Blur Shadow
Senior Member
How about the other 24-120, i.e. 3.5-4.5 VR? Its lighter and cheaper and only loses out on .5 of aperture at the long end but gains the same at the wide end.
The older 24-120mm is significantly inferior.
How about the other 24-120, i.e. 3.5-4.5 VR? Its lighter and cheaper and only loses out on .5 of aperture at the long end but gains the same at the wide end.
This observation cannot be correct, for if it is then the lens set at f8 would AF even slower. Since the late 1950s lenses are operated wide open and stop down only at the point of exposure. So whether you set at f4 or f16 the AF speed must remain the same for the same lens at the same zoom setting, governed by the max aperture not by the shooting aperture.
How about the other 24-120, i.e. 3.5-5.6 VR? Its lighter and cheaper.
* edited due to wrong info earlier.
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.
wah if u noticed 1/4 of a sec faster, you ARE a precision instrument..lol
It also also has a "Recycle mark 10" which implies the life cycle is 10 years ?
This symbol indicates that the lens meets Chinese regulations regarding the use of environmentally friendly material used in the construction of the lens or camera. In China all items that meet these legations must display the above symbol. Any items that do not meet the Restriction of Hazardous Substances (RoHS) regulations can no longer be imported into Europe so no similar logo is required for Europe .
https://nikoneurope-en.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/21761
Environment Friendly Use Period (EFUP) is the period of time before any of the RoHS substances are likely to leak out, causing possible harm to health and the environment.[2] Each product is labelled with a circle composed of two arrows containing a number that gives the EFUP in years; for example, a circled 10 indicates an EFUP of 10 years. A special EFUP label containing the letter "e" indicates that the product contains less than the maximum concentration value of all six hazardous substances.[3]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China_RoHS
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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![]()