Sponsor Message:
Aviation Photography Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Nikkor 24-120VR Or 24-85 F/2.8  
User currently offlineAseem From India, joined Feb 2005, 2046 posts, RR: 10
Posted (6 years 11 months 3 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 3136 times:

folks!

I am in a big of fix about standard lens for my DSLR. I plan to purchase the D80 body, and not go for kit lens. Just to give you some background, I do mostly aviation and macro photography and already have a lovely Nikkor 75-300 non-VR lens. I have zeroed into choice between 24-120VR and 24-85 f/2.8. Although VR is a great attraction, I have been told that latter being faster of the two, so VR won't be needed. Moreover, 24-85 will suit me well for Macro photography. But, that VR thing keeps ticking in my mind.

So, lets hear what experts say about it.

thnx
VT-ASJ


ala re ala, VT-ALA ala
21 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineSluger020889 From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 456 posts, RR: 2
Reply 1, posted (6 years 11 months 3 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 3128 times:

I have neither of the lenses. However I have the tad bit slower 24-85 f3.5ish version. Though I've never used it for aviation photography, I find it an all around great little travel/messing around in the yard lens.

The following image was taken with the 24-85. Note I'm still a little new to the masking and pasting on a black background technique so please excuse any flaws.



The 24-120 was another option for me. But a lot of the reviews I read said the lens had issues with pincushion. So that kinda steered my towards the 24-85.

Hope this helps.

Joey



I would love to fly a cargo plane full of rubber dog shit out of Hong Kong!
User currently offlineIngemarE From Sweden, joined Mar 2005, 285 posts, RR: 5
Reply 2, posted (6 years 11 months 3 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 3101 times:

Quoting Sluger020889 (Reply 1):
The 24-120 was another option for me. But a lot of the reviews I read said the lens had issues with pincushion. So that kinda steered my towards the 24-85.

Weeell,...what can you ask of a lens that has about 50% more reach, in just about the same package!?
Easily fixed in PS too.

I like the 24-120VR, since it's a decent "walk-around"-lens for every-day shooting. I even have a couple of shots on A-net taken with it!  Wink
However, since I don't mind distorsion too much, I'm thinking about getting a 18-200VR.
....have seen a lot of good pic's taken with that one.



In thrust I trust.
User currently offlineClickhappy From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 9603 posts, RR: 69
Reply 3, posted (6 years 11 months 3 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 3083 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
PHOTO SCREENER

I would avoid the 18-200  Wink

I have had the 24-85 as currently using the 24-120. If you need the extra reach then it should be no match, I have been mostly happy with mine, it is a decent lens, but not a stellar one.

I think a huge hole in the Nikon line up is a wide/mild telephoto. Canon makes something like a 24-105 f/4, which seems like a really nice compromise, wish Nikon had a similar offering.


User currently offlineCodeshare From Poland, joined Sep 2002, 1854 posts, RR: 1
Reply 4, posted (6 years 11 months 3 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 3066 times:

Lots of rumours around these days concerning new announcements from Nikon, so some of the lens could drop in price.

I use the trusty 28-105 f/3.5-4.5 and it's OK, but sometimes I'd need a little extra quality. A 24-70 f/2.8 would be perfect, but it's expensive. I was also looking at the 24-120, but maybe something new will come out in the near future?

KS/codeshare



How much A is there is Airliners Net ? 0 or nothing ?
User currently offlineClickhappy From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 9603 posts, RR: 69
Reply 5, posted (6 years 11 months 3 weeks 2 days ago) and read 3064 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
PHOTO SCREENER

Quoting Codeshare (Reply 4):
I was also looking at the 24-120, but maybe something new will come out in the near future?

And if it does Nikon will make about 17 total worldwide, so you will either have to wait forever or pay way over list.

Get the best lens that you can afford, that covers your needs. Don't wait for tomorrow. There will always be something bigger better faster and cheaper.


User currently offlineYZFOO7F From Canada, joined May 2005, 158 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (6 years 11 months 3 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 3053 times:

Quoting Clickhappy (Reply 3):
I would avoid the 18-200

Any specific reasons? I've been thinking of purchasing that lens and I've been on the fence because I've heard a lot of good things and some not so good - mainly the drop in quality due to the very long focal range. Any experiences yourself?



Promise me you'll always leave the ground
User currently offlineClickhappy From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 9603 posts, RR: 69
Reply 7, posted (6 years 11 months 3 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 3049 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
PHOTO SCREENER

Quoting YZFOO7F (Reply 6):
Any experiences yourself?

I've only used 2 examples, both were very soft side to side. I shot a full frame airliner side-on the nose and tail would be very very soft. I think it is an okay lens for a vacation or something, but if you demand perfection it won't make the grade.

