Nikon 24-120mm f/4G VR
Reader Interactions
Reader Comments
Comment Policy: Although our team at Photography Life encourages all readers to actively participate in discussions, we reserve the right to delete / modify any content that does not comply with our Code of Conduct, or do not meet the high editorial standards of the published material.
Outstanding review ! Well worth the wait.
Thank you Anders!
Nikon 24-120 f4 with vr (not really sharp over 70mm) or tamron 24-70 vc ? What would you recommend?
My question also. Did you make a choice already?
Very comprehensive and convincing analysis. I second the vote: Well worth the wait.
I also appreciate the comparison to the 70-200, which I have.
My new 24-120 will be on the way today from B&H.
Thanks again. Your reviews are the best on the Internet!
And thanks for putting up with my nagging.
Thank you Peter!
Let me know what you think of the 24-120mm when you receive it :)
I didn’t expect it to be this good!! Thanks Nasim for the great review, I’m ordering mine now.
Hessam, you are most welcome!
Hi Nassim,
Love the site and once again a very thorough review, but I have just a few questions. How would it perform on DX? Would the vignetting and distortion be less noticeable? I would also assume I could use filters with no problems on DX even at 24mm.
I have the 12-24 f4 dx lens and would love to pair it with the 24-120 f4 to keep the weight down to a minimum for landscape photography by carrying just two lenses. That would give me an effective focal range of 18-180mm on dx.
Thanks for all the info,
Steven
Steven, the lens was tested on the Nikon D700 and Nikon D3s bodies, but will certainly work very well on DX. Since only the middle portion of the lens is used, you will get very sharp corners and you should also see much less vignetting. Distortion should be slightly less noticeable too. And yes, you should be able to use thick filters on DX at 24mm without much added vignetting.
12-24mm f/4.0 + 24-120mm f/4.0 sound like a great combo! I love the 12-24mm – it is a great lens too.
Since it is a full frame lens attached to a dx body (1.5 cropped), it is equilvalent to a 36mm-180mm. Still a wise choise to match along with the wide lens :)
Great review, well worth the wait! Now my question for you is: Are YOU planning to replace your 24-70 for this one? because that is my dilemma! I can NOT afford to have them both, is either one or the other, so if you were in my shoes, what would you do? I’ll be looking forward to your response! And thank you so much for the the work, time and effort you put into this reviews!
Hi Maryvel, really like your blog and website – your photos are very impressive.
If you need the additional tele range – then it is great lens, as is VR. I find this lens is great for portraits – although the bokeh is not like the 85mm f1.4 or the 70-200mm, it models faces very pleasing.
Depends on your needs, the 24-70mm is a stellar lens as well.
Thank you pasquier! I am quite pleased with the 24-70mm but I often find myself it would reach a little bit further and that’s what really appeals to me about this new lens but I was afraid it was going to be a bit of disappointment as the new 28-300mm was for me being so soft when wide open as you have seen was also Nassims finding about that lens. So I was REALLY waiting for his review. I think I am quite convinced now, so I am getting one tomorrow and putting my 24-70mm up for sale, since I can NOT afford to have them both, is either one or the other! Hopefully I won’t have to regret my decision later on!
Maryvel, there is only one reason that is holding me back right now – the rugged construction of the 24-70mm. I shoot in extreme weather conditions a lot and I am not sure how long the 24-120mm would survive with my abuse. It is a tough decision to make :)
What is the reason for wanting to replace the 24-70mm, if I may ask?
Thanks for great review. It appears that my fear has been realised. The new 24-105mm exceeds or at least as good as my 24-70mm. You definitely makes me think if I should keep mine or sell it now and get a new 24-120mm. I bought a 16-35mm F4 after reading your review and I have to say new VR often works wonders. I haven’t used 14-24mm F2.8 before but this lens is way better than Sigma 12-24mm and Tamron 17-35mm. A rumor has it that Nikon is bringing out a new replacement lens for 24-70mm F2.8 this year and it will be 24-105mm F2.8 VR. I have no doubt that it will be another SUPER lens. Now the question is: which one will hold the value better until then, a 24-70mm or a 24-105mm? I would appreciate your thought.
The “rumoured” Nikon 24-105 f2.8mm VR is sheer “speculation”.
There is no substance to this rumour, other than what some person envisages Nikon could produce in future……
Duncan, the Nikon 24-70mm is still a great lens! I have taken it everywhere with me – from humid coasts and sandy dunes to extremely hot and cold temperatures and it has never failed me once. More focal range, VR and less weight obviously sound very intriguing, but I don’t think I’m ready to fully part with my 24-70mm yet. I will probably buy this lens as a backup and will see how it survives in my bag.
Hi Nasim,
great review – very impressed – you’ve made a lot of effort and added excellent detail – thanks.
I’m very impressed with this lens – haven’t had any time to do any major testing – but I like what I see so far.
Best, P:)
Did you get one Pasquier? I’m holding on to my 24-70 and saving up for a 70-200 to go with it. If I didn’t already have the 24-70 I’d jump on this in a heartbeat! VR would have saved my bacon quite a few times.
Hi Aaron, year I got one last month – but has been o busy or the weather too gross to really try it out.
I have a few pics and an initial impression on my blog.
I kept drooling about the 24-70mm, but my past experience was that I really use longer focal lengths more… so I’m glad that I held out.
Aaron, I would save up for the 70-200mm instead of worrying about replacing the 24-70mm :)
I agree with that assessment. The new 70-200mm VRII is a STUNNING lens – period.
Yup, that’s what I was thinking! Maybe add a TC-20E III for a poor man’s 140-400mm f/5.6. :-)
If you can find the TC-20E III…!
Mine has been order for quite a while.
All is all, the new 70-200 is an incredible lens, and one of my favourites.
The aAFS is stunningly fast – and it works very well with the TC1.7 – I’ll post some pics on my blog.
PS Nasim, I hope you don’t mind us misusing your blog as a “chat-board”.
Thank you Pasquier! Would love to hear more from you about this lens to see if your findings are on par with mine.
Hi Nasim
I finally had a chance to test this lens over the past WE – we had glorious weather.
I’m very impressed with this lens – and have posted a brief summary on my blog:
The colour, saturation and contrast is really impressive. It really makes my older generation of Nikkor lenses look “stale”.
Best, P:)
Another great review Nasim! Thank you very much!
I hope Nikon will make more f4 lenses (70-200 f4 VRII) he he!
Thank you Michael, I too hope that Nikon releases more f/4 lenses! We have already received two this year and hopefully Nikon will release the 70-200mm f/4 next year.
Thanks and more thanks Nasim, for another authoritative review. This one was reaaallly interesting, as I’m in the market right for a pro Nikon midrange zoom.
You are most welcome Terje, glad you found the review helpful.
Great review Nasim (as usual!). I was pleasantly surprised to see how well it held up against the 24-70mm in sharpness when wide open. I haven’t used this lens myself yet, but it appears that Nikon did a superb job designing it for it’s intended market. It’s always good for the consumer to have choices!
P.S. I forgot to mention, I LOVE your bird shot on the first page!
Thank you Aaron! Yes, I was surprised about the sharpness myself – ran the tests three times just in case and the lens performed well in all three tests.
Yes, more choices are great, especially for those on lower budget…
well establish review of the lens..as i owned 24-70 before now going for this great lens..now every single day i hv free peace of mind without to think to bring many lens as for Walkround lens..as this lens serve me better…
Thank you for your feedback Zul!
Thank you for your down to earth review. Covers all the points that interest me in a lens I’m considering.
Thanks Nasim,
Always appreciate the insights and information. I will definitely be purchasing this lens asap.
Steven
Oddly, I have seen this lens slagged off in some reviews (including a 2/10). There is an interesting post on this lens at www.dpreview.com/forum…ad/2902564 where the poster complains about it. He has kindly posted some original JPEGS which once shown some sharpening in LR or PS look very detailed indeed, though there’s quite a bit of CA going on. His pics and your review have sold me this lens and I shall acquire one without delay!
Hi again Nasim,
I’m sure you rmemebr that I followed your review of the 28-300 with great interest. Based on your 24-120 review I’m picking one up to-morrow replacing my 16-85 and 70-300. I now have the 28-300 as a great carry around lens and an f/4 combination of 12-24, 24-120, and 70-200+tc1.4. i’ve been hoping to move this way for some time and was just awaiting a convincing report that the 24-120 would out perform the 28-300 (a lens of which I am more than well pleased!). Thanks for that missing piece of information Nasim!
Nasim,
Great review of the 24-120 f/4 VR AFS Lens, best I have read anywhere on the internet.
One of my faviorite articles you wrote is “What are the best Nikon lenses for wedding photography?” So where would you list the 24-120 f/4 VR AFS Lens on your favorite Nikon Lenses for Wedding Photography? Behind the primes and f/2.8 lenses or inbetween because of its versitility and VR?
Cheers, Bill Creech
I’d be very interested to hear its suitability for weddings, and I suspect it’s just the job. Using primes as I do on the D700 is a real pain.
Based on Nasim’s review, I bought the lens.
I just got the lens from B&H and tested it today.
Conclusion: Nasim’s report is accurate. I’m glad I bought it.
Very interesting to read. I bought the lens and was very impressed as well but I feel confirmed by this test.
One thing: nobody talks about this lens for DX. All the good things but no problem with vignetting and less distortion.
I think this lens combined with a ultrawide lens like the 12-24mm is a “dreamteam”. My 17-55mm lens is used mostly in the two ends, missing often more tele and missing more wide.
No I have an extremely great range splitted in only two lenses and exactly the most used range in “normal” photography in a very light package. I can recommend to every DX shooter!
Thank You for this in-depth review af this new optical instrument.
I have used my sample during the past four weeks, and I am more than satisfied not to say excited !
Having used various samples af its predecessors this is groundbreaking jump-up in performance in every aspect.
On my D3 I can now cover 12-600 mm vith 4 items in my bag.
Sigma 12-24, Nikkor 24-120, Sigma 120-300, 2xconverter.
Despite having some more specialized and excotic lenses to sweeten my photograpic life, my new Nikkor 24-120 F4 has become my favorite tool.
It recently occurred to me, how does the 24-120 f4 compare with the Nikon 70-300, which I find fine when used within its limitations. If it is as good as or better than this, it will suit me fine.
Anyone done a comparison?
Hi Per,
having just traded in my 70-300 against a 24-120 I cannot make the actual comparison any more …. but I feel that in the overlapping range they are not too disimilar – although you get an extra stop with the 24-120. I always felt that my 70-300 was more like a 70-200 which woked at 300 at a push – it was not pin sharp above 250.
It has been a tough call for me to make this change and Nasim’s review finally convinced me (as you may have followed above). The reason for trading the 70-300 also has a lot to do with my new 28-300 which, on my copy, is the equal of my old 70-300 in IQ, although (as Nasim has pointed out) not the equal in AF performance. But I have always had to carry two lenses when using the 70-300 (I also carried a 16-85 also px’ed for the 24-120!). now I can cover the whole range (for me – I don’t shoot much wide angle) with just one lens. And if I need the AF performance I can now carry my 24-120 and 70-200
with TC1.4 which gives me fast coverage and the best AF performance for my money over the same range!
Incidentally, I use a D300s in case this affects your decision. Good luck with your choice and I sympathise with your dilema!
Sorry I should have said Stefan, not Per!!
I compared the 24-120 at 24mm & f/4 with (1) the Nikon 17-35 at 24mm & f/2.8 and (2) the Nikon 20mm prime & f/2.8. I judged the lenses using the vertical edge of a partially opened door on the right side of the photos.
The photos were take at 10 feet using a Nikon D700.
The least distortion (door edge curve) was from the 17-35 lens. It was a no-brainer. The lens costs $1760 at B&H, however.
Although a much tougher choice, I would give second place to the 20mm prime lens ($565) with the 24-120 just very very very slightly behind it.
Overall, I was very pleased with how well the 24-120 did against the tough competition. I later fixed the distortion in Photoshop in a few seconds .
Lastly and obviously, I get great range in the 24-120 that I don’t get with the other 2 lenses. All are keepers.
Hi Nasim, Great review, Im glad I found it via the thread on the DPR forum. I was an early adopter of the new 24-120 as mine arrived at the end of September, and I love it! I bought it for DX use on the D300, and the 36-180 range works really well for me as a single lens travel solution. Having used the lens for six weeks or so, I agree with virtually everything you report.
As as former 24-70 user (it was simply too heavy for my hobbyist use) I was waiting for the 24-120 as a replacement in terms of similar (but not quite the same quality) IQ, at a lower weight and with a bigger range, and I’ve not been disappointed. It has now accompanied me across Europe, and the results are great!
Thank you for taking the time to pull these reviews together, I guess they take a lot of time and trouble so your endeavours are highly appreciated! I shall enjoy looking at your site in the future.
Hi Nasim,
Following your review I went ahead and purchased a 24-120 and I am very well pleased with it. It performs exactly as you have predicted. There is one observation, though, in which I differ. I have compared the magnification between my 105f/2.8, 28-300 and 24-120 on a subject at around 6 feet distance. I found the following focal lengths required for a consistent sized image:
105 = 105 (suprise suprise!)
28-300 = 115
24-120 = 120
And just in case it was the 105 (Unlikely!) I had yesterday compared my 70-200 VR1 with a similar conclusion (hence this retest against the 105 prime lens). So it appears as if the ‘focus breathing’ tendency is common to both 28-300 and 24-120 . . . or am I misunderstanding the comparison?
You will also be pleased to hear that the 24-120 at 105 mm is almost as sharp as the 105 lens ( a known sharp one) and colour rendition appears identical; both were set at f/4. The 28-300 is not quite as sharp and needs f/8 to keep up . . .when it gets a bit dark!
Keep up the good work please Nasim . . . I think your site is gaining a good reputation with the ‘thinking’ photographic community for your fair and objective reporting.!
Well thanks a lot. :-) I am planning on moving to FX soon and was going to buy the 16-35mm f/4 and just use my 50mm f/1.4 in between 35 and 80mm (as I have the lovely 85 f/1.4 and also the 80-200mm f/2.8), but now after your raving review of the new 24-120, I find myself in a bit of a quandry (I cannot afford the move to FX and TWO new lenses!). Thanks for the thorough review!
