Blur Shadow
Senior Member
The older 24-120mm is significantly inferior.
24 - 120 F4 Opinions ?
- Thread starter Sekundes
- Start date
The older 24-120mm is significantly inferior.
My bad, coz it was a rough test. I noticed a very slight difference, probably 24mm focusing faster by less than 1/4 of a second. But since I don't have precision instruments that review sites possess, after 3 attempts I decided that it was too small a difference, so I concluded as both having the same speed. But it's just a weeny bit of difference between focusing speeds.
Don't bother with that older version.
saberlancer
Senior Member
wah if u noticed 1/4 of a sec faster, you ARE a precision instrument..lol
aiya 1/4 sec is doable one la. Basically we know how to estimate 1 sec (look at a watch and say "1" within the second). So 1/2 second shouldnt be that hard (within the same time interval registered in memory, say "1 2"). And 1/4 sec is also manageable (same thing, say "1 2 3 4" within the same one second interval). But only a handful can say "1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8" within the 1 second time frame. So any smaller than 1/4 sec need precision insturments liao.
oldchaptoday
Member
How desirable you are, 24120f4.
Photogs drool over their T-shirts over you.
The marketing-cum-Design fella in Nikon a real smartie.
Knowing men have this Gadget Collecting Syndrome,
he dangles his wares, a piece at a time.
Basic instinct is to own it,
primarily due to our hunting nature.
Yet, keep rationality within check,
It's only several pieces of glass,
which capture light to mate with the sensor.
It is the kungfu of the man behind the reflex mirror,
who will entertain us with his capture.
So, what is my bottom line?
Saving pennies just to get it.
That is how irrational I have become,
in a matter of minutes.
RIP, my retirement fund.
Fun now vs fund later.
Photogs drool over their T-shirts over you.
The marketing-cum-Design fella in Nikon a real smartie.
Knowing men have this Gadget Collecting Syndrome,
he dangles his wares, a piece at a time.
Basic instinct is to own it,
primarily due to our hunting nature.
Yet, keep rationality within check,
It's only several pieces of glass,
which capture light to mate with the sensor.
It is the kungfu of the man behind the reflex mirror,
who will entertain us with his capture.
So, what is my bottom line?
Saving pennies just to get it.
That is how irrational I have become,
in a matter of minutes.
RIP, my retirement fund.
Fun now vs fund later.
s1221ljc
Senior Member
Wow, first time I come across some poetry dedicated to a lens, a lens which is one of my favourite The "fun now vs fund later" is right, but my motto is enjoy it now, while you can!
This lens is not perfect, none is, including the 24-70. But its a great lens that serve my purpose in landscape, portraits and travels over the years without a single hitch. For a professional who uses the lens everyday & earn a living thru events, weddings etc, the 24-70 is a must. For serious hobbyists, this lens is lovely alternative & if I dare say "better" due to longer reach, VR, cost etc. Frankly, you cant tell the difference from a photo taken by 24-70 or 24-120 in a blind test. And it doesn't suffer the risk of barrel problem that afflict many of the 24-70 As to the 1-stop difference, can just up the ISO by same, wont die.
For the cost of the 24-70, one can get the 24-120 & throw in a prime 85 f1.8G (& 50mm f1.8G), which is a specialized lens that is faster & performs better than the 24-70 in portraiture.... I have the 28-85AFn alongside the 24-120 and had the 24-85, but the 24-120 still have an edge over them, cost & weight aside. All the lens mentioned in this thread (except the old 24-120), are excellent that serve different segment of users, just get the one that suit one's budget & purpose will do.
The "fun now vs fund later" is right, but my motto is enjoy it now, while you can! This lens is not perfect, none is, including the 24-70. But its a great lens that serve my purpose in landscape, portraits and travels over the years without a single hitch. For a professional who uses the lens everyday & earn a living thru events, weddings etc, the 24-70 is a must. For serious hobbyists, this lens is lovely alternative & if I dare say "better" due to longer reach, VR, cost etc. Frankly, you cant tell the difference from a photo taken by 24-70 or 24-120 in a blind test. And it doesn't suffer the risk of barrel problem that afflict many of the 24-70
As to the 1-stop difference, can just up the ISO by same, wont die.For the cost of the 24-70, one can get the 24-120 & throw in a prime 85 f1.8G (& 50mm f1.8G), which is a specialized lens that is faster & performs better than the 24-70 in portraiture.... I have the 28-85AFn alongside the 24-120 and had the 24-85, but the 24-120 still have an edge over them, cost & weight aside. All the lens mentioned in this thread (except the old 24-120), are excellent that serve different segment of users, just get the one that suit one's budget & purpose will do.