I know others will read this and disagree, that is okay. I am simply sharing my opinons and experiences. If others have seen other results please share them.


User currently offlineCodeshare From Poland, joined Sep 2002, 1854 posts, RR: 1
Reply 8, posted (6 years 11 months 3 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 3048 times:

Quoting Clickhappy (Reply 5):
Get the best lens that you can afford, that covers your needs. Don't wait for tomorrow. There will always be something bigger better faster and cheaper.

That's why I got the 70-200  Smile

KS/codeshare



How much A is there is Airliners Net ? 0 or nothing ?
User currently offlineSkidmarks From UK - England, joined Dec 2004, 7121 posts, RR: 55
Reply 9, posted (6 years 11 months 3 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 3042 times:

My 24-120 works very well and I am happy with it. It's a very useful general lens which complements my 80-400 nicely.

Andy  old 



Growing old is compulsory, growing up is optional
User currently offlineYZFOO7F From Canada, joined May 2005, 158 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (6 years 11 months 3 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 3041 times:

Quoting Clickhappy (Reply 7):

Thanks Royal, I'll take that into account.

Ryan



Promise me you'll always leave the ground
User currently offlineAseem From India, joined Feb 2005, 2046 posts, RR: 10
Reply 11, posted (6 years 11 months 3 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 3038 times:

thanks all!

Quoting Skidmarks (Reply 9):
My 24-120 works very well and I am happy with it. It's a very useful general lens which complements my 80-400 nicely.

How is the Macro feature of this one? I've heard its simply not suitable for it.



ala re ala, VT-ALA ala
User currently offline777MechSys From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 350 posts, RR: 3
Reply 12, posted (6 years 11 months 3 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 3034 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting YZFOO7F (Reply 6):
Any specific reasons?

I got the 18-200 with my D200 because I knew I could sell the lens for $800. I was not happy with it at all. I missed so many shots with it. Most shots were way too soft. Any shot that was sharp was only sharp in the middle. The closer you got to the edges the worse it got. I sold it and bought the 24-120 Vr and a 10.5 mm f/2.8.


User currently offlineYZFOO7F From Canada, joined May 2005, 158 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (6 years 11 months 3 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 3031 times:

Quoting 777MechSys (Reply 12):
I sold it and bought the 24-120 Vr and a 10.5 mm f/2.8.

How is the 24-120VR working out? I'd like to get as sharp a lens as I can afford.



Promise me you'll always leave the ground
User currently offline777MechSys From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 350 posts, RR: 3
Reply 14, posted (6 years 11 months 3 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 3028 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting YZFOO7F (Reply 13):
How is the 24-120VR working out?

It works well for the price. I can see the difference between it and my 80-200 f/2.8. It is a great compromise between quality and reach. It covers 90% of all situations here in Seattle. I tried to rationalize the 18-200 problems with "It's a settings issue on a new camera." After shooting a week on my D100 with no improvement it went out the door.

Clickhappy is right about Nikon having a hole in their line up. I'm not one for changing lenses out in the field. Go to KBFI and hit the freighters with it all afternoon. If something small comes in and I really want a shot of it then I grab the D100 with the 80-200 and open up on it. It comes down to were you shoot and what kind of range you need.


User currently offlineCodeshare From Poland, joined Sep 2002, 1854 posts, RR: 1
Reply 15, posted (6 years 11 months 3 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 3001 times:

I've seen some pretty good shots taken with the 18-200, most of them were not aviation however. The range is good however for various ramp tours where you have to quickly change the gear. Canon however have a 28-300 in their line-up.
I also heard not so good opinions about the 24-120.

KS/codeshare



How much A is there is Airliners Net ? 0 or nothing ?
User currently offlineIngemarE From Sweden, joined Mar 2005, 285 posts, RR: 5
Reply 16, posted (6 years 11 months 3 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 3000 times:

Quoting Clickhappy (Reply 7):
I think it is an okay lens for a vacation or something,

Which is more or less what I was planning on using it for. Not having to swop lenses in the ski-slopes would be a real treat!  Wink

Quoting 777MechSys (Reply 14):
Clickhappy is right about Nikon having a hole in their line up.

Last few weeks I've had the opportunity to use a Sigma 50-150 2,8 EX HSM and I must say it's really good.
I'm now seriously considering getting one of those.
....and, also recently, I got myself a Tamron 28-75 2,8. Although not having an internal focusing motor, it moves really fast on the D2X/D1X. It's also very very sharp side-to-side, when stopped down to f/4! Inexpensive too and doesn't weigh half-as-much as the Nikkor 28-70 2,8 AF-S.
I'm really glad I got that one!  cheerful 



In thrust I trust.
User currently offline10boomer From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 57 posts, RR: 5
Reply 17, posted (6 years 11 months 3 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 2990 times:

I used the 24-120 for a short time with my D100 and D200 before buying the 28-70 2.8. It's not a bad lens, I liked the focal length coverage but it had a tendency to be soft. Here are a few shots I have on A.net that were shot with the 24-120 in what I found to be the sweet spot f stop range of 8-11.


