Nikon 24-120mm ƒ/4.0G AF-S ED-IF N VR (HD)

[daffyduck1089]

Thanks, that realy helpful... but I have had this lens, can you tell me at what aperture will get the best image quality between 24 to 85?

[Lilkiwiguy87]

Between 35mm and 70mm at F/8.0 (DX, down to F/16.0 for FX/Film).

[daffyduck1089]

@Lilkiwiguy87 : Thanks !

[daffyduck1089]

what your opinion about discontinue AFS 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5 G? it is a good lens or bad? sory for dumb question, i'm a newbie & having this lens from my father.

[Lilkiwiguy87]

The 24-85mm is as bad as the 24-120mm VR and other entry level lenses.

[7belowzero]

I'm not really sure about honest people, I tend to think it's argumentative people that don't really know what they are talking about.

[superkiwizorro]

@7belowzero then rent the lens and see for yourself. problem solved.

[7belowzero]

I can never understand why people have to put negative comments on what are really quite good videos. Great review as always. Keep up the very good work.

[superkiwizorro]

@7belowzero people just don't like honest people anymore nowadays, that's why.

[lettherebewomenonthe]

Is this the equivalent to Canons L lens 24-105?

[Lilkiwiguy87]

No because it's 15mm longer on the far end.

[tcuk]

Isn't this a pro grade lens? It has a gold ring around it.

[superkiwizorro]

@tcuk gold ring on lenses don't mean anything. 80-400mm vr and 24-120mm vr both have it and they're super crappy lenses.

[superkiwizorro]

@eleazarliu nikon 80-200mm f/2.8d af ed [not the af-s one] is 2 times cheaper than 24-120mm. rent it out to see for yourself though.

[bratvlad]

Bokeh (135mm). But this lens only goes to 120mm.

Thanks for a video.

[Lilkiwiguy87]

Yes, we know, read the video description.

[Lilkiwiguy87]

Haha, watch the video again.

[AkaRockz]

Hi,

To begin with, I currently own the Nikkor 24-70mm F2.8 and it is da bomb! However, I am considering purchasing this lens for low light food photography at restaurants. For food photography, I prefer shooting at F4-F5.6 and the 4 stops VR allows me to shoot at around 1/10 of a second or slower with steady hands which cannot be achieved on my 2.8 lens. What are your views on this? (assuming no flash and keeping ISO low). I believe VR is more suitable for stationary objects at low light...

[Lilkiwiguy87]

The 24-70mm is one stop faster and has better image quality at useable apertures than the 24-120mm. Low light is ƒ/2.8 (and faster) lenses' specialty. You can still use your 24-70mm at an useable aperture than crank the ISO up high. Many cameras are capable of delivering clean 8 x 10 prints at higher sensitivities, so, no worries. Never worry about ISO if you do not make any prints. Definitely no direct flash unless you want to use Creative Lighting System to light up your dish. Voila.

[AkaRockz]

@Lilkiwiguy87 Thanks for the reply. But I think you missed my point. For food photography, I prefer shooting at F4 to F5.6 as F2.8 blurs too much of the subject. Hence the 24-70 F2.8 lens is not a faster lens. So at those settings, the new 24-120 is the faster lens. Given the scenario, do you STILL recommend the 24-70 at insane ISO settings? I have tried with the 24-120 VR and I am able to shoot at 1/10th of a second with no blur at all on text. I will need 1/50 on the 24-70 to achieve the same

[Lilkiwiguy87]

Have you watched the video? The sharpness does not get better until you stop it down to F/5.6 (F/8.0 at 24mm). We never said you need to use the 24-70mm at F/2.8, only use it at proper apertures. Simply step back a little and shoot, you will get more depth of field than up close. The 24-70mm IS a fast lens, any F/2.8 (and faster like F/2.0 and F/1.4) are fast lenses. F/4.0 or slower is a slow lens. Yes, why are you afraid of using higher sensitivities? It should not be a problem.

[superkiwizorro]

professor joey is right. 24-120mm is a slow lens. 1.8, 4.0, 3.5-5.6, 4.0-5.6, and 4.5-5.6 lenses = slow lenses. 1.2, 1.4, 2.0, and 2.8 lenses = fast. lenses

[Stieglitzwouldloveit]

@AkaRockz wtf are u talking about? ur perfectly fine with ur 24-70mm. . . watch NHH for their review of the 24-70mm so u'll know what apertures u SHOULd be shooting at. search it up, read it, and learn. . .

[aliancer]

Thanks for the video, especially at 1:12 , it's really helpful...

[icedangel61]

I found this lens as sharp as my 24-70mm f2.8, and it outdoes 28-300mm in any way (specially in focusing). I think 2 out of 10 is a very unfair rating for this lens, and I believe Nikon put that golden ring for a reason . Maybe you got a bad copy of this lens.

[Lilkiwiguy87]

Sharp as the 24-70mm? Hah, funny stuff. Golden ring on lenses means nothing. Take a look at the 80-400mm VR, it has golden ring and it is the worst lens ever produced. Bad copy? Nope, it was a good copy. We always test to make sure the lens is a good copy before doing the review.

[icedangel61]

@Lilkiwiguy87 Well I am very very impressed with the performance of my version. Thanks though.

