Is there a new upgraded version of this lens? What are the comments out there on its usefulness? (I might have the wide end wrong == 24/28?) The Nikon website doesn't say how long the lens has been available.
I could see that it would be great for events/gatherings. And weddings.
Roland relies a lot on information supplied to him by users. If anyone has a much later serial number than what he shows they should send him an email along with a photo of the lens and a photo showing the serial number.
Those sales numbers are low compared to what and in what time period?
I suspect that the numbers are low compared to the less expensive and kit lenses sold with the 5k and 3k consumer grade cameras. I think most buyers of the 24-120/4.0 are like members of this forum - pros, semi-pros and advanced amateurs. Compared to the average consumer of the low end cameras, that number is low.
Fri 09-Nov-12 05:02 AM | edited Fri 09-Nov-12 05:04 AM by benveniste
Those sales numbers are low compared to what and in what time period?
Compared to sales of the 24-70mm f/2.8, which is also aimed at pros and prosumers. Nikon sells about 100,000 24-70mm's a year; and if Roland's numbers are to be believed they're selling fewer than 22,000 24-120mm's a year.
I suspect this is just an anomaly in Mr. Vink's numbers, but that's only a guess. I may be biased -- I bought one of the first 24-120mm f/4's and have been happily using it since.
One of the biggest mistakes a photographer can make is to look at the real world and cling to the vain hope that next time his film will somehow bear a closer resemblance to it. - Galen Rowell
The current version of this lens (the one with a constant f/4 maximum aperture at all focal lengths) is a notably better performer than either of the two previous versions. I'm quite happy with mine as a general-purpose lens on the FX format
As far as I recall, there are three versions of this lens:
AF 24-120mm f/3.5-5.6D IF - first generation produced in 1996.
AF-S 24-120mm f/3.5-5.6G ED IF VR - added ED lenses; AF-S silent wave motor, lost the aperture ring but kept the distance chip so it became a G lens, also added VR; announced in 2003
AF-S 24-120mm f/4G ED VR - current generation and well regarded, constant f/4, VRII; announced 2010
All lenses are "FX" meaning that they produce an image circle that will cover the image sensor of a 35mm film SLR and an FX "full frame" DSLR. They will also mount on DX sensor cameras and will result in a 1.5x crop due to the smaller sensor.
I have the latest version. I had the 17-55mm/2.8, but found that I didn't use much of the wide end much (and I have a 12-24mm), and wanted more reach. I am very happy with the 24-120. I use it on my D7000.
>Since the price difference for the f4 version and f3.5 is so >big, could I live with the 3.5? Are the optics that much >inferior to the new one?
I use to own both f4 VRII and f3.5 VRI. My copy of the VRI which was even Made in Japan was soft for my taste. I later sold it and purchased the f4 VRII which is optically very sharp IMO. It can rival the 24-70mm f2.8 anything above f5.6 based on my test.
I later sold it to fund other equipment.
Just to give you a size comparison. I think you'll like this lens if you are looking for a medium zoom lens.
I have both the f/4 version and the one that immediately preceeded it. The f/4 version is considerably superior. Many have reported that their f/3.5 version is too soft but apparently there is a lot of variance. My copy of the f/3.5 version is quite good so it would depend on what copy you get.
As a wedding photog I have 4 lenses in my arsenal: 28-70 f2.8 for church and pre wedding at brides home, 24-120 f4 for reception, and 80-200 f2.8 for outdoor and church and 85mm f1.8 for bride and bride/ groom shots.
I have the F4 and find it excellent for my purposes. The fact that it is recommended for the D800 means it must be good optically. VR makes it very flexible and considering that and the range, it is comparatively light. I looked at the 24-70, which is an excellent lens but is bulky and has no VR. The only reason to buy that over the 24-120 f4 in my opinion, is if you want to do a lot of low light photography but then you would probably need to mount it on a tripod anyway. The 24-120 wins on convenience every time.
I have owned the 24-120 F4 for over a year now. At first I used it with my D300s, but I moved to the D800 earlier this year. The lens was sharp on the D300s, but it is incredible on the D800! It is my walk-around lens and is great for just about anything I shoot including landscape, sports and some wildlife.
The 24-120 f4 VR is a great lens. I bought mine about a year ago. The impetus was for video shooting, after using a variety of lenses in the mid-range, I wanted something with a wider range to get nice long zoom shots, avoid lens switching and with VR for handheld shots.
I already had an older 24-85mm and it's an okay lens but the range wasn't wide enough so I figured the 24-70 f2.8 as great a lens as it is reputed to be, just wouldn't do it for me.
As it's a somewhat heavy FX lens I didn't get to carry it out into the field much (after the video project was complete) until I made a conscious decision to suck it up and I took it, paired with a 12-24mm f4 on a D5100, on two, week-long treks this past summer. The results were fantastic. It was a 'bonding' experience for me with this lens and now I can not wait to use it on my, soon to arrive, D600 (yes I'm still waiting).
The answers to my post have — well, inspiring — and so I started lurking in the corridors of eBay to find a 24-120 f4 lens. I also visited camera store where I bought my equipment. They only had the earlier version of that camera. A G lens, opening to f3.5.
And the f4 items on eBay all run to about $1000. That prices me out of the market.
Then I recalled some earlier conversation here about the older D-version, at 28-105mm. Folks raved about the optics and the relatively small size. These could be had for slightly more than $200, about the same as 24-120 f3.5.
The 105mm lacks VR. And it has the aperture ring, no distance info for the body. What other minor conveniences would I miss should I buy the 28-105?
Thanks. The 24-120 is certainly attractive, considering what others said, but I don't have the money for it. I first must buy an 80-200 f2.8 because it will get a lot of use. So it looks like the 28-105 will come soon after.
A mid-range zoom would only be needed for smaller social gatherings where my 16-85 doesn't extend enough. In a way, I feel I'm becoming a 'poker player' about lens length. Trying to fit that need, fill that gap. I am gradually coming to agree with knowledgeable Nikon commentators such as Thom Hogan who bemoan Nikon's neglect of DX shooters who need a fuller range of lenses.
I have the 28-105 from my film days and was very happy with it. I was intending to use it with my D800 but sadly, its years in storage have resulted in some fungus on one of the inner lens elements, so it has been retired.
If you can find a good one I'm sure you will enjoy it.
I still have the 3.5VR version, but sucked it up and bought the f/4 prior to my trip to Europe in September and October. I only took it and my 10.5 fisheye from my DX days along with the D700. Took less than 20 photos with the fisheye - out of 1700. This was a trip where I was able to directly compare images to a trip a couple of years ago with a D90/18-200 kit. Images this time were stellar (technically) compared to the previous trip. The f/4 is a real walkabout winner. It's heavy, but worth it. The VR is better than the 3.5-5.6 version, and image quality is quite a bit better, as well. Great lens. Buy one if you can find a way.