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Rob Tabor
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Rob Tabor



View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Rob Tabor




Fly Gucci
User currently offline777MechSys From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 350 posts, RR: 3
Reply 18, posted (6 years 11 months 3 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 2969 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Codeshare (Reply 15):
I've seen some pretty good shots taken with the 18-200

Yes good shots can be taken with the 18-200.



View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Erick Lopez
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Erick Lopez




View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Erick Lopez





However, I had alot of bad shots too.


User currently offlineKereru From New Zealand, joined Jun 2003, 873 posts, RR: 46
Reply 19, posted (6 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 2914 times:

Quoting Clickhappy (Reply 7):
I've only used 2 examples, both were very soft side to side. I shot a full frame airliner side-on the nose and tail would be very very soft. I think it is an okay lens for a vacation or something, but if you demand perfection it won't make the grade.

Pity I hadn't read your comment before buying the 18-200mm Royal but I will have to persevere and use mainly the wide angle settings with mid range aperture for best results. I think it would have been handy when shooting from the ramp of a Hercules for a quick change of focal length to get in closer when the lads jumped. Just no time to swap lenses keep balance and take photo.

Wide angle:


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Colin Hunter



70mm on the 18-70mm lens.


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Colin Hunter



Anyone else have any suggestions for getting the best out of the 18-200mm lens?

Colin  old 



Good things take Time.
User currently offlineSunilgupta From United States of America, joined Nov 2000, 775 posts, RR: 14
Reply 20, posted (6 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 2913 times:

Quoting Aseem (Thread starter):
24-120VR and 24-85 f/2.8

I don't think these lenses are in the same class. However, I think that you have to decide what range you need. Since you have the 75-300 then the f2.8 would be the way to go I would think strictly from the lens quality and sharpness point of view.

Quoting Aseem (Thread starter):
I have been told that latter being faster of the two, so VR won't be needed

Well, I don't know who told you that but unless you shoot at f2.8 a lot then I don't think the speed of the lens is going to help you one bit. In most cases you'll probably be shooting within the f5.6+ range. VR will give you a significant advantage in that you can shoot at a higher f-stop in any given lighting situation.

Quoting Clickhappy (Reply 3):
I would avoid the 18-200

Why? If you know how to use it you can get good results. I'll be the first to admit that below f8 this lens stinks. It is also softer than I like across the range... BUT, I travel a lot and I hated carrying around three lenses to cover wide angle (for digital) all the way to "supper zoom".

I'd suggest that you go back and look at the range in which a lot of your shots are taken. If you find that you shoot a lot in the range from 85 to 120 then you will probably find the 24-85 f2.8 lens to be frustrating because you'll have to switch lenses a lot while shooting in some situations (but that depends on where and what you shoot).

my 2 cents

Sunil

[Edited 2007-08-12 07:11:33]

User currently offlineAseem From India, joined Feb 2005, 2046 posts, RR: 10
Reply 21, posted (6 years 11 months 1 week 4 days ago) and read 2808 times:

update...just bought Sigma 15-30mm of Cametas...Brand new, not Demo.....so the race hots up for mid-range zoom. thank you all for your comments...and please continue with the discussion


ala re ala, VT-ALA ala
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
AMS's Kaagbaan (06/24) Spotting Status? posted Wed Jun 13 2007 18:47:03 by Flying Belgian
24" TFT Screens posted Thu May 24 2007 10:29:25 by IL76
Sydney 24-26 May posted Sun May 13 2007 06:22:07 by QANTAS077
My First "Top Of The Last 24/48 Hours" posted Sat Jan 27 2007 12:43:16 by GertLOWG
Incorrect Airline Makes Top 24/48 Hours! posted Sun Jan 7 2007 16:02:52 by AviatorG
AMS: 06/24 How Much Longer? posted Wed Nov 22 2006 21:01:35 by G-CIVP
Nikkor 80-400VR...mode 1 Or 2 posted Mon Aug 21 2006 15:43:04 by Nucky
Top Of Last 24 Hours posted Wed Jul 26 2006 10:03:13 by Viv
Some Comments On Canon 24-105L Is F/4 posted Wed Jun 21 2006 16:48:12 by LHRman
Queens Flypast And 24 Hr Screening posted Sat Jun 17 2006 11:47:50 by Garysted