I would like to get some feedback from those of you that purchased the D700 kit with the 24-120mm VR. I have heard many negative comments on this lens however; I've seen great pictures taken by a friend of mine with his D200 - 24-120mm gear. I also own the same lens and have experienced good results with it. Why would Nikon couple these two at this stage of the game?

Visit my website: http://www.futurelookphotography.com

Although not purchased together, I have that lens & D700. I rarely use it (the 24-120). I have taken some ok walking around shots. But at 24mm I've seen severe vignetting, barrel distortion. At the 120 end I've seen not so great colors, sharpness. Best pics I was able to get were between 35-70.

I just did an unscientific lens test with the D700 a week ago, trying out 24, 50, 70, & either 120 or 200, depending on the lens. The 24-120 was probably the worst in all ranges. The other lenses I compared were 24-70 (spectacular, of course), 70-200 (equally good), the new Tamron 28-300 VC (which, to my surprise, produces really good colors, range & sharpness except at about 250-300 (gets a little soft on the sharpness). I've always been die hard Nikkor only fan, but the new Tamron 28-300 VC would be a much better 'only-carry-one' walking around lens than the 24-120.

Just my opinion, but I think the 24-120 a real mismatch for that body. I have the usual assortment of Nikon lenses (fortunately) and will probably never use the 24-120 again for anything.

Chuck

I'll gladly take that lens off your hands, Chuck. I'll put it to good use

What is the point to pay a $1,000 premium to gain 1 or 2 stop over the D300 & then negate it with a slow lens vs. a 17-55mm DX f/2.8 for example?

The Nikon 24-120 VR seems to be a love it or hate it lens and you'll get numerous replies from both sides. It does seem to be an odd lens to sell as a 'kit lens' but cost being an issue I suppose Nikon had no other choice after all a 24-70 kit would be too expensive.

Hedley
Originally from Merthyr Tydfil, Wales -- now in Arkansas

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Thanks for your comments. It does seem to be that some people love this lens while others just hate it. I also have the 24-70 but it is too heavy to use it as a walk around lens. I have the opportunity to sell my 24-120 VR now but I am still not sure which would be the best lens with superior IQ than the 24-120 and light enough to feel comfortable with it for my D700.

Visit my website: http://www.futurelookphotography.com

So far no problems. I would recommend this lens. Extremely fast focusing and colors and sharpness good.

>I would like to get some feedback from those of you that
>purchased the D700 kit with the 24-120mm VR. I have heard many
>negative comments on this lens however; I've seen great
>pictures taken by a friend of mine with his D200 - 24-120mm
>gear. I also own the same lens and have experienced good
>results with it. Why would Nikon couple these two at this
>stage of the game?

I think all lens - from the cheapest Nikkor, Tamron, Sigma and Tokina to the most expensive Nikkor, Tamron, Sigma and Tokina - show some variations from sample to sample. I belive that the majority of sample variations are not the result of poor manufacturing practices, but rather wider tolerance ranges specified for various components in the original design and fabrication plans. So I feel that the Nikkor 24-120mm VR is one of the few Nikon lenses that was originally designed and manufactured using looser tolerances for several of the critical components. And that's why there are so many people who really like the 24-120 VR co-existing with an equal (or perhaps greater) number who rightfully deride the thing.

I purchased a brand new 24-120mm VR three years ago. I shot a few cards full of images with the thing, then returned it to Henry's Cameras in Toronto. The problem was, afterward, that I really liked the 24-120 range - a holdover from my film days I suspect (and despite using a D200 with its DX sensor and 1.5x crop factor). A year and a half later, I came across a really good deal on a used 24-120. Again, it was too soft for even non-critical work. So I sold the thing. About eight months ago, I came across yet another 24-120 in a shop in Marseille operated by (I think) a Belgian camera hound who absolutely swore to me that this particular lens was sharp and reliable and consistent. Well lo & behold the man was right, so now I'm the proud owner (and user) of a very good 24-120 which comes on and off my D3 and D700 whenever I need the range and not a lot else.

I think it may be a lot less trouble to get a good copy of a Tamron 28-300mm XR Di VC which I'm also been using. The Tamron is surprisingly sharp throughout its crazy zoom range, works very well in fair or better light, is well built and operates smoothly. I also think you'll find the Tamron, new, for less money than a new 24-120 (kit or not). If you're deciding on a D700, buy it with the Tamron 28-300 VC instead of the Nikkor 24-120 VR (if you absolutely prefer an all-round/all-in-one lens that is).

My Nikonians Gallery

Howard Carson, Managing Editor
Kickstartnews Inc. - http://www.kickstartnews.com

I'd be curious to know which kit zoom, besides maybe the 18-70/3.5-4.5, has proven to be a real good lens.

Hammam

I purchased the D700 Kit only because they were out of the body only and my 24-120 is sharp and consistent, I also have bought the 28-300 Tamron VC and the nikon 24-120 blows it away with sharpness and contrast, although I think I got a hold of a bad Tamron (makes loud noises when using the VC, I actually call there VC Vibration Creator atleast on my lens)
I am waiting for nikon to come out with a good walk around lens thats not DX until then im sticking with my 24-120 and 80-400.
Just my 2 cents

I've got the D700 kit with the 24-120mm lens and I've had good success with it. For me the option was that or a $1600 24-70mm, which was just too much to spend. If Nikon made something in a price range between the two, I'd think about it, but from what I can see there just isn't a lot of options in that wide angle to short tele zoom range.

The Tamron seems like a nice alternative and might be worth considering.

I've had the 24-120 VR for several years, got it when it first came out, for my D100. I never liked it much. (I much preferred my 28-105, partly for the relative lack of distortion for architectural shots). After getting my D700, I've been doing a lot of playing with my current lens set, and just today went walkabout with the 24-120. It does need to be stopped down a bit for best results, but I'm liking what I see. Here are a couple of pics, the first is the central portion of a shot of white Bougainvillea taken at 62mm, f/8, 1/250s, ASA 400. The rose is also at f/8, 110mm, 1/2500s, ASA 400. Neither is the sharpest thing in the universe, but I am surprised how clean they came out. Don't use it wide open, if you can avoid it, but by f/5.6 it's really pretty good.

This is my first attempt to post pics here, and I see that attachments are limited to 150K, so I'm not sure how well the quality of these will show. If it's really bad, I'll try to post them on a web site.

Attachment #1, (jpg file)
Attachment #2, (jpg file)