[Lilkiwiguy87]

Okay, care to explain why?

In case you have not noticed... The lenses, that we suggested to you, are all F/2.8's and your D700 is capable of delivering clean results at high sensitivities. Crank the ISO up and use shutter speeds faster than the lens' focal length. This technique were used long before they invented VR lenses.

[Lilkiwiguy87]

Well, for the same price of the 24-120mm alone... These suggestions may apply to you:

1) Nikon 28-70mm ƒ/2.8D AF-S ED-IF (28, not 24)

2) Nikon 20-35mm ƒ/2.8D AF + Nikon 35-70mm ƒ/2.8D AF

3) Nikon 35-70mm ƒ/2.8D AF + 80-200mm ƒ/2.8D AF ED (two rings variation).

[Lilkiwiguy87]

So, you're switching to Canon just because a lens didn't meet your expectations? There are other Nikon-brand alternatives besides the 24-70mm, you know.

[witherm01]

Thanks for the review. I have the old 24-120D and find quite a useul lens, for the photography that I do. It looks like this is not the replacement, I will probably go for the 24-70 f2.8.

[JD95]

great review as always. Really helps. In your future reviews, I would love to see the actual speed of the AF because I would like to know how "fast" fast is. and also, in the brochures / web Nikon doesn't state that their lenses are weather/dust proof (although I know some are) I've emailed them (NIKON JAPAN) and they said they are only weather proofed by means of having that rubber gasket on the mount and did not mention the whole lens was dust/moisture proofed. (even on the 24-70 2.8)

[Lilkiwiguy87]

Excellent suggestion on the AF speed, we can easily do that.

We ask ourselves the same question about why Nikon left out the part about dust and moisture protection sealants. You can only tell is by looking at the rear mount for a rubber gasket. If there is one, that means the whole lens is sealed. If there is no rubber gasket then the lens is not sealed.

We shot with this lens out in the fields under heavy rain earlier and not a problem.

[icedangel61]

Ok, now I am confused! Is it really that bad? I've read many good reviews and sample images of this lens. I was planing to buy this lens but your 2 out 0f 10 rating put the plan on hold.

[Lilkiwiguy87]

We've said this to everyone many times... Most of reviews are done by inexperienced photographers, non-photographer authors, brand fanboys who never actually touched it, etc.. So, yes, it's that bad and the samples in the video clearly proved it.

[teddyloong]

@Lilkiwiguy87

Yeap, agreed. And lots of reviewer's site were actually sponsored by various online shop, the sponsors kept the site and income running, especially when you buy stuffs from the particular links from their site.

So, obviously they won't talk bad about their products and keep people away from buying it.

[Lilkiwiguy87]

To increase the website's traffic for money, sadly, yes.

[mariusgp5]

this is the worst nikkor lens..in my opinion. you cant compare it with canon 24-105 l

[lorikzzz]

they've should have made it a 2.8

[estudio100rafa]

great review , thanks. There may be an alternative if we count an used lens option, the old Nikkor 24-120 f3.5-5.6 AF-D, ugly as hell but maybe an option..?

I wonder how the new 28-300 3.5-5.6G VR will perform.. I´m guessing probably even worse than this lens, what do you think?

Thanks again for sharing this info, and I must tell you that I truly appreciate the effort you make doing lens reviews.. and I´m definitely gonna miss lens reviews for a while.. hope the new 85mm f1.4G tempts you :)

[Lilkiwiguy87]

The AF-D and AF-S versions of 24-120mm ƒ/3.5-5.6 are in a class of their own and does not compete with the F/4.0 version..

We tested the 28-300mm to get the useable apertures for our Lens Sharpness chart. Our opinion on it? Soak it in gasoline and set it on fire.

[avucaldz]

if only this lens was made in Japan with f2,.8, it may change our perspective :)

[Lilkiwiguy87]

Does not matter where it is produced in, they are all the same.

[iphonian]

well in this case, ill keep penny saving for the 24-70... lol

[Lilkiwiguy87]

Trust us, it will be worth saving up for.

[iphonian]

@Lilkiwiguy87 now what if i change my mind and want the 24 1.4? so much to think about. Nikon should offer me a special deal. lol

[Jmozzari]

this review is FAR the best. billion times better than stupid fro knows photo's 24-120mm unboxing and sniff test vid. his vid on this lens is really unprofessional and stupid. this vid is completely the opposite. you owned him! good job!

[Pugyxandrew]

wow crap lens

[Itchhhh]

As usual another excellent review! You've accused me of wanting everything, well I don't want this! I often wonder why Nikon sell lens like this that clearly don't perform?

[Lilkiwiguy87]

Everybody was in the demand for this lens and pushed Nikon to rush and produce it. So, this is what they deserve: the lens they wanted but with a crappy performance.

[1986Chaitanya]

@Lilkiwiguy87 But this lens costs something like 1300USD for just 400USD more one can buy the Nikon 24-70 f/2.8 which performs far better than this lens.

[Lilkiwiguy87]

Oh, yes, of course. However, unfortunately, people will still complain about 24-70mm's weight and being 50mm shorter.

[unknownchronicles]

My thoughts on this lens have changed lol

[Stieglitzwouldloveit]

Thanx for this review! XD