Had the same problem, so I sold off lots of lenses and used the money to buy new stuff.
I sold all 3 DX lenses, bought the Nikon 18-200 V.2 which remains on my D300 as the only DX lens I own.
I sold my 35, 50, and 85 full-frame lenses used on my D700. Used the money toward the new 24-120.
Just wanted to thank you very much for this very fine review of this lens. I know this is very time consuming for you. Looks like it’s a keeper. All the best with your work!
Byron, thank you for your feedback! Yes, reviews do take a lot of time, which is why I have a hard time keeping up with posting more stuff on the blog :)
Many thanks for your review, I’m sure i’ll go for this when funds allow. Having upgraded from a D70 to a D700 i’ve enjoyed digital photography like I didn’t think was possible. All my lenses were full frame Nikons having previously had a F70. My collection now has 18-35mmF3,5-4,5, 85mm F18, 50mm F1.8, 180mmF2,8, 300mm F4 +1.4 TC ( thanks to your review) and my oldest lens a very compact and high quality 28-70mm F3.5-4.5, I’ve never had any issues with sharpness or distortion with this lens only its rather limited range. The 24-120mmF4 appears to be good replacement as a walk about lens. I’m not put off lugging equipment around but there are plenty of times when there’s no time to change lens to capture the shot. Thanks for the great review
Adrian, you are most welcome, I’m glad you find my reviews helpful.
Have a wonderful week.
Hi Nasim,
I stumbled upon your blog and I’m glad there is actually someone out there that can review lenses and not sound like a clown the way Ken Rockwell does. I used to take his advice on lenses only to find out through my own experiences that he doesn’t know what he is talking about. Also, I was never impressed with his images. Glad I found your blog!
Fred
Fred, thank you for your feedback, I truly appreciate it.
I’ve finally decided to purchase this lens after reading a lot of good feedbacks, including your thorough review. I tried it a couple of days ago to see how it fares in landscape (although I intend to use this as a walk-about lens) photography.
I noticed that when I use the P-series Cokin adaptor to fit in ND grad, there is a dark shadows at both left and right side of the frame @24mm. They disappeared at 28mm and above. The lens produce more decent images compared to my existing 18-200mm but I suppose I’d have to purchase a wider adaptor.
Floyd, I’m glad you like the lens. As I have pointed out in my review, you have to be extra careful when using filters, since it does vignette quite a bit, even with a circular polarizer. If you use ND filters, simply holding the filter in front of the lens will do the trick and it won’t vignette…
I enjoyed reading all the extensive reviews on this site.
Based on the information you have here with all your testing/reviews, which of the two lenses—AF-S 24-120 f4 VR and AF-S 24-70 f2—would you buy? Why?
Thanks.
What other lenses do you have? What camera(s) do you have? What kind of photography do you do?
What’s your budget?
Allan, for day to day/general photography, I would get the 24-120mm, because it offers a great range to work with. For mission-critical work or shooting in challenging conditions with extreme weather, I would get the 24-70mm instead.
Nasim thank you for the great review of this lens and the 28-300.
I am looking at buying a travel lens for my D700 (I currently use a Nikon 50 1.4, 70-300 VR and 24-70).
I notice optically you are a supporter of the 24-120 compared to the 28-300, however if you had to pick one to take on a trip, which would it be based on your own experience? 24 is wide enough for me, and I think 120 is as long as I need, but the long end of the 28-300 is enticing!
Thanks!
Kevin, I would pick the 24-120mm over 28-300mm any time! It is sharper, more accurate and has better colors than the 28-300mm.
And don’t worry about the long end – that’s what your 70-300mm is for! :)
Thanks for your reply Nasim. I ended up getting the 24-120! I plan to take only the 24-120 and my 50 1.4 with my D700 on my next trip. I will leave the 70-300 VR at home and see how I go. Hopefully I don’t end up regretting it (ie not bringing the 70-300)!!
Hi Nasim
I ended up getting the 24-120 f/4 VR, and paired with my 70-300 the two made a great travel combo. Thanks for the advice!
My only question is if you can recommend any specific slim profile polarising filters? When shooting with my existing normal polarising filters, I also experienced heavy vignetting at 24mm. Any suggestions on specific models?
Many thanks!
Thank you again for your analysis. I have pre-ordered a D800 and my only FX lens at this time is a Nikon 80-400. Would the 24-120mm paired w/the 80-400 cover most travel photography and walkabout. My only issue w/the 80-400 is the weight, other than that its pretty sharp and responsive for high end.
Thanks for your comprehensive review of the new 24-120 F4 lens. I have the 24-70 F2.8 G which is a beautiful lens (sharpness/AF speed) but at times is a little “short” in reach. I also have the older F3.5/5.6 24-120 which I basically stopped using (despite the extra tele) because it was too soft for critical work. I’m glad the new faster upgrade of this lens is much improved in terms of sharpness, and will probably get one to use as an “all purpose/street” lens to replace the old one. Thanks again for your thorough review.
James, I agree with the 24-120mm f/3.5-5.6 being too soft for critical work – I tried two versions of that lens and both were soft at large apertures. I’m sure you will like the new 24-120mm much better than the old one!
Dear Nasim
Firstly , I take your website to be the Bible of Nikon. Thabks for being the Messiah to us novices.
I just bought the D700 and now been looking for a Wide to Tele Lens for the same. I was using NIKON FM3a Film Camera with 24-85 f2.8 – f4 Nikkor Lens.
Should now change to Nikkor 24-120 f 3.5 – f5.6. The 24-120mm f4 constant aperture is quite out of m y league.
Would you recomend Nikkor 24-120 f 3.5 – f5.6 ( It has ED glass and VR too )
Await your reply … oh our Guide.
Nimesh
Hi Nasim,
and anyone who wants to offer an opinion
Always seem to end up on your site when searching for things, so thought this was the best place to ask a question! Really admire your images too, you capture emotion brilliantly.
I’ll keep it brief…currently shoot weddings and portraits with d300 and 17-55 – am purchasing a d3s and will need one lens to stay on the camera: either 24-70 or 24-120. Question is, at the business end, with low light in churches, up at 1600iso and engagement shoots where i want to bokeh the background, will the latter really step up? I love the idea of extra length, but worry it is too much of a compromise in the end.
Thank you for your feedback Marcus! When it comes to low-light photography the 24-70mm is sharp at f/2.8 in the center, so it is certainly usable in low-light situations. For business work, I would certainly get the 24-70mm over the 24-120mm for two reasons: a) construction/sealing (I bump my lenses all the time and people have spilled their drinks on it too) and b) better bokeh for tight shots, as you can see from the review.
Not that the 24-120mm is not great for weddings – I really enjoyed it while shooting a wedding. If you occasionally take weddings and portraits, then the 24-120mm is certainly a great value. But if photography is your bread and butter, then go with the 24-70mm.
I used the 24-120 for a portrait shoot of nieces, nephews, and pets. I tested indoor lighting arrangement along with 105mm and 70-200mm and decided on the new 24-12o . Am I glad I did. Great flexibilty of range, very sharp pics at f/8, no distortion, shooting at ISO 200 and 400.. I am beginning to wonder if i should keep my 105 and 70-200 after this experience. I was using a D700.
Marcus: This is a perfect wedding lens.
Hi Peter, thanks for that, not bothered about the distortion…the wonders of LR3! I did read quite a bit about that elsewhere though.
It’s mainly how it performs wide open at f4, and whether the d3s is good enough to give me fast focussing in a dark church, when paired with it, or whether the 2.8 24/70 is in a another league or not when getting ‘the shot.’
Marcus, see my response above.
By the way, if you want to get a D3s with the 24-70mm or 24-120mm, now is the good time to buy them. Nikon is giving away $300-400 on each lens you buy. Here is more info on the rebates.
Another camera you might want to take a look at is the Nikon D700 for low-light work or perhaps a used Nikon D3.
Peter, you mentioned sharp at f/8 – how about wide open performance? My sample tested to be sharp at f/4…
I would not sell the 70-200mm if I were you. Love that glass! :)
I decided to keep the 105 and the 70-200. Checking internet info on both lenses they have very little distortion. The 105 supposidly has zero distortion. I think I’m set for a while.
Peter, good decision there, I fully support it :)
What an excellent review! Extremely detailed with some lovely pictorial examples. You have convinced me to part exchange my Nikon 24-85mm f3.5-4.5 for this new lens. It will be nice to have a zoom where the front section doesn’t wobble! The VR is a tremendous plus and the new 24-120 will be great on my D700, especially for weddings.
Thanks,
Brian
Thank you Brian! Let me know how you like the 24-120mm!
Большое спасибо за тест! Несколько дней назад я продал свой 24-70/2,8 в пользу этого объектива. Всё это время меня не покидали сомнения в правильности принятого решения. Теперь немного успокоился. Нашёл много интересного на Вашем сайте. Спасибо, удачи!
Василий, рад что Вам понравился мой обзор – 24-120 очень хороший объектив! Конечно же не без проблем, но если бы не было этих проблем, он бы и стоил Бог его знает сколько :)
Thank you for a very thorough review. I just bought this lens but have yet to play around with it. At one point in your review you say “this is not a portrait lens”. Why do you say that. Certainly the focal length range is perfect for that. Is it because it’s an f4 lens vs a f2.8? If I take a head shot at f5.6 is it any different if the lens maximum aperature is f2.8 or f4? Thanks again for making me feel good about my purchase!
John,
Portrait lenses create beautiful bokeh and are normally very fast lenses with apertures larger than f/4.0. You can certainly take portraits with the 24-120mm, but don’t expect the bokeh to be as creamy as the one on Nikon 50mm f/1.4G or Nikon 85mm f/1.4G…
Hello mr.
For portraits I usually use an aperture of 5.6. Using 1.4 or 2.8 gives a too shallow depht of field wich means only the eyes are sharp and it is difficult to focus. If you are working on 5.6 or even 8 is there still a big difference? I found the bokeh of this lens not bad at all! Does working on 120mm in stead of 85mm improve the bokeh?
Greetings Flax.
Flax, depth of field changes as you change the distance between yourself and your subject. When shooting at large apertures, move away from your subject a little and you will get a larger depth of field. And in terms of f/5.6 vs f/8.0, yes, there is a difference between the two apertures. I would not shoot portraits at f/8.0…
Just read a report about the 24-120 in the latest Nikonian on-line magazine. While it was as extensive as the one by Nasim, it reached the same conclusions.
Thank you Nasim,
due to your sensitive positive report i got now a Nikon D700 with that lens; Just set AF-Fine Tuning to -10 with my lens and now I get amazing results – a really good FX starting pair.
/Karl
Glad you like that lens Karl and congratulations with the purchase :)
Yes Nasim I like my D700!! – it’ s a solid reliable working tool;
/Karl
Thank you for letting us know Peter, appreciate it!
Thanks for this thorough and well supported review! Having read Ken Rockwell’s comments on both the 28-300 and 24-120, I was lead to believe these were actually 100% exchangeable between one another and perform the same, whereas it is now clear to me, based on your specific test results and comments, that they are, in fact quite different and perform very differently too!
I might have been inclined to go with the 28-300 as an all-purpose single lens or travel lens, but you have convinced me to go wtih the 24-120 instead, since I do care about the quality of the pictures I get.
Thanks again and best regards,
CEB
Claude, you are most welcome! Yes, the 28-300mm and 24-120mm are not the same lenses when it comes to performance :)
Dear Nasim
Thank you and this is another great review (the last time i got the 16-35mm and have never looked back).
I would be keen to hear your thoughts on how it compares with the 28-200mm ED which is dinky but sharp as well (no VR of course)
Also how does it compare with the 16-35mm in the 24-35mm range ? (of course that range is the sweet spot for 16-35mm but short end for this lens).
I also hear you saying that ‘for day to day/general photography, I would get the 24-120mm, because it offers a great range to work with. For mission-critical work or shooting in challenging conditions with extreme weather, I would get the 24-70mm instead.’
Kindest regards
nadeem
Nadeem, if you like the 16-35mm, then you will definitely like the 24-120mm, since both lenses perform very similarly!
great review . have got my new D 700 . was confused about getting a good travel lens . Now after reading this review convinced abt buying this lens .
This Lens is really in short supply even in Hong Kong as I have been waiting for three weeks. The salesman replied that he did not know the shipment date.
However， the 24-70 2.8 lenses are available and the salesman asked me if I wanted to swithch to this. I think this 24-120 is really good for all purposes no matter indoor or outdoor and bright or dark environment.
I hope I will get it soon.
Lawrence, if you need the extra range, then I would recommend to wait until the 24-120mm is available.
Thank you for this review. I had purchased this lens based on your recommendations and went out to shoot on Christmas eve. It is fantastic indeed.
Thanks so much.
Wow, Alex, you have some amazing images on your NYC site!
I’ve used it for 2 months now and am very happy – look forward to seeing some of your results with it!
Thanks! :)
This is the first posted image, with some more holiday NYC images to come:
Alex, I’m glad you like the lens, congratulations with your purchase :) I really like your photographs, keep it up!
Fantastic, in-depth review of this lens. Your site is rapidly becoming one of my favorites to stop in when I am considering a purchase. Thank you for taking the time to do and post this extensive review !
Hello Nasim and forum,
I’m trying to decide between the 24-70/2.8 and the 24-120/f4. The one thing I’d like to know is if the
24-70/2.8 has a certain “something” that doesn’t show up on test charts, etc. For instance, in actual prints from a high-end ink-jet printer, can one see better color translation, clarity, etc in the 24-70 vs the 24-120, or is there any other “quality” in visual terms (ie, non-verbal, non-measurable) that the 24-70 has over the 24-120? I realize this is a purely subjective question; still, I’d like to hear what 24-70 owners have to say on this if they’ve had the opportunity to compare both lenses as Nasim has. Thanks!
Bob, in terms of color and contrast, I personally feel that both the 24-70mm and 24-120mm are about the same, maybe with a very slight edge by the 24-70mm. The 24-70mm obviously has a better/more solid build and will survive tough weather. If you don’t shoot in very challenging conditions, I would just go with the 24-120mm.
