the 35-70/2.8 which you may want to consider to go with the D700. The 35-70 doesn't have AF-S but the quality of the lens is good and the price on the 2nd hand market is quite low, and supply abundant. It's also much smaller than the 28-70 or the 24-70.

Or you can pick some primes ... the 28/2 manual focus is excellent, the 50/1.8 is fantastic and the long primes also work great with FX. Avoid Nikon's ultrawide primes <24mm, and you should be fine. Ai-S Nikkor and Zeiss ZF manual focus lenses should be considered along with the autofocus ones.

If you're willing to do some testing with some older zooms of which there is not much FX data on, you may test the 24-85/2.8-4 AF-D ED Nikkor and the 28-105/3.5-4.5 AF-D Nikkor, as well as the 35-105/3.5-4.5 AF-D Nikkor (be sure the last one is "D", it's a compact & robust package). These have the advantage that they do not have as wide a range as the 24-120 and hence are likely to be optically a bit better. I have used the 28-105 on 35mm film and found it to be very good for most of the range, with softness at 105mm. These lenses are all relatively small and cheap as the interest waned since the FL ranges were not ideal for DX according to current fashions. I personally have thought about getting the 35-105 D, such a small lens.

Many people seem to suggest that the 24-70 is "the only way" to go when buying an FX body like the D700. This is not true, and there are many options to consider between the f/2.8 and the f/5.6 zooms.

Ilkka, the 24-70 is not "the only way" but is possibly the best way to go.

You get what you pay for.

Think about this.... There is more to "sharpness" than just the optics themselves. A cheaper lens that is stuck at 5.6 at the long end may cause you to use a higher ISO (see lex's flower shot full size @ ISO 800 on a D2x.... nice shot... poor colors, contrast and edge detail)

Contrast that to the shot below. I know it's a canon, but i'm assuming the quality is pretty similar to what you'd get with the Nikon 24-70 2.8. This pic is from a shoot I did to expand my stock library..... sharpness at 2.8 is about as good as it gets. If you can save up for the better glass... it's worth every penny.

Elliot, it may be the best "PJ" standard range lens, but not everything one might shoot is PJ. It gives excellent wide aperture performance at mid-range distances and it's virtually impossible to get it to ghost (thanks to the nano coating). But stopped down to f/8 and/or at infinity it's sharpness is mediocre, and in strong high contrast backlight it flares with the result of low contrast. I first observed these issues in a test among 24-25mm lenses, but subsequently have obtained disappointing sharpness in full-body portraits shot at f/8. I will need to reprint these with higher sharpening than usual, we'll see how it goes.

Time and time again many people desire the newest, the biggest, and the most expensive lens, not realizing that everything is a compromise and all lenses are optimized for certain applications and shooting conditions. I've found the best results from the D3 in many of my applications are obtained by using some of the classic prime lenses from the 80s and 90s, as well as newer manual focus Zeiss lenses. I like the 24-70 a lot, it is perfect for e.g. church wedding ceremony images at f/4 (with remarkable potential for enlargements of crops), but it would not be my first choice for landscapes or architecture at wide angle settings at f/8.

I am not trying to persuade anyone from buying the 24-70 - it is a great lens, one of the greatest. But you need to consider what your applications are and what the lens is designed for. Lens designers at Nikon who designed the 50/1.8, the 28/2, and the 85/1.4 were not dumb. As much as I'd like to change Maxwell's equations, they remain resolute and constant. ;-)

Taken by my 16 year old daughter the first time she ever used a dslr ...... 24-120mm VR mounted on a D50 - no less ...

Ah, Ken, you probably cheated and didn't tell her that it's a bad lens. It's difficult to prevent an enthusiastic young photographer from being successful.

Shhhhhhhhhhhhh - lol - (-; ...

Ilkka, it's a "bad lens", really? Nah, please don't blame the lens. The multiple images provided by Lex and others are decent enough.

As you mentioned, "everything is a compromise and all lenses are optimized for certain applications and shooting conditions", right?

Mary

I used to have this lens on my camera all the time in my film days shooting slides. Here is one using Tungsten film.

