login info join!
Forums > Photography Talk > Nikon 24-105G-N! Search   Reply
first12
Photographer
AVD AlphaDuctions
Posts: 10,533
Gatineau, Quebec, Canada


I love this trash talk. one would think from some posts that anything other than the current leader in a category is so bad that plastic throwaway cameras have better resolution tongue

I have yet to pick up a lens that was anywhere near as bad. but hold that thought. I found a minute amount of pincushion distortion on my monitor. It is simply unsuitable for posting on MM. I'll be right back as soon as I find a better screen
Feb 02 13 04:46 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
fullmetalphotographer
Posts: 2,762
Fresno, California, US


I did shoot the 24-105L f/4 a few times when I shot for Pulitzer Newspapers. When I could not get the 24-70mm f/2.8 L (sweet lens) the 24-105L f/4 was an OK consumer lens. It suffers the same issues as the issues as the TAMRON SP AF ASPHERICAL LD [IF] 28-105mm f/2.8, it has far amount of distortion and is a bit soft wide open above 50mm range.

This is not a fanboy thing it is the tendency of all lenses at focal length range. There is a reason the 24-70mm f/2.8 range is heavily used by pros. All zooms are compromises in design. But when the engineers try to stretch to get that extra focal length sharpness at wide open suffers as well lens distortions increase.

If cost is the real driving issue here. A used AF-S Zoom-NIKKOR 28-70mm f/2.8D IF-ED will $1000 US.

A used TAMRON SP AF ASPHERICAL LD [IF] 28-105mm f/2.8 will run about $400 or less. But you need to shoot it at f/4 if you at 50mm or above. I own bothe these lenses and they are good the AF-S Zoom-NIKKOR 28-70mm f/2.8D IF-ED is a great deal and extremely sharp.

Another good possibility is the AT-X 287 AF PRO SV - TOKINA 28-70mm f/2.8 which will run for $300 or less. This is a very sharp lens especially at f/2.8. I used it for 10 years until a reporter killed it.
Feb 02 13 05:18 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
NTN Photo
Posts: 98
Baltimore, Maryland, US


I do kind of think the Nikon 24-120 F/4 is a bit of an overrated lens. It's solid and convenient and all that, but at least for me, in the range I most want it to be good in, it doesn't perform all that well. I wanted it for the 70-120 range with the option to go wide when I needed to, but that was the focal range where it performed its weakest. It's plenty good at f/8-11, but so are a ton of other lenses.

It's a pretty good walk around lens though and I bet it would be a champ for travel as it is pretty solid in that 35-85 range. It's not as heavy as some of the alternatives and it is a good focal range, but for me there were too many compromises for the cost of that lens. I just traded mine in two days ago actually.

Perhaps I'm being a little harsh on it as I had rather high hopes for it, but I didn't think it lived up to the hype some folks gave it....then again maybe I had a bad copy or something.
Feb 02 13 11:32 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
David M Russell
Posts: 1,130
New York, New York, US


London Fog wrote:

Hilarious is right, the 24-120 is junk!

You have no idea what you're talking about.

Feb 02 13 11:35 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
RKD Photographic
Posts: 3,265
Iserlohn, North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany


David M Russell wrote:

I hear you on this. There was a patent filed for a new 105 a while back that I saw on Nikon Rumors, and I keep holding out for some kind of announcement. But at the same time, all the G lenses are so frighteningly sharp that they're actually a little cruel, so the older glass might do just fine for me.

My favourite portrait lens (when I'm playing around) is an old Nikkor-P 105 f/2.5 made in 1968 - be-yoo-ti-ful lens...

That said, the DC Nikkor 105 and 135 lenses are fine for studio use: I use both of them - the slow-ish AF (compared to newer lenses) isn't really an issue as the camera-subject distance tends to be fairly constant.

Feb 03 13 03:12 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
RKD Photographic
Posts: 3,265
Iserlohn, North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany


David M Russell wrote:

You have no idea what you're talking about.

big_smile It occurs to me the OP might just possibly not have actually used all of the lenses he's so scathing about and merely repeating web-uendo remarks read elsewhere...

I'm a little baffled why anyone would buy a D800, put a pro-sumer-spec lens on it and expect perfect results...