Hi Nasim, great site. Please let me know if the Nikon 24-120mm f/4 will be best suited for D90. Thanks a lot.
Yes, 24-120mm will work on D90.
Hi Nasim,
I just saw another review in youtube that score this lens very low like photozone did, I’m really confused why the reviews its so different?
www.opticallimits.com/nikon…4120f4vrff
Thanks a lot!
Take the plunge and get this lens. It is pin-sharp and walks all over my 24 f.28D, my 35 f2D and my 70-300mm VR. It is also not far off the quality of the 105mm VR. I did try the 28-300 VR and the quality is nowhere near. Yes, it has some bad reviews but I don’t know why. Contrast and colour are also spot-on. It has some distortion though mine does not have a CA problem. It is sharp, sharp, sharp.
Hi Richard,
maybe the resolution test against a D3(s) would look different, I am not sure what the max resolution for this sensor is but testing against the Nikon D3x is challenging;
On my D700 the lens make a good job
/Karl
Richard, seems like similar to the 28-300mm, there are some bad samples out there. Mine was very sharp as you can see from the provided 100% crops and it performed well against the Nikon 24-70mm and 70-200mm lenses (which I often use as “benchmark” lenses to test against). Looks like Nikon is not doing so well with their QA process in Chinese factories, which is very unfortunate…
Oh and one more thing Richard, while I very much respect photozone.de, their lens ratings have gotten much stricter lately. Take a look at their Nikon 24-120mm f/3.5-5.6 VR review, which they gave 3/3/4 score on DX sensor and gave a much worse 2.5/4.5/2.5 score for the new Nikon 24-120mm f/4.0 VR. As you can see from my comparison shots, the older Nikon 24-120mm is really crappy compared to the new one. I’m sure their score for the 24-120mm is going to be a little better on a DX sensor, but I rank the new 24-120mm much higher than the older 24-120mm f/3.5-5.6.
At the same time, their tests are based on a much more demanding Nikon D3x sensor, which does require lenses to provide a lot of resolution. My tests are based on 12mp D700/D3s sensors.
Now if you look at the DxOMark test results, they are showing better results on D3x rather than on D3s, which is even more confusing :)
At the end of the day, it is whatever works out for you. Give this lens a try and see how you like it. If you get a good sample like many of us, I’m sure you will absolutely love this lens.
I find these comments rather interesting. IMHO, Nasim has written one of the most objective appraisals of this lens. I’ve used it under a variety of conditions and am very pleased with it. My suggestion, take want you read on the internet with a grain of salt!
Thank you very much guys!
@Lord Beau, I had 28-300 for 1 week and send back… the quality of this lens for me not acceptable for me that use primes lenses most of time.
@Nasim Mansurov, I will order mine 24-120 and post some pictures here when I received, this lens will be my first zoom, I use most of time AFS 24mm f1.4G and 85mm f1.4G but I need something for travel/family/events.
Thanks you guys and Nasim this review.
Richard, you might get slightly disappointed by your first zoom lens after using the 24mm f/1.4G and 85mm f/1.4G :)
Agreed. I hope it was clear that I meant the 28-300 was nowhere near as good as the new 24-120 which has a very crisp and clean look.
I am in the process of buying a D300s and was wondering what your opinion of the 16-85 was compared to the 24-120. I was thinking of getting the 16-85 and then a 70-200(or 300). Or do I go with 12-24 and 24-120? any thoughts?
Rick, the 16-85mm is a DX lens, while the 24-120mm is an FX/DX lens – that’s the biggest difference. If you use a DX camera, you might be better off with the 16-85mm if you work with wide angles, since 24mm on DX is more like 35mm.
If you can afford the 12-24mm and the 24-120mm, then that would be a superb combo that gives you great quality and range.
I used to have the D300 with 16-85mm and now have the the D700 with teh 24-120mm, The 16-85mm performed very well and also the 24-120 does this on FX;
The 24-120 for DX brings three disadvantages to it:
a) more expensive
b) very heavy and bulky compared to the 16-85mm
c) the range of the 16-85mm is better balanced – more wide angle
And I wold go for the 70-200 2.8!
so I would prefer your first combination.
/Karl
/Karl
Thanks for the advice Karl. You think that the 16-85 on D300s = 24-120 on D700 for sharpness and overall image quality? If that’s the case then my only concern is that I plan to upgrade to full frame sometime in the future so if I had the 24-120, I would already have a great lens to start.
Rick, if you are planning to upgrade to FX, skip the 12-24mm and 16-85 – go with the 24-120mm.
If you plan to migrate to FX and would not waste money
the 24mm-120mm should be fine but you start on DX with 37mm
so you would have to need to change the lens very often dependent
on situation;
/Karl
I agree with Karl here.
Great review! I am planning to get a d7000 and upgraded glass (as I’ve heard its more demanding on the optics). I was torn between the 24-70 and 70-200, but it sounds like this lense may be the happy medium (since I’m not doing a lot of travel yet). Thanks!
Thank you Joe! The 24-120mm is a great compromise if you do not need to go beyond 120mm.
Wait a minute, Nasim!
You tout the 24-120mm as having comparable sharpness and IQ to these other lenses and have backed up your assertions through your posted image tests(which were very convincing); in fact, the crux of your review was that you couldnt find ANY IQ differences between this lens and the 24-70mm and how you were very surprised.
Then, you turn around and say that “OBVIOUSLY” these other lenses will provide better “quality”?
Sorry, my friend, but it makes it very difficult to take any of your reviews seriously. You should have said from the very start that the 24-120mm is a fine lens, but not a substitute for the others. But, instead, your review gives the impression that this lens is indeed a viable substitute for these other professional lenses.
The meaning of the word “obvious” is something that is easily discernible; even by a casual, uninformed observer. Yet, your review of the 24-120mm is centered around your astonishment that there is little to NO difference in IQ between this lens and its professional cousins.
I’m sure some will accuse me of parsing your syntax for semantic errors, but when you undertake the role of reviewer you’re taking on a huge responsibility. If you need proof of how heavy that responsibility is, just look at the number of people who’ve bought this lens based on your review.
Please correct me if I’m wrong, but it seems to me that as time went on you may have had a change of heart about this lens.
Aside from the “obvious” f2.8 max aperture, which is beneficial for low light and portraiture work, I see nothing else in your tests that indicates that these other lenses will provide better “quality”? Please expound!
JR, I certainly would not back off my claim that the 24-120mm is a better buy than the 24-70mm. And in fact, it certainly does perform on par and in some cases better than the 24-70mm (wide open in the corners). I recently performed some Imatest lab tests with a brand new 24-120mm and a brand new 24-70mm on the D800E and I was surprised to see the 24-120mm perform really well. I thought its resolution would not be as good on a high resolution camera like the D800E (this lens was originally reviewed on a 12 MP body), but it turned out to be otherwise.
As for my comment above (from 2 years ago), I think I was talking about the older Nikon 24-120mm f/3.5-5.6 lens, not the 24-120mm f/4. To date, I have been recommending the 24-120mm f/4 over the 24-70mm to every reader and friends. I only recommend the 24-70mm in situations, where the lens is used in challenging weather/dusty environments, since it is made better and where AF speed is critical. Otherwise, the 24-120mm is the way to go!
I will soon be updating this review with the Imatest data…
As always, Nasim, you’re the top of the heap, brother! A class act, through and through. Thanks for the kind and honest reply! Cheers and enjoy the nice weather we’re getting throughout the Colorado front range ;-)
Really looking forward to your Imatest results, since I’m looking at this 24-120mm to pair with my 16-35mm for a trip to Europe in June, and would prefer taking it instead of the 80-200mm f2.8.
I’m really nervous about buying the 24-120mm after seeing the results at slrgear. I trust slrgear tests more than most because they’ve always been a dead-on match with every lens I’ve owned. I don’t know if it’s pure coincidence or luck of the draw(slrgear and I test the same production batch!), but what they’ve seen in Nikon and Canon lenses is *EXACTLY*, to a fault, what I’ve seen in my images.
Here’s the link to their testing of the 24-120mm:
www.imaging-resource.com/artic…-has-moved
If you click on the ‘Blur Index’ x-y-x plane graphic on the right of the page it opens to an interactive widget where you can select f-stop and focal range. If you select f11 and slide the focal range throughout the range you will see that it reaches 2+ blur units at 24mm, 28m and at/around 120mm.
If you swing to the other extreme of the f-stop scale and set it to f4 and once again sweep through the focal range spread you will fall of your chair! At 70mm there are FOUR blur units! That’s like looking through a foggy piece of glass. Then, at 85m there are nearly SIX blur units! That’s like looking through a coke bottle! LOL!
Now, do the opposite and choose a focal range then sweep the f-stops. It’s a darn shame, but this lens’ best performance is on the short end and that’s NOT what I need. I already have the 16-35mm and don’t need the 24-120 to perform best at 24mm :-(
On the bright side, this lens would function GREAT for landscape work. It’s consistently sharp across the focal range when stopped to f11. It never goes above 2 blur units, while bearly going over one unit between 50-70mm; which is outstanding!
By comparison, look at the 16-35mm and perform the same exercises:
www.imaging-resource.com/artic…-has-moved
Wit the exception of the outer-most frame edges at 35mm/f11 which go to nearly 2 blur units, the rest of the tests for f4 and f11 show that the 16-35mm hardly goes over ONE blur unit! That is truly, truly amazing; and exactly what my copy exhibits and what your tests of this lens indicate.
Please keep in mind that those tests are done on a cropped-frame and not full frame. Just imagine how much worse the 24-120mm blur units would be on, say, a d800 or d600.
BTW, I highlight f4 and f11 because when all is said and done, those are the f-stops that matter most to me: the f4, for the light gathering power, the f11 for the depth-of-field. Every stop in between has always been a compromise for me, in some form or other.
Anyway……let’s see what your Imatest results show ;-)
JR, while I trust that folks at SLR Gear know what they are doing (in terms of testing methods, setup, etc), I believe they got a bad copy of the lens. The 24-120mm is far from being soft – it is on par with the 16-35mm in terms of image quality and sharpness. Yes, it is that good. I read their review and it states that there is some center sharpness and lots of corner softness, which is certainly not what this lens is capable of. In my previous test, the 24-120mm outperformed the 24-70mm on a 12 MP sensor. When I tested it on the D800E, it performed a little worse in terms of resolution, but not by far! So I am sure SLRGear’s copy was defective – see what other people are saying (in this and other reviews).
I have to get a couple of things done (working on the OM-D and 70-200mm f/4 review). Once I am done with those, I will post the 24-120mm Imatest data. Hopefully within the next 2 weeks…
I modified my comment above, so that it does not sound misleading. Thanks for pointing it out, I am not sure what I was thinking at the time :)
Dear Nasim, I’ve waited for a lens like this for long for my D300. While 24-70 f/2.8 is the obvious star, Its end at 70mm coupled with the lack of VR always stopped me short in the tracks from acquiring one, not to mention the fact that it would be a serious investment for a tramp like me. Sadly though, 24-120 f/4 has been at the receiving ends since it saw the light of day. In this light, I am grateful to your review as it has put quite a few issues in perspective. The extensive tests and the gorgeous shots of your review have inspired me enough to choose it as a mate for my D300.
Umashankar, you are most welcome! Glad you found the review to be useful, the 24-120mm is a great lens!
I’m glad I read your post. Due to this, I bought this lens and I have been really enjoying it from Christmas. Thanks a lot.
B’Rob, glad you like it! :)
Nasim,
Hi. First I would like to thank you for the very helpful reviews on your site. I’m a new Nikon user (I recently migrated from Canon) and your reviews have helped me “find my way” around the Nikon offerings.
I got the 24-120 f4 VR for my new D700 as a general walk-around lens and I’ve been very happy with it so far. It has a very useful focal length and the VR on it works great (I got some very nice pictures of the inside of a very dark church the other day).
The only aspect of it I’ve been slightly disturbed with is the bad vignetting when I put a “standard” (read: non-slim) filter on it, like the B+W MRC UV/CPL (but you did warn us about that in your review!). It’s OK at around f8 but wide open is very distracting. I like having a protecting filter on my lenses. Do you know of any filters that would not vignette on it at f4 (or at least: not this badly)? Are the Nikon NCs better in that respect?
Thanks again and happy shooting!
Tony
Tony, thank you for your feedback! I agree about the use of a CPL filter – I encountered the same problem at 24mm. At longer focal lengths, this is not a problem, but at 24mm it certainly is. If you use a non-CPL UV filter, the effect is not as bad (since CPL is thicker), but it is still visible. As for other filters, I really like B+W and would refuse to use anything else :) I don’t think you will find other filters to be that much slimmer. I don’t like the slim versions of B+W filters either, because you can’t put a lens cap on those…
My advice – if you really need to shoot at 24mm, simply take off the filter, take a picture, then put it back on :) That’s what I did a couple of times in the field.
Hope this helps, have a good weekend!
Nasim,
Hi. Thanks for the reply. Yes, I’ve been using B+Ws almost exclusively too! I know that their slim CPLs do not have front threads (even though apparently they will be fixing this soon). Out of curiosity: have you tried XS Pro line of protectors that does have front threads?
Tony
Tony, sorry for a late response. No, I have not tried the XS Pro line yet…sorry! :)
Masim,
Thanks for the review… Should I be concerned with the plastic tube?
“When you zoom in, the first extension tube by the zoom ring is metal, while the second one that connects the front of the lens is plastic.”
I mean even my 16-85 DX has both tubes made from metal. What’s up with this plastic thing?
Thanks,
AC
Alessio, I would not worry about it, unless you work in tough environments where you can occasionally bump the lens on a hard surface. Most of the new Nikkor lenses have plastic exteriors now and I have not seen any cases where the plastic exterior presents any problems.
Thanks Nasim. You say most of them, I assume the 24-70 has no plastic tubes/parts…Really want to get these lens as later I might transition to full frame. I now have a d7k and I’m very happy with it. I wish for this performance they made them a bit wider say 20…I saw the maximum angle of view is 61 or something…
What are your thoughts on that?
Also on D7k i should get superb performance since I basically use only the center of the lens.