Mary

24-120mm VR mounted on a D50 - no less ...

Tut,tut...obviously not been reading the Nikon forum about having the latest and greatest to take proper photos.

Mary, my comment was intended to be a joke. I originally put a smiley after the first sentence but then I thought that would spoil it.

Just to add: I've seen good work done with the 24-120 here and elsewhere, on DX and on FX. I've talked to users of the lens and they thought it was good for the price. I am surprised at the how negatively the coupling of the 24-120 and the D700 as a kit has been received online. I have not used the 24-120 personally so I wouldn't be in a position to say if it is good or bad. I meant my comment on Ken's daughter's photo as a compliment.

Oops! Obviously the joke is on my lapse of humor! LOL!

I do agree, however, that bundling the D700 with the 24-70 lens would probably be perceived as more appropriate, as both are new products, and both belong in the high-end range.

Thomas asked about the 28-200 lens. I remember it became available the same time as the original 24-120, and I was trying to make a choice between the two - about 9-10 years ago, I think, when I was a rookie photographer. I read the reviews then and they were about similar in quality according to what I read. I could have bought either but opted for the 24-120. I paired it up with a 70-300 on an N70 body (remember that one?) and happily gave both a work out at a Mediterranian cruise -- shooting negative film (imagine that?). Those were the simple days and those were the only two lenses I used. This all seems so long ago now -- and so many camera bodies, lenses, and gadgets ago!

Mary

Right, not a bad lens. Just a bad photographer, on my end.

The 24-120 VR was actually sharp enough wide open between 50-120mm that I had to retouch hundreds of wedding photos a few years ago to mask the anxiety blemishes on the young bride and groom. I'm not usually a proponent of using soft focus lenses for that sort of thing, but if I had to do it again I'd have used a more forgiving lens.

I actually have a few worthwhile photos taken with the 24-120 VR, but they're all archived on CD and I'm too lazy to dig through 'em now. Those I posted to Flickr were just the last I happened to still have on my hard drive. Somewhere around here I have extensive comparison photos taken with the 24-120 VR, 18-70 DX and a couple of primes (50/2 AI and 105/2.5 AI, I think), of exciting stuff like brick walls, peeling paint on the side of a house, etc. Naturally the 105/2.5 humiliated the lot. Aside from that, the 24-120 VR and 18-70 DX were very close, with the minor differences I've described before (contrast, flare, etc.).

If I was gonna get another variable aperture VR for my D2H I'd probably go for the 18-200 just for the sake of convenience, not due to any test results I've seen on photozone.de or elsewhere.

Another difference I'm seeing is that the D2H is a bit dated. It's image quality beyond 400 really doesn't compare with even the D50. It's fine for my purposes but I've seen better sample photos from the 24-120 VR on other people's dSLRs.

I wanted to like & purchase the 24-120. But after testing a few different ones (VR & non VR models) against the Tamron SP 24-135, it was obvious that the Tamron was considerably better.

Russ

Sincere thanks, everyone, for the input. Having read it all and weighed everything up, I think I'll probably get the D700 with the AF 50mm f1.4 and add 20mm, 28 and 105 AI/S primes. I haven't done any manual focusing since my Mamiya Press days so that will be a laugh!

You can probably soon get a split image screen for the D700 from brightscreen.com. At least they make them for the D3.

I have the previous non-VR version of this lens and have always found it to be excellent on both film and digital Nikons.

Since nobody has mentioned that in this thread, these are links to Bjorn Rorslett and Thom Hogan's reviews:

Hogan's conclusion: "For some, this lens will be adequate, but it's not a pro caliber lens." http://www.bythom.com/24120ens.htm

Rorslett tested it on the D1X and D1H, not the D700, though: http://www.naturfotograf.com/lens_zoom_01.html#AF24-120

I can't argue with Bjorn's observations. Almost identical to my own, tho' I never experienced any problems with ghosting flare.

To 'Sanford' , I totally agree that the previous non VR has been an excellent lens. Nobody has has yet given an answer to my question as to whether the older 24-120 has the same 'softness' problem as the later VR version, or are they completely different optical design and hence different optical performance. By what standard are we gaugeing softness ? By looking at a 6x4 print, an A3 size enlargement, how are you coming to this softness conclusion ? I find it incredible that a company such as Nikon, famed for the excellence of its optics, would put a lens on the market if it was really that bad.