Last edited:
blueblood
Member
I am deciding between the 24 - 120 f4 and the 24 - 70 f2.8. The 24-120 f4 has quite a number of mixed reviews, while the main drawback of 24 70 to many is the range and lack of VR. Nassim Mansorov sings to the 24 - 120; while Ken Rockwell thinks that it doesn't deserve the price tag and prefers the 28 - 300, and there is a price swap.
I'm more incline to get the 24 - 70, but would like to try it out at NSC first. Or should I wait for the replacement, since it is already a 6 year old product. It also also has a "Recycle mark 10" which implies the life cycle is 10 years ?
I'm more incline to get the 24 - 70, but would like to try it out at NSC first. Or should I wait for the replacement, since it is already a 6 year old product. It also also has a "Recycle mark 10" which implies the life cycle is 10 years ?
Last edited:
diediealsomustdive
Senior Member
Believe Mr KRW at your own peril. Buy the 28-300 then try the 24-120 you will cry, guaranteed.
When reading KRW reviews bring a big table spoon of salt with you.
Blur Shadow
Senior Member
I consider the Tamron to be superior over the Nikon 24-120mm f/4.
Between the Tamron and Nikon f/2.8 lenses, the Tamron is technically superior with the inclusion of the VC.
My experience with the Tamron is limited, and I never got the chance to perform a side by side comparison, but the Tamron was a good lens when I used it.
Between the Tamron and Nikon f/2.8 lenses, the Tamron is technically superior with the inclusion of the VC.
My experience with the Tamron is limited, and I never got the chance to perform a side by side comparison, but the Tamron was a good lens when I used it.
The 24-120/f4 really so bad?
Anyway, I tested a used tamron 28-300 in a shop just now. The af hunted a little more than I liked at times but at other times it was pretty. Since it was at a shop i didnt feel it was nice to test too much to find out what were the situations where it hunted and where it didn't. Not sure if this should prevent me from buying it. Price-wise was pretty cheap - about the same as a used nikon 24-85 VR which was on sale there too.
Last edited:
blueblood
Member
I don't believe that the 28-300 is better than the 24-120f4. He meant that they are similar in performance, but would rather pay for the cheaper and longer range 28-300. Neither do I believe completely Nassim that 24-120f4 is on par with the 24-70 in terms of the sharpness. Well, shall test it at the NSC.
diediealsomustdive
Senior Member
KRW's "similar performance" is a very broad stroke, mad he found the D40 to be superior to the D3. In one sense it was true, the yardsticks he used were price, size and sync speed. Careful what you read on the Internet.
Whether you trust KRW or NM also would depend on the type of shots he show you on their respective website. If you like wacky colors and over dramatic description then KRW is the man. NM quite obviously thought there were little difference between the 24-70 and 24-120, but how little is to him maybe be too big for say DD123. And the VR factor to NM won the day for him, I believe.
To each him own, but I learned a lesson a few years ago when I believed KRW and made a big blender. So far TH and NM had not let me down as yet.
QSS. Whatever will be, will be.
diediealsomustdive
Senior Member
Oh his yard sticks were "cheaper" and "longer range". His similar in performance is too far for me.
Just got a 24-120/3.5-5.6 today. Tested it out quite a bit and don't see what all the negativity is about especially our dear KR saying its one of the 10 worst Nikon lenses of all time.
The AF was pretty quick even in relative low light (compared to the tamron 28-300 I tested yesterday under brighter lights). I took a pic at 70mm focal length with 1/8 sec shutter speed and the pic was still nice and sharp - great vr
Will be doing more testing over the next few days and hope I don't have to eat my words.
The AF was pretty quick even in relative low light (compared to the tamron 28-300 I tested yesterday under brighter lights). I took a pic at 70mm focal length with 1/8 sec shutter speed and the pic was still nice and sharp - great vr
Will be doing more testing over the next few days and hope I don't have to eat my words.
diediealsomustdive
Senior Member
Just got a 24-120/3.5-5.6 today. Tested it out quite a bit and don't see what all the negativity is about especially our dear KR saying its one of the 10 worst Nikon lenses of all time.
The AF was pretty quick even in relative low light (compared to the tamron 28-300 I tested yesterday under brighter lights). I took a pic at 70mm focal length with 1/8 sec shutter speed and the pic was still nice and sharp - great vr
Will be doing more testing over the next few days and hope I don't have to eat my words.
Most of us have not used the older 24-120 and are not qualified to criticize it. But my approach is to see the photos of the reviewer and read some of the reviews of equipment I own then decide if it is trust worthy. So I stayed away from this cheaper lens, significantly cheaper I might add.
But if you're happy report back! Post some shots.
I wanted to but realised that cs cannot directly upload pic in the post, must link from url but I don't have any flickr or photobucket acct
diediealsomustdive
Senior Member
I wanted to but realised that cs cannot directly upload pic in the post, must link from url but I don't have any flickr or photobucket acct
Upload into CS Gallery then link.
Similar threads