Really trying to decide between 24-70 and this. 24-70 is way heavy long and no VR. Tempted to pick the 24-120, better gaining 4 stops SS then 1 stop AA. What do you think? What lens/cameras you own, curious?
Thanks a bunch!
AC
PS: Sorry for misspelling your name.
Alessio, no worries. I personally own and use the 24-70mm, but I bought it when it was announced and have been using it for several years now. I shoot a lot in bad weather and the construction/build is kind of important for me, which is why I kept the 24-70mm. I shoot with Nikon D700/D3s and have some different Nikkor lenses, including the big telephoto ones.
Bonjour Nassim,
Mon mari vient de recevoir un D3100 (il avait auparavant un D70 avec un 24-120 ancienne génération) pour son anniversaire. J’aimerais lui acheter un objectif polyvalent (pouvant allier un grand angle et un zoom de qualité), j’ai longuement visité et lu le net à ce sujet et j’hésite entre le NIKKOR AF-SDX 18-200 G EDVR II (bien que l’ancienne version IF-ED me semble tout aussi bonne à en croire les commentaires et tests) ou le NIKKOR 24-120 nouvelle version.
Vos commentaires seraient très appréciables et appréciés.
En vous remerciant,
Laurence
Laurence, I apologize if I responded too late. If I were you, I would get the 24-120mm instead of the 18-200mm lens.
Hi Nassim,
I am a DX camera user. Hopefully you can test this new Nikkor lens using a DX camera. Like Laurence Backbo, I am also trying to decide which lens to buy – whether the heavy 24-70 f2.8 or this 24-120 f4 VR.
Will appreciate your feedback.
Thanks.
Ian
Ian, if you shoot DX, I would go with the 24-120mm instead of the 24-70mm, unless you shoot in tough weather.
Nasim,
Thank you so much for your great reviews and information – you rock!
I’ve done some upgrades since I last communicated with you. D7000, 50mm, 18-105, 70-200 vrII, sb700 & sb910. I’m doing more senior pictures and still a second shooter for weddings, although I’ve done a few small weddings by myself. I am planning to take the family to Canada next summer and been thinking of getting another lens. My thoughts – 24-120 better than 18-105 for weddings and everyday lens. Should I keep the 18-105 or sell or sell then get a wider lens?
Hello Nasim,
After all i dont regret that i got the 24-120 f4.
On d7k stays perfect.
There is one thing. Seems like the lens VR is little bit noisy compared to other lenses. Especially when i put it on the D40.
Stoyan, thank you for your feedback. I did not notice much difference on VR noise between the sample I tested and my other lenses…
Hi Nassim,
Thanks so much for a detailed review. I am about to buy a D700 and have been searching for the first lens. Based on your review, I have decided to buy the 24-120. Can’t wait to get try it out.
Best,
Rod
Rod, glad my review helped you in your purchasing decision! Good luck!
Great review, the best on the web.
I got this lens and love it, sold my 24-70, glad I didn’t get the 28-300.
Thanks!
Chuck, you are most welcome and congratulations with your purchase.
I have now used the 24-120 for about 2 months under a wide variety of situations. It is a terrific lens.
I now use it as my main lens on the D700.
Same experience – like that lens on my D700
/Karl
Your lens (and other) reviews are the best I’ve seen online. By far. I’ve been internally debating the purchase of this 24-120 iteration for some time now and have been enjoying the luxury of not being able to afford it…until now. I’ve read many positive reviews of this lens but, reading your review last, convinced me this would be a very useful tool for me. The layout of your tests “as a photographer would prefer to know most” in a simple, informative and illustrative style with the best sample photos I’ve seen from any review site, has convinced me to make the purchase (today) and to put you on my short-list of very informative and useful websites.
Thank you.
Michael, thank you for your feedback, I truly appreciate it. Glad you found the review useful and congratulations on your purchase! I am sure the 24-120mm will not disappoint you.
anybody compared the 24-120 to a GOOD copy of Tamron 28-75? from f4 down the tammy is quite good… I have read that it is really a minolta design, like the t. 17-35. I have one, and it is VERY good. the only problem is, sometime, compatibility with nikon exposure system (especially with internal flash).
I love this lens so much that I worked with the software designer who sells PTLens (an automatic distortion-correction program) by providing test shots for him to update, calibrate, and insert correction data in his program. Now, I can automatically correct all distortions at any focal length with my lens.
Nasim’s report was what I needed to decide to buy this lens. Since then, I have rarely removed the lens from my D700.
Hi Nasim,
Thanks for the very helpful reviews and tips !
I own a Nikon D300s body and consider upgraging my lenses.
I read your excellent reviews on the following:
24-120 f/4g VR-II
70-200 f/2.8g VR-II
My question is whether there is any issue with these (FX) lenses on my (DX) D300s body that I need to care about.
looking forward to your reply and thanks in advance,
Men
Hi Nasim,
Thanks for your reviews on 24-120 and 28-300 lenses. I am mainly a landscape photographer who owns a 24-70 f/2.8 lens and felt that it is too short at times and heavy for backpacking trips in the Canadian Rockies where every gram matters. I bought a 24-120 /f4 last week and in the process of testing it for my purposes.
Your reviews have helped a lot and also I very much enjoyed your photographs as well. It is safer to trust a lens review by a person who can take photos (other than brick walls) and also display them.
Many Thanks!
I, also, am mainly a landscape photographer and have used this lens for about a month.
You will encounter distortion, as I have, but it can be fixed in Photoshop if you don’t use PTLens.
Distortion correction values for both FX and DX cameras can be found on www.kenrockwell.com if you search for his f/4 24-120 evaluation. The values are near the end of the article. They work – I’ve tested them myself with photos of office building facades and at all focal lengths.
PS: I’m glad I did not listen to Rockwell but followed Nasim’s advice. You will love this lens. Test it against your 24-70…you may leave that lens at home on your next trip!
Thanks for a very thorough review – it has helped me making up my mind and I’m will be going for the 24-120F4 rather than the 24-70f2.8. Just like I did with my 16-35F4 which took my by surprise. That new line of lenses presented work great for me.
I only wish it had internal zoom…. but I guess I’ll have to live with that.
Hi Nasim,
Using D700 with Tamron 28-75 F2.8 and Nikon 50 F1.4 .
Tamron AF is too slow under low light. can advise which lens to get:
1)Nikon 24-120 F4 replacement for tamron
2)Sigma 24-70 F2.8 (out of budget for Nikon 24-70 F2.8 )
3)get a nikon 85 F1.4d
mostly taking portrait for my kid indoor and outdoor.
kindly advise.
I’m not Nasim, but here’s my 2 pence.
– Your Tamron (f/2.8) is FASTER (better for low light) than the Nikon 24-120 (f/4). No gain here.
-The Sigma is a duplicate of your Tamron. No gain here.
-Your Nikon 50 can be used for portraits.
If you want to stand further back than the 50, I’d get the 85 (1.4) or a 105 (2.8).
The 85 is called the “cream machine” – beautiful bokeh/blurred background.
lastly, I’d improve my lighting environment so you don’t need to shoot at minimum aperture.
Thanks Peter
Just trade my tamron n get myself a 28-300 for outing with kids without having to change lens n longer focal.
Now left with 28-300mm n 50mm f1.4.
Thinking of getting another lens to bring along daily with my 50mm when I can leave 28-300mm at home for light travel.
Should I get a prime 35mm or 85mm to match with my 50mm F1.4 for daily light travel or get another light Zoom lens like 24-120mm ?
By the way anyone can give feed back on sigma 24-70mm F2.8 . Is it much better than tamron?
I sold most of my prime lenses except for the 20mm (light weight) and 105mm (perfect for portraits and macro).
For my D300 (DX) I have only 1 lens: the 18-200 II which I never remove from the camera. It’s my snap-shot- journalist camera.
For my D700, I also have a 24-120 f/4 which I’ve used for about 2 months. If I want to take only one lens on a shoot, this is the one I take. It is a perfect all-around lens for me…it covers my normal shooting range. It is sharp at all ranges.
For the D700 I also have a 17-35, 35-70, 70-200, and a 1.7 extender. These are extremely sharp lenses that I use for VERY VERY serious work.
Thank you for your advise Peter.
But if I just want to get another lens to pair with my 50mm F1.4 for daily light weight . Should I go for 35mm or too close range to 50mm.
The 35mm is a good walking around lens. If I were going to tour Rome for a day, for example, I would rather have a 35 than an 85. If I had my choice of two lenses, I’d rather have a 35 and an 85 and I’d dump the 50.
I don’t own a 50 prime now because I never used the one I had. Sold it and not sorry it’s gone.
In the final analysis, it all depends on what kind of shooting you do. That determines what lenses you need.
Hi
Currently having 28-300 n 50 1.4 ( seem ok to me for holiday)
Looking for a set of daily lens
Can someone advise is it better to go for
1) current 50 1.4 + 105/135 F2
Or
2) 24/35 + 85mm 1.4/1.8
Using 80% portrait
Just wish to have a light bag for daily usage , mostly take portrait for my son and family. I do agree that 35 and 85 is a good combination of travel light and good coverage. But too bad I just got my 50mm. Hmmm
Hi Nasim
I bumped into your website after checking out Photozone and ByThom and I have enjoyed exploring your website. I do have a question though. I have a D700 and I am looking to add an all around lens to my collection. I presently have 50mm f1.4 as well as an older but lovable 105 Micro Nikkor. I would like to add a wide angle zoom to my collection but after reading your reviews of the 24-120….16-35…and the 24-70 I am a bit uncertain. I was leaning towards the 24-70 but your review of the 16-35 had me wondering? I just sold my 16-85VRII and I have saved enough to buy the 24-70. I was a bit disconcerted by the results in your review. I like the focal range of the 24-70 but it seems like you have a soft spot for the 16-35. I am new to Nikon so I am trying to build a good set of Nikkor lenses. Your opinion would be appreciated.
Thank you
Orest
Hey Orest,
I’m not Nasim, but I thought I’d chime in. Since you had a 16-85mm, and that had a bit more range on each end than the 24-70mm, where did you find you spent most of your time shooting? I’d look through your images the last year or so and figure out what focal length you cater to the most. If it was 18-24mm range, then the 16-35mm would be great for you. If it was often 16mm and you were wishing for more, then the 14-24mm is probably more your ticket (I rent it for architecture work occasionally; alas, it has no filter threads, but it has very little distortion). If you were often over 50mm and not often wider than 28mm, then the 24-70mm is probably going to be more useful than 16-35mm, but you said you were looking for wide angle. If you were often 70-85mm, then I’d wager the 24-120mm would suit you better.
I own a D700 and the 24-70mm and 70-200mm, and rent the 14-24mm, but I’ve never used the 16-35mm or 24-120mm. I personally have more use for f/2.8 than f/4 for my style/subjects, but by all reviews the f/4 series appear to be incredible lenses for the price, and occasionally there are days I wish my 24-70mm had VR. :-) Nasim could answer this better than I, but I suspect the 16-35mm would cover the 24-28mm range better than the 24-70mm, I don’t know from experience. When I use my 24-70mm that wide, I’m often doing landscapes or panoramics and I’m stopped down to f/5.6-8 minimum where I don’t have an issue with soft corners, or I’m doing portraits at f/2.8 and don’t care about or even desire corner sharpness (I rarely shoot a portrait wider than 35mm though). If I really needed edge to edge sharpness at 24mm wide open for lack of light, I’d be doing interior architecture or real estate and using the 14-24mm anyway–I rent it enough in a year that it’s next on my list to purchase.
Anyway, that’s my opinion, probably others will have better advice or experience with the 16-35mm to offer you more. It’s great to have choices though. :-) Someday I’ve got to get a good 105mm micro, that would be a lot of fun!
Hello Aaron
I’ve read many of your comments. Thanks for the reply. I think I was all over the range when I had the 16-85 on my D300.When I switched to my D700 I sure missed it. I shoot a lot of Macro as can be seen here. www.flickr.com/photo…294618591/ but I often shoot events like a kids ice fishing derby for a friend so I am all over the focal range. After reading the reviews by Nasim I sure thought the 24-120 was the way to go. Then I read the review on the 16-35 and reread the review on the 24-70. Talk about indecision. I have a NIkkor 20-35 f2.8 that a friend has lent me and is willing to sell to me and I am considering buying it as I understand it is a great lens. I wish the 24-70 had VR and that seems to be my stumbling block. I don’t do much landscape at the moment but that doesn’t mean that I won’t in the future. I have only shot digital since 2008 having come from a film background. I appreciate your input on this subject and I’m thankful that there is a site that I can ask for and get valued opinions. I am leaning towards the 24-70 although the 24-120 was probably closer to what I had in the 16-85VRII. Thanks Aaron!
Orest, your macro work is beautiful!!! I really need to get a good macro lens someday, maybe the 105mm VR; I’d do it in a heartbeat if I was shooting paying work that justified that lens. It sure would be fun! :-)
I’ve used my 24-70mm as my primary lens for over a year and love it. I recently got a 70-200mm and it’s barely left the camera since, but the newness will wear off in a couple more months and the 24-70mm will probably go back as a primary lens. Nothing inspires creativity like fresh glass–the whole world looks new all of a sudden. :-P I had the first gen 70-300mm, so the 70-200mm is my first VR lens and I really enjoy that feature. I never missed VR on the 24-70mm until a few weeks ago, LOL.
The 24-70mm is a great lens: tack sharp with flawless, instant autofocusing and very little noticeable distortion. It even feels light now compared to my 70-200mm, haha! I use the MB-D10 vertical shutter grip and EN-EL4a battery to get 8fps for HDR panoramics, so the 24-70mm balances well and does not feel front heavy to me. I’m still young with a strong arm, and I have a handstrap for a better grip, as well as an RS-7 R-Strap to manage the weight on longer shoots. I also use a tripod often for landscapes. My wife isn’t as comfortable with the heft though. If I was going on a long hike where weight was a concern, like mountain climbing, I would certainly ditch the vertical shutter grip for the day and rent the 24-120mm after reading this review to shed a lot of weight. I’d leave the heavy 70-200mm home too and give up the extra 80mm (not as big a difference as you’d think with the VR II model anyway on closer subjects). It really all depends on what you shoot and your circumstances. I really love f/2.8 for what I do though, and I feel no need to run out and purchase a 24-120mm, nor sell my 24-70mm. However, I could easily be persuaded to upgrade to a 24-85mm f/2.8 VR should Nikon ever design one, damn the extra weight it would have. Haha!
