Would appreciate any comparison information you may have or would share on the 28-105 vs 24-120 vs the 28-200 Nikkor's. I currently have the 28-105 but am desiring more for an "all around" lens.
The 24-120 has been surrounded with such controversy relative to image quality and being "slow".... people either appear to love or hate it... and the 28-200 typically is not a hot bed of discussion one way or another.... almost like it is really not there...
Any assistnace and comments would be more than welcome..
Keep your 28-105mm unless you are more into landscapes. If this is the case then exchange it for the 24-85mm; although you will gain at the lower end, you will miss the extra working distance for portraits. So a compromise has to be made. A "normal" or all around lens gets defined by the most common use a photographer will give it; for example, for photojournalists, the all-around is commonly either the 28-70mm, the 35-70mm or the 80-200mm. Have a great time JRP (Nikonian at the north-eastern Mexican desert) My profile Previous photographic journey, before Nikonians: A Brief Love Story
I read from some source I respected (forgot who...oops ) that most people are best served by "jumping" a lens size on the wide end. Thus if you have 28mm, go to 20mm. Obviously this depends on the individual preferences, and your mileage will vary. The reason, as I understand it, that the 28-200 does not get discussed much is that it is more of a p&s-type lens. I don't know about the Nikkor's optical quality, but the Sigma and Tamron models leave much to be desired. So, my advice is about the same as everyone else: keep your excellent lens, and buy something to either widen your horizons (20mm or 24mm prime), or compress them (80-200, or 70-300ED Nikkors).
Not so at the wide end. 24mm is a significant jump over 28mm. Much more significant in angle of view than the jump from 85 to 105 or even 120. I've waited more than a decade for something wider than the wimpy 28mm low end for mid range zooms. I liked my 24-120 zoom, but the 24-85 is the one-lens solution I've been waiting for. It's sharper and faster and has a handy macro capability.
If you've never been wider than 28mm, you should try it. 20mm jumps to superwide territory - exciting to use, but not as forgiving or easy to work with as 24mm.
I do own the 28-105 (actually my wife's lens). It's small, well built and performs well. I'll take the 24-85...
The frequent qualifications of my statements in the previous posts were, as you surmised, due to the fact that I've never been past 28mm . I have a 20mm prime on my mental wish-list, but I'm still recovering from the sticker shock of the 70-300 ED, so it's going to be a long while. However, I think that, due to your advice, I will need to actually look through both a 20 and a 24 before I decide (sometime painfully far into the future). Thanks, Ari
I would recommend the nikkor 28-105 with a 24 or 20mm prime. The 24mm and 20 primes have CRC which allows you to focus really close to an object in the foreground of your landscape while still keeping a true 24mm angle. The 24 and 20 primes are also virtually distortion free as compared to any zoom that incorporates a 20 or 24mm focal length. The 28-105 is special because it is so good the 28mm focal length with regards to sharpness and distortion, it is almost like the 28mm prime.
If you can find a June (I think) issue of Popular Photography, there are some photos in a Keppler article that illustrate the perspective differences. I love both focal lengths, but you would be wise to try them on for size
To get more (range) with a zoom lens you have to settle for less (optical quality). The 28-105 is a very nice compromise 4X zoom lens that can give you decent landscapes as well as a nice portrait range with very little distortion at any focal length. And it's not hopelessly slow, either at f/3.5-4.5.
If you need wide angle help, get a 24 mm prime or an 18-35 zoom. For longer reach consider the many options Nikon has to offer, including the 70-300ED or the famous (but heavy) 80-200 f/2.8. Wide range zooms do everything, but nothing well.
Generally good advice throughout this thread. I normally carry the 24 f2.8, 28-105D, and 70-300D as a compact, light weight and high quality system that suits my needs most of the time (backpacking, nature & landscape). I chose the 24 to supplement the wide end because 20mm is a very large step from the 28mm end of a zoom, and because to my eye the 20 is getting into the ultrawide category. Many zooms are slightly less wide at the low end than an equivalent focal length prime lens, so the jump might really be from 29 or 30 down to 24. I would very occasionally like to have something wider, but for my purposes I wouldn't give up the 24.