The demands for optical quality are pretty low for typical microstock photography.

This is complete nonsense. If you have images to submit to microstock agencies they will be examined at 100%. They will be promptly rejected for excess noise, softness (that's not intentional), CA...even a tiny bit, artifacting from compression, poor lighting, excess distortion, blocked-up shadows, blown-out highlights...and we haven't even gotten to the reasons for compositional rejection.

But the "microstock" conversation is for another thread.

So, as far as the 24-120 VR lens goes, you'll most likely harvest a few images that work and a few that don't.

Russ, I am glad you mentioned the Tamron 24-135. Some reviews rated it as superior to the Nikkor 24-120 less the VR -- think "more contrasty" was mentioned, whatever that means. If so, it's definitely an excellent value for the focal range. I did go through two of these lenses as well. The first I took to White Sands NP and unfortunately broke its neck when it fell to the sands while attached to the F100, which did not suffer any damage. I missed it, so I bought one back when I saw an excellent deal at eBay. I am not one to compare every single detail from lens to lens. But I can tell you that it also takes "good" pictures -- according to me. (LOL!|)

Mary

In response to an earlier post that said, "The demands for optical quality are pretty low for typical microstock photography.", Jim Tardio wrote:

"This is complete nonsense. If you have images to submit to microstock agencies they will be examined at 100%. They will be promptly rejected for excess noise, softness (that's not intentional), CA...even a tiny bit, artifacting from compression, poor lighting, excess distortion, blocked-up shadows, blown-out highlights...and we haven't even gotten to the reasons for compositional rejection."

You're bang on here, Jim. I didn't want to respond to the earlier post in case it fell into a discussion about microstock but now that this one has run its course, I can say that I couldn't agree more. The technical standards are also rising all the time. I just assumed that whoever posted about microstock didn't have much experience of it because if he did he'd realise that it is, in fact, quite demanding not just from a technical standpoint but aesthetically as well. It's a great form of photographic discipline because sloppy work will just not hack it.

Jim, Bruce, my remark was directed specifically at optical quality. I said absolutely nothing about sloppy work, noise, artifacting, CA, poor exposure, sloppy editing or anything else. Please don't set up a strawman argument under my name based on a comment you chose to reinterpret.

The 24-120 VR is adequate for many uses, good enough for most web use. Besides the "micro" payment paradigm, many of these photos are used as little more than thumbnails. Many P&S digital cameras can generate good enough photos.

The larger photos appropriate for some images and in demand by some agencies are a different matter. A higher resolution camera, better lens and top notch editing will matter for that work. But not all of it.

Most of the issues you've dragged into the argument have absolutely nothing to do with any lens and are superfluous to this thread. If you're going to pick apart something I wrote, keep in in context.

Well, whatever, Lex. Your remark is still totally wrong. Softness (low-resolution) images that are in focus are an optical "quality" of a lens, as is CA and distortion.

And reading your last post above it's painfully obvious that you know very little about image requirements for stock agencies, especially microstock ones.

But, I agree, these remarks have little to do with the lens in question.

You're the one that introduced your incorrect assertions about microstock to this thread.

If your folks would like to discuss and debate about microstock, which admittedly I know very little about, please start a different thread in an appropriate forum.

My apologies, Shun. Feel free to delete my posts here.

I took this with 24-120 vr w/D200 http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=6835059

Frank, do you have another image in mind? The image in that link shows a date of December, 2004, which was a year before the D200 was available. The details indicates that it was captured with a D70 and a 35-70mm/f2.8 lens in November that year.

Nice image, though.

Jim, maybe this thread will give you an opportunity to set the record straight and help inform someone with a question relevant to stock photography.

Shun, The details are not correct. I took this image, with a d70, outside the camera store right after I bought the 24-120. The building is about 1/2 mile away. I think its the IBM Tower in Atlanta, GA.

PS, Indeed taken with d70 and 24-120 vr, just checked the NEF