14-24mm vs 16-35mm is a lot easier decision in my opinion, though I’ve never used the later. If you aren’t doing precise interior architecture where lines must be straight, I think the 16-35mm would be a lot more versatile under most circumstances, especially with filter threads for landscapes. I’ve read VR makes a nice improvement in low light, the difference in aperture isn’t as noticeable at wide angles as far as depth of field goes anyway, and 35mm is a whole lot more reach for less lens swapping. But, for me 2mm difference on the wide end can make all the difference indoors when your back is to the wall, and the sharpness and lack of distortion on the 14-24mm make it the perfect interior lens. Outside or off the tripod, I think I’d rather have the 16-35mm with the option to use filters for landscapes, but I’ll have to rent one someday to find out. I’d wager most people walking around without a tripod would have more use for the 16-35mm with VR, especially journalists.
If I was just starting out today with the D700 and had no paying jobs, I’d no doubt start with the 24-120mm and add the 16-35mm, I don’t think I could choose one or the other. Though I haven’t used them yet, they seem to me to be a very practical combination. If I was an established pro and had plenty of paying jobs and future goals, I think the three f/2.8 lenses are the better investment, or especially three or four primes if you can move your feet a lot and your subjects are stationary. I also think it would be easier to handle three lenses if you had two full frame bodies, which I haven’t been able to afford yet. Having plenty of film experience you are probably like me and stuck somewhere in the middle. :-)
Orest, I will reflect on my experience because I pretty much made the same switches.
I switched from D300 to D700, and have extensively used a 16-35mm. I have sold the 16-35mm as I was constantly changing lenses (wide to mid range) and have now moved on to a 24-70mm. With the 16-35mm I was using only occasional wide angle with loads of mid range. My experience is pretty the same as Aaron has reported. 24-70mm is a phenomenal lens and performs in all conditions. Con – it is a bit heavy but trust me every single photo is a joy.
Nasim’s review on the 16-35mm is very accurate. Personally I found mega distortion with the 16mm of the 16-35mm quite disconcerting. Effectively I was using it between 18mm – 35mm. My 24-70mm now is wide enough for me.
Although the 16-35mm was great, if I do dive into wide angle having experienced the 14-24mm, I will only consider the 14-24mm hence coming to a similar conclusion as Aaron.
There is a reason why the 14-24mm F2.8, 24-70mm F2.8 and 70-200m F2.8 are called the Nikon holy grail. They are the Nikon’s best (havent used the 24-120mm though and dont think will – never say never).
May I take Aaron’s suggestion one step further. Even if you are NOT a pro, it is a joy and pleasure to have great equipment which just takes phenomenal pictures, performs 100% of the time with NO fuss.
Very quickly I have become recognised as ‘the’ photographer who will always take good pictures.
Hello Nadeem and Aaron
I would love to sit down and have a coffee with you and talk Nikon. After much soul searching I am quite confident in my decision to get the 24-70 f2.8. I sold my 16-85 yesterday and that put me over the hump so I can get the 24-70. I had a gut feeling that it was the best lens choice for me. I am going to go with that feeling. Aaron I had a chance to try the 105mm Micro Nikkor VR yesterday when I sold the buyer my 16-85mm and I was surprised at how much larger it was than my old 105 Micro Nikkor. It was at least twice the size. It was a gorgeous lens but I am happy with the old 105mm Nikkor I have. I can handle it much better because of it’s compact size. Nadeem I appreciate your input and I agree with you on the narrow range the 16-35 has and I look at my images and I am more in the mid range. I don’t do any architectural shooting and so far very little landscape shooting. The weight of the 24-70 won’t be a factor for me as I am confident that I can hand hold the D700 and 24-70 with out any problems. Aaron while I am not making any money on my shots I have always striven to get the best equipment that I could afford( now isn’t that the big problem) because it always pays in the long run. By the way Aaron thanks for the compliment I love shooting Macro. Here are a few shots I did some edits on
www.flickr.com/photo…135090709/ I am looking forward to getting the 24-70 and I will let you know how I like it. This site is terrific I mean where else can you get input and encouragement so easily. Thanks Aaron and Nadeem!
Aaron
Fantastic decision. I will await feedback.
I forgot to mention the corner to corner sharpness of the 24-70mm which is just amazing.
Overall 24-70mm is so good that in my non-professional, non-scientific comparison I believe it to be comparable to the MACROS Nikkors 105mm macro & 55mm F2.8 macro (I currently own the 55m F2.8 AF macro a lens I would never sell and previously used a 105mm Ais F4 macro). I am not surprised that you wish to keep that 105mm – i believe all genres of the 105mm are fantastic. My other FX lens is a 70-200mm F2.8.
For holiday snaps or a light back pack I carry the Nikon D5000 17-55mm F2.8 DX (such a shame that there is no 17-55mm FX version). Although another great combo, it is not in the same league.
Finally I will apologise to Nasim for talking about other lenses in a 24-120mm forum (without even owning the lens) but I guess I keep on coming back to this place as I find it informal and fantastic.
Also, you have mentioned two of my favourite subjects a good coffee (latte from fresh ground beans) and Nikkors. You are on !
BTW- lovely flowers.
The distortion factor on the Nikon 105 micro VR at 1:1 ratio is 0.0
Hi Nasim,
Have just found your website and would like to join the many people offering their thanks – its great to find such a professional, yet concise and easy to understand opinion on so many topics in the photography sphere! Well done.
I was very interested in your review of this lens – I am thoroughly enjoy travel (who doesn’t?) and am looking at updating my gear. I got into photography a little while back when I made the jump to dSLR for a 2 month safari through africa. I currently use a D90, tokina 12-24 f4 dx pro, 18-55 AF-S Nikkor VR (original kit lens), 70-300 AF-S Nikkor VR, and also have a Sigma 70-200 2.8 which I use for sports (karate, football etc). I am soon to be heading off for 3 months to travel the silk road from china to istanbul through the various “stans” and am very excited by the photographic opportunities on offer here but I am thinking of upgrading some equipment and was hoping to bounce an idea or 2 off you? I was thinking of upgrading my body vs getting some better glass. I was thinking of adding this lens as the main one on my D90 (replacing the old 17-55 VR) and maybe throwing in a fast prime (either the 35 or 50) and was weighing this against upgrading the actual body. Sadly I am no millionaire and can’t just do both (otherwise no eating for the 3 months on the road ;-) ) and was wondering your opinion on the matter? Or any other lens alternatives to look at? I don’t mind carrying the lenses with me (that being said, probably won’t be taking the 70-200 2.8 due to size/weight restrictions) as I much prefer that to using a 28-300 type lens that is slow and possibly not as good a quality final photos. Any thoughts or opinions would be greatly appreciated – none of my friends are really into photography so noone to really kick ideas around with!
Thanks again for the great site, will be viewing this site on a daily basis from now on I believe!
Regards,
Anthony
Hi Nasim
I have decided to look at some better lenses instead of upgrading the d90 – wait for the d800 or d400 and see what happens from there w.r.t. the body!
However I have another question – I have recently heard some good reports about the 16-85mm VRII variable aperture lens. Do you have any idea how these 2 lenses stack up against each other as a walk around, general leave on type, travel lens? or again, any other mid range zoom options?
Thanks again Nasim-keep up the great work!
Hi guys
Can I have some advise?
Mainly shooting my own kids
Currently on 28-300 w 50 1.4 (d700)
Somehow it kinda heavy to bring 28-300 out for daily use unless I need to zoom alot and it seem too slow for my kids under lowlight.
Is it advisable to get 35 f2 (wide) + 85 1.4 (portrait) for lighter n faster daily walkabout lens and keep 28-300 for touring use and dump the 50
Or
Dump 28-300 and get a 24-70 n pair with my 50mm 1.4.
Mainly use for portrait .
Hey Kevin,
The 24-70mm f/2.8 weighs just a little more than the 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6 VR. It would let in more light and focus better in low light conditions, but lacks VR. It’s my favorite lens and spends a lot of time on my D700. I use it a lot to shoot photos of the kids running around. Sometimes I hit the 70mm wall when doing portraits and crop a little in post or switch to the 70-200mm f/2.8 VR II if I’m outside and taking candids at a distance. I’d like to get an 85mm f/1.4 for portraits some day as that seems to be about the perfect focal length, and it would be a lot of fun with static subjects. I tend to use both the 24-70 and 70-200 around f/4 to get a little more depth of field and keep the kids faces sharp. f/2.8 is very challenging to nail focus with running children! :-) So having said all that, I wonder if the 24-120mm f/4 might not be the perfect lens for your application? It has VR, a little more reach into a nice portrait range, and a constant f/4 aperture for more light and better autofocusing than the 28-300mm. It’s also a little lighter than the 28-300mm (25oz vs 28oz, the 24-70 is 32oz). I haven’t used it myself, but those that have it generally give it great reviews.
Thank you for your good review. I already own the 24-120 and the 24-70. I just got back from a trip to New Mexico and found the lens performed perfectly for me. in addition it was so dusty that I didn’t want to change my lens and it was all the focal length I needed. I have thought about selling my 24-70 but can’t part with it yet. It is good for indoors and with flash. It truly is a great lens as well. I am glad you compared the 70-200. I love the lens but it is getting too big and heavy for this old man to carry so I may sell that lens. My hope is that Nikon comes out with a 70-200 f4 lens like cannon. Thanks again for your review. Eric
When I’m in a quandry about two lenses with similar focal lengths, I do a side-by-side comparison with them on the same scenes…all exposures, openings, etc. being equal. Then I bring them into Photoshop and magnify them, etc. and compare them by increasing the magnification. I also run them through PTLens ( to check and correct for distortion. They have the specs for the 24-120 f/4 which I helped to provide.
If you do this, I would be interested in your results. This process is also a good test of your objectivity!
Also, I’m glad you got back from Mexico safely.
Hi Eric!
I am also waiting on a 70-200mm VR II G 4.0 lens from Nikon. The Canon one outperforms the 2.8 variant at aperture 4.0.
/Karl
Nasim,
Fantastic website….thanks for all the info. Boy do I have a lot to learn.
The more comments I read the more confusing I get. I’m a novice sports shooter (4-kids) and I would like to do some landscape shooting. I tried out the 24-120 while I was on vacation and noticed the vignetting right away when shot wide open so I was disappointed. Anyway I currently own the 300 2.8VR, 70-200 2.8 VRl and an older 35-70 2.8. I’m thinking I should buy the 24-70 2.8 so I can use it for everyday shooting as well. I’m looking for the best image quality possible. can you help?
Thank You,
Fred
Fred,
I think the 24-70mm f/2.8 would fit nicely in your lens collection! It is certainly on par with the 300mm f/2.8 VR as far as build quality, focusing speed, and sharpness. You won’t find a better zoom lens in that focal range for image quality. What camera are shooting with? DX or FX format?
Aaron,
I shoot with the D700. I tend to over think on the lenses instead of getting out there and experiment. I just like to feel confident that I have the best equipment to start of with.
Thank you very much.
Fred
My two cents:
I have the 24-120 and use it sometimes for landscape but at f/8 with no problems. My primary lenses for landscape, however, are the Nikon 17-35 and the Nikon 20mm…and rarely or ever shoot them wide open, too. BUT, I would not give up on the 24-120 for landscape, just shoot at higher f-stops before you run out and buy another lens. It is a perfect for “everyday shooting” as you say.
As you do, I own the “older” 35-70 and love it-extremely sharp. Why buy a 24-70 for an additional 11 mm unless you plan to sell the 35-70?
Lastly, you can get rid of vignetting in Photoshop or Capture NX2, so it’s really not a problem unless you don’t do your own post-processing.
Re-read Nasim’s review of the 24-120 before you do anything.
Peter
I do my own post-processing with Aperture 3. I love NX2 but I found it too be very slow. I’ve also used Capture one 5 pro which I really liked but no DAM features. I was using Aperture 2 but was not happy with the raw conversion so I looked at NX2 and C1 but now back to A3. Do you think the 35-70 is of equal image quality and sharpness as the 24-70? Maybe I should keep it then?
Thank you very much.
Fred
You’re using a Mac (I use a PC-Windows 7) so I can’t comment based on any actual experience. My gut tells me to use Aperture 3 or make the switch to Photoshop if you like steep learning curves.
What I can tell you about the 35-70 on my D700 is that I used it recently to photograph a crumbling 12×18 embroidery piece for our local historical society and had it enlarged to poster size at Costo (they use Fiji Crystal archive paper) for $9.00. Yes, $9.00. I photographed it from about 8-10 feet distance and used strobe. How sharp is the lens? I could count every stictch and see all the weaving on the poster-sized photo. Sharp as sharp can be. Can’t imagine it being any sharper.
By the way, I print my own stuff but needed a poster size so I used Costo. They are GOOD!
I know nothing about the 24-70 except what I read on the Internet. I was tempted to get it myself, but I get the same range using the 24-120, so I passed on it.
One final note that applies to you, me, and many of the readers on this and other sites: We all suffer from “lens lust” which is an irrational urge to have more and more lenses whether we need them or not. Ansel Adams never had this disease. We just “want” them and make excuses to justify buying them. Bass fisherman have the same urges but it applies to the latest lures. Take it from an old bass fisherman with a basement full of rods, reels, and lures – I know the clinical nature of this common disease!!!!! Fight it.
Well said Peter. This is me for sure. Sometimes I think just having the lens in my equipment collection makes me happy. Boy am I in trouble….my wife is gonna shoot me.
Thanks,
Fred
Just adding to the discussion, Fred.
I have used the 35-70mm F2.8 (It collected quite a bit of dust on my sensor). The lens is however sharp, I agree. I have no experience with the 24-120 but in comparison to my sample of 35-70mm the 24-70mm is phenomenal – your sample may be superb though. I also like the wide 24mm bit of the 24-70mm and hence sold off the wide angle as 24mm is ample for me.