It was me that said that the 28-200 Tamron didn't do all that well beyond the 100mm but let me restate that. The Tamron didn't do all that well beyond 100 compared to a prime lens or the 80-200 f2.8 or other high dollar zooms. However, the Tamron 28-200 is an excellent lens for travel pics, people and places and most certainly is capable of professional quality images. Please don't be dissuaded from considering a lens based solely on this site's comments. The 28-200 Tamron is the best all around lens according to the European market. I happen to prefer the Nikkor 28-105 for the optical quality.
I went by a Wolf store today and, despite the employee's rude attitude, tried out a 28-105. I really really wanted to like the lens. It was much more compact than I suspected, and it has a 62mm filter size that just happens to coincide with my 70-300 ED's filter size. The macro (1:2?) mode is a definite plus. AF is faster than my 28-80, largely because of IF, larger aperture, and the macro switch that reduces the range the lens has to focus under normal conditions. But, the lens just didn't make me go "wow, I really need this." I think a lot of that is the stiffness of the zoom ring. The employee claimed, probably correctly, that that was just because it was new, but none of my two other lenses had this problem. So, my gut feeling is currently that if someone handed me one I would hand them my 28-80, but it's not worth the $200 price difference for me right now, especially not on the N65 (which, I imagine, doesn't get as much of a boost from IF as cameras with bigger AF motors do).
#16. "RE: 24-120 vs 28-105 vs 28-200" | In response to Reply # 15
Fri 10-Aug-01 08:26 PM
I have the 28-105 Nikkor and it is a very sharp lens... but agree with your assessment other than the comment on zoom control, mine is very easy to turn and smooth. BUT.. the zoom range is just not all that exciting. The macro feature works well and serves my needs... but something longer and wider in both ends of the zoom spectrum is calling me.. ha, ha.
Don't know what I'll end up with at this point.. hence my origina question on the 24-120 and 28-200... also considering the TOKINA 24-200 which has really gotten rave reviews.
A final note: The 28-105 appears to get very consistent and favorable reviews (by consumers) on sharpness/image. The 24-120 is the most amazingly controvercial lens I have ever read about - people love or hate it (has to be a lack of consistent quality). Some similarities on the 28-200 reviews. So far the Tokina 24-200 consumer reviews I have found on the web are all very complementary.
#17. "RE: 24-120 vs 28-105 vs 28-200" | In response to Reply # 15
Fri 10-Aug-01 08:31 PM
One other thought... the new NIKKOR 24-85 has also gotten mixed reviews and one referenced web site review (from this site) indicated that it took the person 3 lenses to get one that was satisfactory!!!! Very concerned about Nikon's "consumer" priced lenses lately.... If the reviews are accurate and different quality exists as much as the reviews differ that is not a good trend for Nikon to be developing.
Maybe Wolf had a bad sample. I was surprised just to see them carrying real Nikkors to begin with, as usually they prefer Sigmas. As I thought I said, but forgot, I still like the lens. I even prefer it to my 28-80. It just didn't jump out and grab me as a must-have. The range is certainly an improvement over my 28-80, especially with macro. On the wider end, I want a 20mm prime, and on the tele end, I have my 70-300ED
You didn't seem to have much response to your question about the Nikor 24-120 versus the 28-200. I own both, as well as the 28-200 2.8, and here is my take on it. I am an advanced amature, not a pro, but I have taken half a dozen weddings, a number of portraits, and several hundred roles of photos of live bands. My candid work is facilitated by having a wide zoom range. I simply don't have time to flip from one prime lens to another and still get the shots I want. Consequently, the 28-105 would not be particularly appealing to me, and while I have primes I rarely use them. I first worked with the 28-200 and although it was sometimes "soft" at the 200mm range most of the photos were excellent. I purchased the 24-120 because the reviews were more positive and the extra 4mm on the wide side was appealing (it seemed that 28mm was often not quite wide enough). Since purchasing the 24-120 that lens is on my camera about 95 percent of the time. The quality of the images is excellent and I make frequent use of the 24mm on the wide end. My only complaint about both lenses is that they are slow, which is a nuisance for focusing in low light -- but not such a nuisance that I will soon switch. I do have the 80-200 which is much faster, but it is so heavy that it is often just not worth the trouble of carrying it around. In conclusion, my advice is that the 28-200 is a good lens but the 24-120 is a better lens with a better zoom range.