Feb 03 13 03:16 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
London Fog
Posts: 6,770
London, England, United Kingdom


RKD Photographic wrote:
big_smile It occurs to me the OP might just possibly not have actually used all of the lenses he's so scathing about and merely repeating web-uendo remarks read elsewhere...

I'm a little baffled why anyone would buy a D800, put a pro-sumer-spec lens on it and expect perfect results...

That's where you are wrong, I tried the 24-70 2.8 on my D800, it's nothing spectacular at all, and definitely not at that ridiculous price ! Even my 21 year old 50mm 1.8 AF has better contrast, and a like for like image comparison of the RAW's revealed that the older lens has a better level of sharpness too!

No, I have not tried the 14-24 or 70-200, so no comments there! As for the 24-120, I stand by my original statement that's it just an average lens, and not even close to the Canon 24-105L!

Google is your friend, search around and I'm sure you can find out for yourself, or don't - who cares, I sure as hell don't!

Feb 03 13 08:06 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
London Fog
Posts: 6,770
London, England, United Kingdom


Also, not fond of the build quality of the 24-70, it is definitely not as well put together as the older 28-70 2.8 ED, so if I go for a lens with that 'useless' range it might well be the tougher, albeit slightly less sharp, but more solid ED.
Feb 03 13 08:15 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
RKD Photographic
Posts: 3,265
Iserlohn, North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany


London Fog wrote:
Also, not fond of the build quality of the 24-70, it is definitely not as well put together as the older 28-70 2.8 ED, so if I go for a lens with that 'useless' range it might well be the tougher, albeit slightly less sharp, but more solid ED.

You got me there - it's definitely flimsier, however 'trying' and 'owning' aren't the same - especially on a D800 - these lenses need to be calibrated to the bodies - all three of my bodies require different amounts of fine-tuning for all of the lenses I own.

I've owned or been issued with five 24-70 f/2.8 lenses over the past few years since they came out and all of them needed a tweak - once done though they're far better in terms of IQ than the older lens - especially with CA fringing around high contrast elements - with the older lens you got noticeable blue fringing around specular highlights, which you don't get with the nano-crystal coated 24-70.
In the studio that might not matter though and my old images with that lens are more or less indistinguishable from those taken with the newer one.

But what's the point in using a D800 if the lens isn't up to it? You might as well save your money and buy a used D2x instead.

Feb 03 13 08:26 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
D M E C K E R T
Posts: 4,786
Las Vegas, Nevada, US


so much ridiculous on the camera forums. what happened to reason and science and perspective and all that?

it was only a few years ago that canon was being praised for sensors and the L lenses being dogged. nikon was bashed for their sensors and the glass was holy. now it's the opposite. even though it's a lot of the same exact lenses. gives me the lulz.

the 24-120/4 is known to suffer tremendously from sample variation. a perfect version is apparently a stunning exemplar of lens achievement...and a lot of them are out of whack enough that the lens gets slammed as being mediocre at best. and i've seen similar varying reports of the 105vr...that it's not up to canon's version, and also that it's the sharpest lens in the lineup. both can't be true.

but, such is the world i suppose, where bombastic dick wagging and sound bites are easier to digest than actual consideration.
Feb 03 13 01:04 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
London Fog
Posts: 6,770
London, England, United Kingdom


D M E C K E R T wrote:
so much ridiculous on the camera forums. what happened to reason and science and perspective and all that?

it was only a few years ago that canon was being praised for sensors and the L lenses being dogged. nikon was bashed for their sensors and the glass was holy. now it's the opposite. even though it's a lot of the same exact lenses. gives me the lulz.

the 24-120/4 is known to suffer tremendously from sample variation. a perfect version is apparently a stunning exemplar of lens achievement...and a lot of them are out of whack enough that the lens gets slammed as being mediocre at best. and i've seen similar varying reports of the 105vr...that it's not up to canon's version, and also that it's the sharpest lens in the lineup. both can't be true.

but, such is the world i suppose, where bombastic dick wagging and sound bites are easier to digest than actual consideration.

Yep, pretty much, that's why I won't touch that junk 24-120 with a bargepole!

So, the wait goes on...let's hope Nikon get their thumbs out of their asses soon!

Feb 03 13 01:13 pm  Link  Quote 
first12   Search   Reply