However, there is considerable more in weight, size and length compared to the 35-70mm which is a much more easy to carry lens. Convenience goes a long way too esp if you have got excellent quality.
In the discussions above I also rate the 35mm F2 and 85mm 1.4 most highly. 50mm 1.4 is excellent too.
24-70mm is simply phenomenal on my D700 and gives me the F2.8, superb corner to corner quality, no more lens changes and is permanently stuck on my camera all the time. The only time it comes off is when I use my 70-200mm F2.8.
Since the 24-70mm I have sold off all my ex-zooms and primes and have never looked back.
Nadeem makes some very good points, although I’ve never had sensor dust problems with any of my lenses.
If I didn’t have the 17-35, I’d probably dump my 35-70 and get the 24-70, as Nadeem suggests. But the 17mm is great!
OK, Nadeem, fellow lens luster, here are the Nikkor lenses I have (all f/2.8), so what would you suggest to improve my…”collection”? I shoot portraits, landscape, photo-journalism, copy close-ups, and anything that I see that I like.
Here are my lenses, go for it:
17-35
20
35-70
105
70-200
24-120
Fred and I are awaiting your critical analysis! Tell it like it is! Snap to it!
Hey Peter,
Quick question how and what tests do you perform when you buy a new lens to make sure it’s a good sample? I went to exchange my 24-120 today but Calumet didn’t have any 24-70 or 16-35 lenses in stock and they don’t when any will arrive. As I mentioned earlier that I had a lot of vignetting shooting at F4. On the D700 there is a setting for de-vignetting. Would you recommend using this?
Thanks,
Fred
To test my lens, I photograpgh a very familiar stone wall in my backyard with trees in the background and lawn in the foreground (no test patterns). I shoot it at different stops and different focal lengths (e.g., 24-50-85-120). I then open the files in Photoshop and look at them, sometimes doing a side-by-side comparison, enlarging them as I go along. I evaluate them and if I’m satisfied, I don’t care what the Internet reviewers say. Although, I must admit, Nasim does a very good pragmatic review of lens. If it were not for him, I would not have bought the 24-120.
As far as vignetting, no big deal – I eliminate with Photoshop or other software. As a matter of fact, sometimes I add vignetting to my prints for artistic reasons. Life is one big defect; why be overly concerned with minor lens defects?
nice test, thanks! :)
i owned D7000 with 35mm 1.8G, want to buy 24-120 or 16-85 , which one will you recommand?
If you are going to keep with DX Nikons then buy the 16-85, if you might buy a FX Nikon the 24-120 will work well on Both your Nikon D7000 and a Nikon FX Camera.
I read your review a month or so ago and went ahead to purchase 20-120 with my new D700. I took it to Venice (Italy) 2 weeks ago and took it everywhere with me. It is a great walk-about lens. The only other lens I had was 50 1.8d for really low light stuff. I am very happy with the results and LR3.4 made the necessary lens corrections. Its a great combination with the D700.
Rod
Correction – 24-120!
I’m also enjoying the 24-120 as you are.
I am not familiar with the lens correction capacity of LR 3.4, but PTLens has automatic corrections to the specific lens we’re using – the f/4 version of the 24-120. They also have automatic correction for lots of other Nikon lenses. See link below if you want to check it out. Great for eliminating barrel and pincusion distortion which this lens has, especially at 24mm..
epaperpress.com/ptlens/
Peter, as of Lightroom 3.4, the Nikon 24-120mm is supported in the Lens Corrections sub-module.
Thank you for your feedback Rod, I am glad you like the 24-120mm – it is a great lens!
Hi Nasim
Read your excellent review and have just purchased a 24-120/F4 – but now I’m having second thought’s since I have also read ken rockwell’s review who strongly suggests forgetting the 24-120 and go buying the 28-300 instead since it’s cheaper and, according to Ken, performs just as well as the 24-120.
I own D200%D700, a 16-35/F4, 50/F1.4 and 70-200/F2.8, I was looking for a glass to cover the midrange gab between the 16-35 and 70-200 and which could be used as “the” glass to bring when traveling light.
I mostly shoot landscape and potraits, but also closeups of i.e. flowers. From your review it seems that 24-120 with a fixed aperature is a quite wise choice.
I fancy the defocuse performance of the 50 and 70-200.
What du you guys think of the 24-120 vs. 28-300 are they really on par, I’m in doubt here 5x vs 10x zoom performing equally?
Hi Henry
Ok I’m clearly not Henry but I was in the same boat as you (choosing between the 24-120 and the 28-300), and in fact, I read both Nasim’s and Ken Rockwell’s websites almost daily!
Given your lenses, it looks like you must read KR’s sites regularly, as you have what he deems the perfect set up for pros (an ultrawide zoom, 50 prime, and telephoto zoom.
For travel, I settled with the 24-120 f/4 VR which was perfect for 90% of shots, but also brought along my 70-300 VR (which is relatively light) which I used for the remaining 10% (no regrets though – when you need tele, you really need it!).
Good luck!
Henry, I went throught the same procedure you did but waited for the more complete objective analysis of the 24-120 by Nasim which convinced me to buy it. I originally hesitated because of Rockwell’s comments.
I have regularly visited both sites (Rockwell & Mansurov) and compared their evaluations. I was concerned about Rockwell’s lack of objective evaluation of this lens since all he offered was an opinion. He was kind of glib about it with an “I know best” attitude. No tangible evidence was offered.
Now, his opinion probably makes sense for some, but I preferred to see actual objective results which Nasim offered. I also shoot mostly in the 24-120 range and did like the constant f/4 opening.
I have Rockwell and Nasim’s website on my desktop and visit then each day. They are both valuable resources, but I think Nasim tends to be more controlled and objective about things…not that I always agree with him.
Hmm, interesting :)
I was actually aiming (saving) for a 24-70, but I decided agains the pro glass due to costs, weight and the shorter focal length. I also chose the 16-35/F4 rather than the more expensive 14-24/F2.8. I’m realy realy pleased with the 16-35/F4 which is a lower class than the pro’s so my plan was to stay with this “in-between” pro and consumer class with the 24-120/F4. Fixed aperature, VR and ND is about right for me and then I can use the saved bucks to go traveling and make som photos :)
Looking so much forward to my delivery tomorrow.
Argh, where did that [DELETED POST] button go :) I’m completelly overlooked the buttom section of page 3, sorry about that!
I think you have already answered my questions pretty clearly – shouldn’t have vaisted my time a KR’s review.
Thanks Kevin
Yes, there was a time when I spend a lot of time reading KR reviews, however I have found other sites, like this, where I feel my times is spend better ;)
I’m happy to hear that this lens serves you well, sounds like you have about the same requirements as I do. So I guess I just have to see what’s in the mailbox tomorrow.
Hey Guys
Did any of you guys see this review of this lens at youtube?
Scored 2 out of 10 – not a very positive review if I may say so. He even accuses the more positive reviewers to be in the pockets of “sponsors” lik B&H – a bit harsh.
I’m still looking forward to on-boxing my sample of this lens though.
It sounds like Jared is trying to expand his horizons from his main work (see below). After reading his bio on the Internet, I’m not surprised that he tried to disparage other reviewers with the “B&H/pockets” crack. That tells you where he’s coming from! I’m not impressed with him, his videos, or his lens reviews, but he’s probably very good at “viral marketing.”
From the Internet:
As Creative Executive for Youguys Media, I have have worked with some of the biggest names in international modern music, developing creative marketing strategies, new media content, and cost-effective merchandising solutions, to improve brand awareness, fan interaction and financial stability.
Specialties: Photography, client branding, viral marketing, new media marketing, new media content creation, new media development, artist development, merchandise development, tour management
One other point about the Jared Polin poor review.
Go to Nasim’s review of the 24-120 and open up the photos he took using this lens. Open them up by using the “Click here to download a full version of this photo.” Then enlarge them, look at all the corners etc., and then ask yourself this question: “If these were my photos would I be satisfied with them?” The answer will be obvious, assuming you have a decent monitor.
Case closed on Jared the ” Internet Gremlin”, as far as I’m concerned
Well, I have received my 24-120/F4 and today I had to do a shooting at a race-cycling race, armed with my D200+70/200/F2.8VRII and D700+24-120/F4VRII I shot about 600 pics. most of them with my D700. I very pleased with my lens, I still have to learn get the most of it but I got a good deal of excellent keepers. I had much more troubles with my D200 and 70-200 but that’s a completly other story.
So first impression is that for my purpose, it’s sharp and fast enough. On top of that, the focal range is just perfect for me.
Great. Glad you had a good experience.
Score:
Nasim – 1
Jared Polin – 0
The Internet gremlin has been flushed out from under the bridge.
Had another optunity this weekend both outdoor and indoor, landscape, portrait and group – this is in fact a great all-round lens. Of course it doesn’t quite match my 50mm and 70-200mm, but it’s just great not to have to change lens or carry both cameras around. It also makes less attention to my making photos so people seems more relaxed when i only carry this “compact” combi.
I think this lens will grow on me, just like the 16-35 has. These semi-pro’s are really a plesant surprise :)
Oh, forgot one little con thing – when having this combo hanging in a shoulder strap I think this lens will creep, perhaps not when all new, but eventually it will. And it doesn’t have a lock…..
Oh, ye of little faith!
Henry, I have the 18-200 on my D300 which has a lock. If you put that lens on 18mm with the lock off and point it at the ground, it will NOT creep. Put it on 50mm or any focal lenght other than 18mm, for example, it WILL creep if the lock is off.
My 24-120 does not creep under any conditions listed above, and I suggest it will never creep. It is a physically shorter lens when fully extended, and it is tighter when you move between focal lengths.
Dear Nasim,
My 24-120 f/4 underexposes compared to the other lenses (24-70) by around 2 thirds of a stop. Do you have such an issue like this…
P.S. BTW My body is a Nikon D5000…
I have discovered no issues with my 24-120. But, I must admit, i don’t know if I could discere 2/3 stop difference with any lens.
Hi, Nasim. Thank you for comparing 24-70 and 24-120. I have some anniversary gift money that my wife gave me and trying to decide what lens to buy. I have D700 and D90 these days. I am not a pro, this is just a (expensive) hobby for me. I don’t have many expensive lenses, my best lens is 85mm 1.4 D. I was all about to pull the trigger on 24-70, because I value quick autofocus and nice bokeh, and wanted to have a solid performer general lens. I wanted one lens that would be solid and trusty for me. I do shoot inside often (birthdays, etc) and I do shoot in low light often. I want one zoom lens that I can totally depend on to autofocus instantly in any lighting conditions and perform adequately without having to stop down much. So I was looking at 24-70. One thing I kind of wish of course is that it goes beyond 70 so I can shoot some portraits of my wife and her friends. Here comes 24-120, it is $500 cheaper, and the range of 24-120 can cover portraits as well. Sounds good, but from all I see and hear, it does not have as pleasing a bokeh for portraits. I wish there was a 24-120 F/2.8 but it does not exist. I have a Tamron 28-105 /F2.8 but that needs to be stopped down to F/4 to get acceptable images. I guess my basic question is can 24-120 be used for portraits and low light use? I almost never shoot landscapes. Or you recommend 24-70 instead?
You already own the perfect portrait lens…the Nikkor 85mm 1.4 D. It’s called the “cream machine” because of its terrific bokeh. Coupled with your D700 you’re in hog heaven as far as portrait shooting is concerned.
I shoot the D700 with the 24-120 as my all purpose, all around lens and love it. I have yet to find any problem with it. I shoot portarits and landscape with it. Great for shooting fast moving kids – just kick the ISO up to 400.
Thank you. Do you happen to have any examples of portraits shot with this lens?
None I’ll send, but scroll up on this page and see Nasim’s shots, especially the one with the bride being “harnessed” into her gown.
Hello
I am planning to purchase a Nikon DX camera preferably D7000 or D5100, but I would be switching to FX camera in the future. So, I would like to know if I should purchase DX lenses for a DX camera or can I use FX lenses on a DX body without any limitation or problem? Plz help.
Buy FX lenses… You can use these lenses for both Nikon body types ( FX & DX): A current & good Nikon FX lens setup example is : Nikon 16-35 VR, 24-120 F4 VR, 70-300 VR, 50 mm F1.8G, 105 Micro VR
I agree with Cenk about getting FX lenses, but only if you know, for certain, you’re going to get an FX in the future. However, consider this alternative scenario:
-For your new DX camera get only one lens: a Nikon 18-200 version 2. I assume you will keep your DX even after you buy an FX. The DX makes a good all-around camera and it gives you a 300mm reach with the 1.5 factor of the 18-200. It’s will also be a great back-up camera.
-In the meantime, save your money and wait for the Nikon D800. Get the 24-120 F4 for starters and then see what other lenses you really need not really want. The 24-120 is a great shooting range, and if you ever want to shoot wildlife, use your DX.
Has anyone used this lens on a DX body? I’m thinking about using this instead of the 16-85mm. The 24-120 f4 would be nice compared to the relatively slow 16-85, especially since the 16-85 needs to be at f8 for it’s sharpest shots, especially once you hit 50mm and beyond. There’s a big difference between f4 & f8.
Nasim,
Do you think the 24-120 f4 is sharper than the 17-55 f2.8 in the f4~f5.6 range on DX?
Thank you for the review. I have found your reviews to be informative and well laid out.
Hi
I want to use this lens with my D90 body?
Can you please suggest How cool can it perform ?
It will perform ‘very cool’ to use your parlance.
I have used this lens on my D700 in all kinds of situations, and I am very happy that I bought it.
My last shoot was a plein air artist outing, and i used it for close-ups, panos, and wide angle shots.
Never had to change lenses once, since the 24-120 captures almost eveything I wanted.
Buy it and don’t look back.
I’ve been a photographer for 50 years, so I’ve seen quite a bit. This is a very good (cool) lens.
What I can say is that, I enjoy my photography with this lens more than my 24-70mm while not loosing any quality so to speak of…
Насим, посоветовали бы эту линзу в качестве единственной (для начала) в связке с Д700? Или может быть выбрать другую? Снимаю свою семью, маленьких шустрых дитишек.
Заранее спасибо!
