I am anticipating adding a D700 to my stable. If I use the 12-24 Nikon DX lens on a D700 can I use it as a full frame 18-24 and over-ride the D700 going to the 5MP DX mode?

2nd Question: Is the 24-120VR packaged with the D700 a decent lens; that is, at least as good as a 16-85 or 18-200 on a D300?

Jerry
D200 and D300

>I am anticipating adding a D700 to my stable. If I use the
>12-24 Nikon DX lens on a D700 can I use it as a full frame
>18-24 and over-ride the D700 going to the 5MP DX mode?

Yes, you can choose the image area through the camera menu rather than have it done automatically, if you wish. The 12-24mm will cover the whole FX frame from around 18mm upwards, though bear in mind that the lens wasn't really designed to be used in this way and edge quality may suffer a little compared to using it in DX mode.

>2nd Question: Is the 24-120VR packaged with the D700 a decent
>lens; that is, at least as good as a 16-85 or 18-200 on a D300?

You'll get varying opinions about the 24-120mm VR, which may be because different people have different expectations. I have no complaints about my copy, which on a DX camera performs a little better in terms of sharpness and contrast than my wife's 18-200mm. I'm looking forward to trying it on my new D700

Brian
Welsh Nikonian
Check out the Nikonians Team pages

From what I read, the 24-120 is one of Nikon's worst lenses ever made (see http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/24120vr.htm).

I use the 24-85mm 2.8-4 and I get excellent pictures.

Given that the author of that linked review says the 24-120mm has VR II (it doesn't - it has the original VR "I" system), I'm not sure how much reliance we should put on his conclusions.

Brian
Welsh Nikonian
Check out the Nikonians Team pages

My 24-120mm VR is fine, but not great on FX bodies. It's definitely handy at times, though. I'd make the same comment about the 18-200mm on DX bodies. Everything in life is a compromise.

Rick Walker

My photos:
GeoVista Photography

Download from our library of Image Doctor podcasts here

And I have made exactly the opposite experience: My 18-200 is superb (at least compared to its price, it cannot meet the 24-70, but come close to it), my 24-120 VR is not that great. I have already seen worse lenses, but I don't use it often. Some people report large tolerances from sample to sample, actually that's something I always doubt.
I have used the 24-120 VR on film and wasn't really pleased, then on DX bodies with about the same result.
And, honestly, since I do have full frame, I never attached that lens, but may give it a try.
If you want to have it as cheap as possible, you might also consider some 3rd party lenses. Some are good (but most of the cheaper ones not really great), some are not.

Thanks for your quick responses. I appreciate it.

Jerry

Turtle and hare. After reading so many disparaging comments about the 24-120 VR, when I got my 24-70 2.8 AF-s I did a comparison and frankly found it difficult to see a major difference in decent light. And handheld low light under 1/30 second the good lens looses it's advantage to the little VR lens.

If you are going to compromise files to less than full resolution, or need slow exposures definately go for it. I got mine off eBay on a fluke $200 purchase (slow weekend and seller with one picture) and will probably relegate it to the D70s but it's light weight, low price and ability to take great 1/8 second images make it a keeper. I wouldn't buy a new one though but try used with return rights.

I've always been satisfied with my 24-120mm. It certainly isn't as sharp as my 28-70 f2.8, but it's still good and it serves a different purpose. It has a great range for a "walking around" lens - good wide angle to short telephoto. The VR more than makes up for its 3.5-5.6 aperture range. Actually, I usually use the VR for interiors where I'm likely to be using the lens as a wide angle, so it's only a half stop slower than my 2.8 lens. The VR also makes it possible to stop down a little more than I otherwise could, which helps the performance. For the times when I just want to have one lens on the camera and explore, this is my first choice. I put more emphasis on composition than on what an image looks like at 100% magnification on a monitor, and the 24-120 gives me the range I want for framing an image. I got it to use with my F5, but that's not my favorite "walking around" camera. The zoom range wasn't what I wanted for my D200. With my D700, I think it's a great match, and will used a lot more when I want to travel light.

i have the D700 and tested the 24-120 vr on it. then took it right back and got the 24-85 AF-D 2.8 i now have a smile on my face. the lens is sharp even at f2.8

my Nikonians gallery
http://nonamesleft.jalbum.net/

It would be naive to suggest the 18-200 is not an excellent all round lens
It would also be naive to suggest in some respects the f2.8 zooms cannot do better.
Overall the 24-120 is almost as good as the 18-200. It is an older design, has to cover 24x36 and the corners are interesting soft at 24mm at close focus distances - but much less distorted than the 18-200 at 18mm.
Apart from 24mm close up it performs well, especially for the price, but it would be naive to suggest the f2.8 zooms cannot sometimes do better.
If you cannot exceed the resolving power of A4 paper using it 1 stop down (or any other Nikon lens) either the lens is defective or you need to look at your shooting technique.
If you want A2 excellent corner quality wide open it can be beaten by more expensive lenses - that is one reason why more expensive lenses exist

Photography is a bit like archery. A technically better camera, lens or arrow may not hit the target as often as it could if the photographer or archer does not practice enough.

Len Shepherd

Len, thanks for your information.

And thanks to all of you who have responded.

Jerry

When I had my 24-120 VR lens, it was good enough to print out photos of cheeleaders in 16x20" print size and the cheerleaders loved them.

David C. Ramey
David Ramey Photography

There may have been a change in 24-120 vr design.

I have a friend with a early one and a friend with a later one.

One is sharp the other is not.

ledmun

>There may have been a change in 24-120 vr design.
>
>I have a friend with a early one and a friend with a later
>one.
>
>One is sharp the other is not.

There were 2 designs. The first design DIDN'T have VR and the second design has VR. I have had both. Both were sharp enough to make great 16 x 20" prints.

David C. Ramey
David Ramey Photography

I think Lorin was speculating there has been a change to the design of the VR version of this lens during its lifetime. I don't know whether this is true or not.

Brian
Welsh Nikonian
Check out the Nikonians Team pages

Yes -- I knew about the first non-vr lens and I have a friend with it also. He says it is also not sharp.

He routinely blows images up to 24 by 30 for his art shows.

(He had the old Kodak, the D2x and the D3 now he is going to get the D3x -- he just sold his Pentax 6 x 7 and 4 x5 Linhof)

He uses Blow-up for sharpening.

ledmun

>He uses Blow-up for sharpening.

edmun

Is Blow-up a program?

Jerry