List Price: $1,299.00
Sale Price: $1,296.95
Today's Bonus: $2.05 Off
Being a glutton for punishment, I've owned each incarnation of the 24-120. Honestly, the original was about the worst Nikon lens I've ever owned...I used to describe it as "how to turn several thousand dollars of camera gear into a $200 point and shoot". It was that bad...poor contrast, distortion, vignetting, slow focusing, etc. The only really bad Nikon lens I've ever owned. Thank goodness for eBay, and my condolences to whoever is using that lens today.
Then came the second generation 24-120. Not ready to give up the dream of having a 5x zoom for my (then) new D3, I took the plunge a second time.
The second-generation 24-120 was better than the original, but still not the sharpest tool in the shed. I'm lucky enough to own the "magic quartet" of Nikon zooms (14-24, 24-70, 70-200, 200-400) but I get lazy like everyone else and would like to have a single walk-around lens. Still, the difference in image quality was just too noticeable when I wimped out and took the 24-120 instead of the "real lenses". I'd go out with the 24-120 on my D3 and get some shots that would have been keepers with (say) the 24-70, but ended up disappointing with the 24-120. On my DX camera, I came to like the 16-85 the same 5x zoom range as the 24-120, but with much better image quality. Except maybe in very low light, I actually got better results with the D300 and the 16-85, versus the D3 and 24-120. I tried to convince myself otherwise, but pretty soon the 24-120 was mostly sitting home gathering dust. The second-generation 24-120 eventually landed on eBay, too.
Well, I guess I never learn...still wanting that 5x zoom for my FX camera, I took the plunge and bought the latest 24-120 f/4. I guess I'm a hopeless optimist, but part of me expected to be disappointed once again. Still, instead of disappointment, so far, I'm reasonably impressed with it. Really.
In a nutshell, this is a very different lens than either of the earlier 24-120 products. It handles differently, it's constructed more ruggedly, and it's faster all the way around. The best way to describe it is to say that it's very similar to the 16-85 in terms of image quality, but scaled up for an FX body. That is to say, it's sharp, offers good contrast and color, and not so much distortion that you can't correct it in post processing.
To be clear, the long end is a bit soft wide open, but entirely acceptable at f/8 or so. I'm finding the short end very sharp at 24mm, but with some noticeable distortion (that can be easily fixed in Capture NX2 or Photoshop). Color and contrast are very good, usually giving that "pop" you get with good pro-grade lenses, and for a complex lens, there's relatively little flare. The VR system, as usual for Nikon, works unobtrusively and very effectively. And it's that much better on a DX body most likely outperforming the 16-85 in overall image quality (and that's saying something). Though a slight step down from the best lenses, construction quality seems very good, and the lens seems to handle effortlessly on my bulky D3 as well as on my smaller D300.
Make no mistake, I'd never give up my 24-70 for one of the new 24-120 lenses. In addition to that extra stop (f/2.8 vs. f/4), the 24-70 is one of the world's best in its range...I feel comfortable stacking it up against anything, even those exotic Leica or Carl-Zeiss primes. The 24-120 is "good enough", but you marvel more at the way Nikon made all the design trade-offs, rather than feeling that you have a lens that's about no-compromise absolute top image quality. Still, the 24-120 is finally at a stage where you can carry it around on your FX camera and have no regrets.
I think Nikon finally has a keeper in the 24-120 family...at long last!
0 comments:
Post a Comment