Hi Nasim:
I must say that this is a very bold review – keeping this lens up with f2.8 zooms especially 70-200 vr ii. It is very tempting for me as well but I cant afford two lenses now (hmmm). I will go with 70-200 vr ii as I shoot lot of portraits.
Also, it is great that you are willing to share and explain your conclusions. Many other reviews fall short on this so badly – feel more like coming they are from a machine.
Nasim,
I enjoy your lens reviews, in particular because you spend time in the field as a professional photographer using the equipment.
I have a Nikon D700, the original (non-VR) 24-120mm and a Tamron 90mm macro 2.8. I primarily enjoy taking landscape pics, often at 24mm (and sometimes using a polarizer) as well as shots of our kids using either lens, or a Fuji F30 point and shoot.
I am interested in a faster standard zoom as well as a fast wide angle zoom. I have long been interested in the Nikkor 17-35 which, based on your reviews, has been surpassed in quality by both the 16-35 and 14-24.
Two questions:
1) Do you anticipate Nikon coming out with a VR version of the 24-70 (i.e. 2.8, but with perhaps somewhat wider range at the telephoto end)?
2) Do you expect an update of the 17-35 2.8, given that this was introduced back in 1999?
I realize that the 24-120 F4 and 16-35 F4 might fit the bill, however given how long I have waited, I would consider 2.8 equivalents of each, if such products were in development by Nikon.
Thanks again for your very informative reviews.
Derek
Nasim, your reviews are incredible. I appreciate your time, logical layout and your thoughts. Keep up the amazing work!
Nasim
Thanks for an excellent review that finds a good balance between “too many numbers” and “too much unsupported personal opinion” which I find all too often on other blog sites. You give actual in-use imporessions, which mean much more to me than just numbers (even though I’m an engineer by profession) but also provide the numbers to support your insights. Bravo!
Andrew
Thank you for your feedback Andrew, I appreciate it.
Hi Nasim,
Loves all your reviews. I have considering to buy mid-range zoom for a while. There are 3 lenses under my consideration, the above 24-120 f/4 VR, 17-55 f/2.8 and the 16-85 VR. In terms of image quality and quality of autofocus, which of the three would you recommend?
Hi Nasim, love your reviews. Do you mind if I translate some of your reviews into chinese and share with my friends on my blog? I will specifically point out that is your works. Thank you!
Hi Nasim,
Once more, congratulations for the reviews! Excellent and to the point.
My dilemma is whether to buy the 24-120 or the 18-200 for my D90 camera, and use this lens for excursions and travel.
I already own the 50mm f1.4 and the 17-55 and I’m looking another lens which I think are ideal for outdoor, nature and travel photo.
However I cannot find an accurate comparison between these two lenses and their use so that to help me in my decision. I read that many people may have only one lens and this would be 18-200 or 24-120 but that’s not the solution as their pros and cons are not mentioned.
Thanks & regards
ps. I’d appreciate it if you had also the time to make a review/comparison between these two.
Hi.
Great website and forum. Very informative and well done.
Quick question to anyone here. I have D700 and my main all-around lens is an the older Nikon 3.5/4.5G ED, AF-S, 24-85mm. Not a bad lens, but wondering if an upgrade to the 24-120mm would be worth it for the extra length and VR, nano coating, etc, and maybe even sharpness.
I also have the Nikon f2.8 105mm Macro (great lens), and an older Nikon 70-300mm 4/5.6 ED , not AF-S which is OK but not fantastic without VR and a bit slow focus.
I was also considering the Nikon 16-35mm F4 as I have no super wide angle, but not sure which should be the first one to get. I know the 16-35mm would not get as much use however.
Thanks.
Any thoughts?
Hi.
I’m a photographer since 1976 and do photography part time. So when l had the Nikon D300, the Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8 was just perfect for me giving me the range of a 36-105mm on DX sensor. But when l switch for the D700, l found the 24-70mm a bit shorter for may needs and the size on my studio. So when this 24-120mm came out, l bought one right away. Since, i sold my 24-70 and never regret it. Since 8 months, l change my D700 for a D3s because l want to work at weddings on ambient light. So at my first wedding, i borrow from a friend the Nikon 35mm f/1.4G because l was afraid to have not enough light to work with my 24-120mm at wide open. l arrived at church 45 minutes before the ceremony to do test… What a surprise !!! With my D3s set between 3600 and 5000 iso, l’m able to do all the shoot during the ceremony with sharp picture and low noise. And in studio l love the range from 70 to 120mm that give me tho lens. Now l want a second body and the D800 will be perfect for studio and l will keep my D3s for wedding in low light.
Jean,
Thanks so much for your comments. I know I would get a lot of use out of that lens. Only because I already have a Nikon 24-85mm is what is making decision difficult. I know it is not the same lens as far as quality ( I don’t think, although the 24-85mm is not too bad considering the $350 cost 9 years ago). I am torn between the 24-120mm and the 16-35mm or some other variation of extreme wide angle. I am just a photo enthusiast for 40 years, and don’t have any lens that can give me the real wide angle that might be fun to have. Maybe I should just get an inexpensive wide-angle (18-35mm Nikon for half the price) as it probably would not be a lens used nearly as much as the 24-120mm.
Thanks.
Hi Ray.
l don’t know witch camera you have but believe me, the 16-35mm f/4 it’s just fabulous just like the 24-120mm . I have this lens too and on wedding, travel photography it is a must ! The VR system is fantastic when l do photography of the tables, cake at wedding reception in very low light. When l got travel and l don’t want to bring with me all my lenses during a day, l just put this 16-35mm and that’s it. So theses 2 lens are just great and give you superb results at full open aperture.
Thanks again jean. You’re making this a hard decision for me! I have a D700, which makes even a bad lens look reasonable I think. Good to know that the 16-35mm is useful for an all day lens.
-regards
hi,
i wanted to know if you suggest me this lens for my new d700…
i had a d200 with a 15/30 sigma that was ok for my needed (as size, not as quality image…),
because i like street p. and reportage style…
i was wondering if should be better the 16/35 f4 for the same reasons,
but i’m worried about the bigger lens aperture…
any suggestions??
Thanx and sorry about my english :-))
P.S.
I know that the 24/120 and the 16/35 are not even comparable for the different angles,
but because of my pictures target (reportage and street) i was wondering if the better “usability” of the 24/120 it’s the best compromise compare to the smaller but more appropriacy of the 16/35…
hope to have been clear…i don’t think so…
Nasim and/or all –
I’m making the jump from DX (D300) to FX (D800E) and need to upgrade my glass.
My specialty is landscapes (I just sold 26 to a client moving into new offices!)
Thanks in large part to Nasim’s analysis, I’m leaning toward the N16-35VRII and the N70-200VRII, perhaps with a TC for wildlife).
Question: will the gap between 35 and 70 cause me pain? I’m sure I could live with a gap of only 15mm….
thanks
jim
Hi,
congrats to the fabulous website and detailed reviews. I am planning to upgrade to FX and looking for a replacement of my 17-55 f2.8. After the review and numerous interesting posts I think the 24-120 is fitting the bill for me. My only main concern is the dust and water sealing. I am perfectly happy with my 17-55 which withstood heavy rain and even some sea water splashes. So, how does the 24-120 compare to the 17-55 in terms of build quality?
Thanks
Chris
Hi,
Are there situations when the lens distortion is not fixable in Lightroom?
ex buildings or other repeating patterns?
thanks!
Filip, no, lens distortion can always be fixed in post-processing.
Dear sir,
I am professional photographer using D700 camera but still i am confused about lenses . 24-120 f4 or 24-70 f2.8 . I do all kind of photography like wedding , folios. industrial , and jewelry which lens you recommended me and why? i have 80-200 f2.8 as well for the folios and portraits
Amit, like I pointed out in the review, get the Nikon 24-120mm, unless you shoot in extreme weather conditions and need the quality construction of the 24-70mm.
Hi… this has been incredibly helpful to me, switching from Canon over to D800 in a month. 24-120 sounds like my first lens and my daily shooter.
Question – if/when I want more range, would you recommend using this 24-120 with a teleconverter? Does it mess up the AF or VR? or does it just get too slow with the f4 as the starting point?
Thanks much!
I too just ordered the D800…. would you agree this would be the best first lens and best walk around lens for the camera for multi purpose use??????
Thanks.
Re: Weather proofing
Hi Nasim, thanks for writing such a detailed review. This definitely is THE best review on the lens there is out there.
Now that you’ve had the lens for a while, have you put this lens under adverse weather? I found myself shooting under direct rain couple of times, and I know that you’ve been advising on using the 24-70mm instead, but I wonder if you or anyone have put the 24-120mm under this or other adverse conditions?
Or if not, what’s your feeling about this? Say, if it’s raining hard outside and you’re so compelled to take that shot outside, would you risk it and take your 24-120mm out?
Thank you in advance.
Спасибо за тест, выбирал между 24-70 и 24-120 и увидел, что есть смысл сэкономить деньги и взять 24-120. Возможно сэкономленные деньги лучше использовать на приобретение D4 вместо D800 :) Снимал раньше на Canon, но цены на новый 5Марк3 и 1ДХ совсем не радуют… меняю систему полностью.
Удачи!
Really appreciate your awesome site.. very helpful.
I have a 50mm AF-S 1.4g that I was planning to use with the d800.. but was considering selling it and get this 24-120 f4 as a general walk-around lens as well as capturing my 9mth old daughter. I do not have any other mid-range lenses.. just wide and tele. I am also a little concerned that the 50mm is not built to last – seen others saying they get dust inside their 50mm.
In your opinion, would the 24-120 serve me as well as the 50mm at that focal length? I can’t afford to keep the 50mm as well as get the 24-120. Plus, would you consider the 24-120 to be constructed better than the 50mm?
Cheers..
Hi Nasim and all,
I was reading your opinions of 24-70 vs 24-120, and concluded that if you shoot in extreme conditions, get the 24-70. I just did some research and found lensrentals.com listed 24-120 as weather resistant as well! Probably this is a good news for those all who wanted 24-120 but was worried about the weather resistance capabilities of the lens.
Cheers
Scott
Is comparison #27 first set of photos mixed up? I think they must be because the 24-120 photo is much sharper than the 24-70 yet the narration mentions the opposite. I’m thinking the photos are mixed up?
Thanks!
Dave
Hi Nasim,
I finally took the plunge and have ordered a D700. I’m going to start with the 50mm f1.8 and already have the 70-300mm.
You seem to really like the 24-120mm f4. If you did switch to this lens would you still take your 70-200mm f2.8 or would it not be worth it for the extra 80mm?
Thanks as always!
Callum
Hi Nasim,
I’m not the first to thank you for this review, and i guess I’m not the last one. It help me a lot to finding “the” answer of: “What the hell lens should I buy with the D800??”.
I’m looking for the 50f/1.8G (beautiful bokeh) and perhaps the 24-120f/4 for landscapes. What is your opinion?
Thank a lot
Olivier
N.B.: sorry if mistakes appears…
Hi Nasim, I would like to get a filter to protect my new 24-120mm. What brand and type of filters should I buy? Thanks in advance.
Best Regards,
Kyin
Hello Nasim
Just got my Nikon D800 and ordered the 24-120mm from BH for the VR and the expanded ISO of the D800 both of which I believe should give me the f2.8 level of shooting accuracy. From your article, the optic clarity should be compatible with the 36 MP.
BTW, initial shots with the 50mm f1.8 are truly impressive and I did a “screen” estimation on my 27″ iMac and print sizes of at least 44 inches should show awesome resolution all though this still has to be checked out.
Cheers
Del
Excellent review! Very useful. Much appreciated helped me decide to buy the 24-120f4!
Thank you.
I am using the 24-120 f4 VRII on my new D800 and could not be happier, super sharp und great colors. For now I will forego getting any primes as this is a perfect walk-around lens.
Thanks!
Where did you get your D-800, I’m told by B&H today (April 2) that I would be waiting a month or two before my order would be filled as they are filling February B/Os and have a large number of orders to fill. I was to expect 30-60 days OR More before seeing my order depending on how their stock trickles in.
Email me: [email protected]
Hi Richard, I had mine pre-ordered on Amazon.de, I was lucky enough to receive one from the first batch they got in… D800 serial number is low, around 00046xx
Superb comparison and analysis. Far better than Ken Rockwell’s on most fronts … and far less subjective or opinionated compared to Ken’s. Thks for this … just love it. U rock!
I agree… I found Ken Rockwells review unprofessional and opinionated. He pushed the 80-300 and I can’t agree with him on any points. The 80-300 just does not compare optically with the 24-120 as this review showed and the MTF charts also clearly point out.
I have spent days looking at reviews with only eye candy and mfg hype. It is truly wonderful to see a review that gets to the nuts and bolt making realistic comparisons. My two lens decision laid between the 24-70 and the 24-120 F4.0 VR and wanting to know how it compared to the 70-200 at the wider end, while the 80-300 was eliminated early in the game for the exact reasons you stated in your review. Your review answered every question and helped me make a final buying decision. Your test results supported my investigation and studying the Nikon MTFs for these lenses. At first I had a hard time believing the 24-120 F-4.0VR would perform equally or better (in some cases) than the 24-70 assuming you didn’t need the 1 stop advantage (that gets compensated for with the VR feature except for the dof). Your test results put the cap on it. Along with the D-800 now currently on backorder with B&H I’ll be purchasing the 24-120 F-4.0VR and the 70-200 F-2.8 VRII to complete may package and switch from Canon to Nikon equipment. I feel this combination will fully meet my need for a travel and landscape lense and a good variable portrait lens. Of course, for the studio still life I’m sure the prime 100mm f-2.8 with be my go to lens of choice.
Thank you!
Richard
Hi, Nasim. Congratulations for your superb reviews. The best on the web.
Above, you said to Roman that “If you were to shoot a wedding with my wife, there would be two photographers walking around with a D700 and 50mm glued to their cameras from the start till the end of the wedding. Most of her pictures are also made with this combo and year after year the 50mm has been the most frequently used lens. And that’s with us having 10+ pro-level lenses… The 85mm is also superb, but the 50mm focal length just seems to be ideal for weddings.”
Only 2 questions about this:
1)why do you think 50mm (comparing with 85mm) would be better for weddings? With a 85mm, you would not need to be closer (what is not possible sometimes). Am I wrong?
2)what about birth (delivery in hospital) and babies pictures at studio (portraits)? Which one would be better (50mm or 85mm)? What about 24-120mm 4f? Would the aperture be an obstacle?
Thanks very much for your help,
ps.: comments from all are very welcome also.
Ricardo
Thank you for your excellent review. in compare 24-70 and 24-120 in bokeh you mention 24-120 is busy and dirtier than 24-70. well when i saw 2 picture, it seem 24-120 is sharper and you say is dirtier. could you let me know how can we distinct sharpness versus busy or dirtier
Hi Nasim,
I have just recently bought D800 with 24-70mm lens but I struggle to get closer shots as I do more of wedding photography especially to capture those moments which are candid style After reading your review, I am tempted to go for 24-120 and replace it with 24-70mm though I am still in a dilemma. I would appreciate if you can advise which one would be better for wedding photography.
Thanks
Vaishakhi
Hello Nasim,
Excellent reviews! It is really great help for armatures like me.
I have D7000 and planning to upgraded to full frame(probably D700) in down the line. Currently I am holding kit lens 18-105mm and Tamron 180mm micro. I am planning to add below lens to my kit slowly and will sell existing lens.
1. Nikon 50mm f/1.8G :- I think its epic portrait lens. Excellent bokeh.
2. Nikon 105mm f/2.8 VR Macro :- I love macro photography + I would add Kenko Extension tube to get closure.
3. Nikon 300 mm – f/2.8 VR :- I found this best for birding + I will use TE 2.0.(Need some serious bonus to get this one)
4. Nikon 24-120mm VR :- I think this is good lens for travel and general photography. But I feel is landscape Photography would be difficult. I might miss near by object during shoot. Kindly advice.
If I upgrade, I may miss on some landscape since I found I am taking many shots at 18mm as of now ?
Kindly advice & guide me on this future upgrade.
Thanks,
Tanmay Shende
Great review after I had read so much of others. Finally I had decided to get a 24-120mm after reading it. Initially, I intend to get a 24-70mm instead of 24-120mm because of its f/4 aperture design which isn’t as fast as f/2.8 for the 24-70mm. Since cost and weight is an issue to me, I realize 24-120mm really fulfil what I need as I love to shoot during travel, I don’t really use much of a tripod too. Becasue of the comprehensive information regarding the exposure combination with the VR, I believe this really can be my “walk around lens” during my vacation. Thanks for sharing it especially the exposure combination part.
Great Job !!!
Hi Nasim
I have been reading all your reviews. Thanks for the website. I have ordered a D800 (which hasn’t arrived yet) and already have the 85mm 1.4/D lens for portrait work. I am thinking about buying the 24-120mm f/4. Some of the comments about heavy duty sensor might not be a good fit for this lens are stopping me from getting it. I wonder what are your views on using the 24-120mm f/4 with a D800.
thanks
Shailesh
Hello Nasim and All,
I am a new Nikonian. First of all, thank you very much for your great review.
I had Nikon D5100, my purpose to take picture of travel, street,
portrait, landscape and my children but I just want to have a extra
range lenses. I am not a photograph professional so please give me
your suggestion. I am concerning of 18-200 VR II DX, 24-120mm VR,
17-55mm, 24-70mm. My camera is DX D5100, so I wonder maybe 24-120mm
can work well with my camera or not ?
Thank you,
Haiha.
Haiha,
on a cropped sensor body is far better mount a dx lens, 24mm are too long for landscape and travel photography. I could recommend the 18-105 VR, is cheap and delivers good quality images; if you do low light photos and/or you need to freeze your child movements, the Nikon 35mm 1.8 DX or Sigma 30mm 1.4 (this is the one I own and I can`t be more happy with the results) is the best alternative.
Hope this help.
Regards.
great work!
Actually I have a Nikon D700 and use the 24-85mm 2,5-4 lens for genaral travel lens and I am no happy with the sharpness. I have also the 70 -300 mm and use it also for portrait, my preferred objects.
Do you think the 24-120 is much better than my 24-85 and worth the money?
Thanks
Heinz
This is one heck of a good review. Teetering on the brink since I’d ordered my D800E I went to several sights for reviews and got everything under the sun but the guys that really seemed to know there stuff couldn’t seem to find anything wrong with the lens. They had to admit it was one of the sharpest lenses going. And head to head with the 28-70mm f/2.8 it seemed to fair very well. This lens seemed to get stepped on as people scurried to get the 28-300 I much prefer this.
Well, I went ahead and got the lens. Just put it up against my 50mm f/1.4 and my 105 /2.8 macro and “honest” couldn’t tell the difference. (f/8 mirror up) So I am happy with my purchases and thank you for your great review.
Mike
I found your website last year & wish to thank you so much for your detailed helpful reviews. I have read nearly all your Nikon lens reviews. I thought I would read again this 24-120 review especially vs the 24-70. Last year I bought a 7000 while I waited for the 700 replacement. Incidentally that is why I only bought FX lenses. I found the 24-70 in general use to be a better (less distortions & slightly sharper) lens than the 24-120 so have just kept it on. I now have the 800E & have not bothered to put the 24-120 on it choosing to put the 24-70 straight on it and put the 24-120 on the 7000 again. I put my 85 1.4, which I bought for portraits, on the 800E and in one word a maz ing !
Thanks again.
Chris
A followup to this post is at 301. A short test before my holiday determined me to take my 24-120 & I have not regretted it. Yes there are 50 pics that would have benefitted from the better lens (24-70) but out of 1000 pics that is a compromise worth taking.
Hi Nasim, I shoot a D300 with the 12-24 G DX Nikkor; 24-85 3.5-4.5G AF S ED; and 80-200 2.8D. I also have the 17-35 2.8 Nikkor. For an up comming trip to Europe I’d like to lighten my kit.
I was thinking of the 12-24; Purchasing a 24-120 f4G VR; and taking a 2x tele extender.
The main reason tolighten my load is difficulty walking due to arthritis in both knees. I haven’t seen any comments on use of extenders with the 24-120 f4? I know my 24-85 is not in the same optical class, which is why it isn’t being considered. Your opinion would be appreciated. Sincerely Paul Corsa
Hi Nasim. I have the original (non-VR) 24-120. Is it worth upgrading to the current lens? I especially enjoy shooting at 24mm, however I like the convenience of being able to zoom in as well. Thank you. Chrissy
Hi Chrissy,
I am just a keen amateur but politely suggest you read the review particularly the lens comparisons. You can then answer your own question. Without a doubt the new lens having ED glass & VR will trounce your old lens. Just open your wallet for you surely cannot take money with you. All the best from Chris
Thanks, Chris. I have read elsewhere that the previous lens (which the current lens is compared to) is actually inferior, optically, to the original 24-120, which I own. Still, I would expect the new lens to be a clear improvement over mine as well. Chrissy
Great review of the lens and I have read it several times, as I am close to buy the 24 120 f4 lens, but still I am not sure if this lens is so much better than the 24 85 f 2,8 – 4 lens.
it’s a fantastic walk around lens and has macro, but for my feeling not sharp enough.
What are your opinion, is it worth to buy the f4 ?
thanks
Nasim
I love your site and appreciate all the work you do to helping us make a better decision towards our equipment!
I’ve got some additional equipment since my last time in conversation with you – D7000, 18-105, 50 1.8, 70-200 vrII, SB 700 & 910. I’ve been doing more portaits (senior pictures) and as a second shooter for weddings. I would love if you looked at my flickr account and let me know your thoughts. I do this to make others happy and would like to do better. The guy I second shoot for has really helped my a lot.
Thoughts are to get a 24-120 and get rid of the 18-105 but would I miss the 18 focal length? I am planning to go to Canada next year with my family (Price Ruppert area). Would this be a good lens to include – am I going in the right direction for my type of photography?
Thanks so much for your time – I’m sure you are busy.
Todd
Hi Nasim, Please refer to my June 8 post for background. I’m trying to decide between the new 18 to 300 DX Nikkor and the 24-120FXNikkor for use with a D300 for travel photography. Can the 24-120 be used with a 2x extender with reasonable results in DX format? Is the 24-120 a sharper lens than the new 18-300DX? I’m guessing that it is, since the 18-300 is a DX version of the 28-300FX lens, yes? Please try to comment on this as I need to get my kit in order for a Fall outing. Thanks in advance, Paul.
Nasim,
Just got my D800 and was researching a lot on what lenses to get. Reading this review and the comments, decided on buying the 24-120 f4. In addition to this lens, i would like to buy something for low light (maybe a prime). Can’t afford the 70-200 VR II at this time. Do you have any suggestions ?
Thanks for your time.
What do you intend to photograph under low light conditions? Knowing this would make it easier to suggest a lens, yes?
Street photography — late evening/ night.
If you mean people photography do you intend to hang back at a distance or get in close among the crowd? One would dictate a fast tele, the other a fast wide angle. A fast (1.4) 24mm would be $$$,
a 1.8 85mm would be less. By using your 24 to 120 f 4 with VR and a high ISO you should be able to determine which focal range you need. If the city scape is bright enough you might not need a faster lens?
so which one is better in terms speed and sharpness for wild life such as birds and other things the 28-300 or 24-120 and I have a Nikon D7000 + 35mm f1.8 and I am looking for a zoom lens and my budget for now is about $1000 so should I just purchase the Nikon 28-300mm or wait and save more money for the nikon 24-120 F4?
Hi, I’m thinking about the Nikon 24-120. I recently bought a D800 and now almost all my old lenses are incompatible and the only one I can use is the SIGMA 150-500. So I have to replace my old 28-70 and 70-200 (both Sigma EX F2.8 used with my old F100). I’m thinking about new 28-70 and 70-200 but also the less expensive and lighter choice of only 1 more versatile lens like the 24-120. I’m only an amateur not a pro so any suggestion is welcome.
Thanks
Hi Antonio, I wrote 286 but my update to that will interest you. I Have just been on holiday & to travel light regarding camera gear I took my 24-120mm f4 & my 50mm f1.4G I had just purchased for my 800E. Before I went I did a little test with the 24-120 v my 24-70 & decided the 24-120 was better on the 800E than I had expected. I am delighted with the results. I still have a lot to learn as only a keen amateur and am pleased I always take Raw & best Jpegs as the raw are the easy ones to alter if the jpeg has blown the highlights. So my polite suggestion is to sell all your old lenses and only use the best FX lenses you can afford. A good compromise start is to buy the 24-120 & a 50mm 1.4G otherwise why did you buy the 800? I am a keen eyed perfectionist with a limited wallet – to explain my suggestions.
Thanks for your suggestions. I think I’ll go for 24-120.
Kind regards.
Thanks for a great review. I like your style of writing, real world while still covering the technical details. As a matter of fact, after reading it three times I picked up a 24-120 at my local dealer yesterday. I did quick and very unscientific comparison with my 24-70 and I believe the 24-120 will be my new walk around lens.
Great review and great site!
I have just bought the 24-120mm for my D800. I also have a 50/1.4G and wanted the 24-120mm but couldn’t locate one in stock so I bought a 28-300mm just to see how it was. I got some nice shots with it but it didn’t have that extra bit of quality. After a week VR became very noisy so I sent it back and found a 24-120mm. Straight away you can tell the difference in quality. The VR is silent and very impressive. Wide open at f4 it’s a touch softer than stopped down to f5.6 but still very useable in the real world.
I have the Canon equivalent 24-105/f4 and while that’s probably a little sharper wide open the bokeh isn’t as nice and the VR nowhere near as good.
I am very happy with this lens and look forward to taking many fine images with it.
This is bar far the most comprehensive and practical review site I have come across while trying to determine my choice of lens – thank you for the effort you have put into it!
I am selling my trusty AF-S 18-200 VR lens which has never skipped a beat in its years of service, but various annoying niggles (such as lens creep) and the desire to buy a higher spec. everyday lens has led me to your site and a very confident purchase of this new lens. I can’t wait to try it out!
Although I’m fully aware that it’s designed specifically for the FX full-frame Nikons, I would love to hear of anyone’s real world, everyday opinions of this lens with a DX Nikon – which is what I’ll be using it with for the time being.
Thanks again for a very informative review.
Hi Drew, You do not say which Nikon camera you are using. I bought this lens before Nikon had produced their replacement for the aged 700 & had bought a 7000 to ‘learn’ Nikon being a Leica man. (see post 301 for my view of this lens) The 24-120 works brilliantly with the 7000 which as you will know is a DX camera. No hesitation recommending. I hope someone else more ‘expert’ will confirm this for you. All the very best.
Thank you for your response Chris and confirming what I was hoping …as the camera I am planning to buy is infact the D7000!
I currently own a D2Xs which, along with my 18-200 VR lens, is being serviced by Nikon UK. Many people may wonder why I am changing to the D7000, but after around 6 years of carrying around a ‘brick’ of a camera on my back I’ve opted for something lighter, easier to handle and generally more useable. I’m hoping that the new combination of the D7000 plus the 24-120 f4 will produce equally good results, if not better.
While I’m here I would like to add that the D2Xs has performed faultlessly on an almost daily basis for the past six years in some very harsh weather conditions. A great camera all round, but time for something different, and since I can’t afford full frame and a prime lens, my new combo will, I hope, be the next best thing.
Thanks again for your comments.
It’s great bumping onto this thread.
I have a very good chance to get both the lens(used condition) but are as good as new currently. One question, anyone ever had a chance to interchange the lens hood between the 24-120mm and 28-300mm??
Had a chance to try it earlier. Both fits nicely since they are 77mm.
And the renowned loosely fit on the 28-300mm now with the 24-120mm hood sit snugly, and they look more appropriate in terms of proportion.
24-120mm looks kinda fat, since its shorter and same thickness, now with the longer 28-300mm hood, it just seems nicely sized when mounted on the body. 28-300mm now with the 24-120mm petal shaped hood looks less bulky and nicely sized up.
Anyone knows if the changing of the hoods will have implications on the shooting??
Will post shortly on the questions for the decision making between choosing one. Tough choice!
One thing i noticed upfront, is I have better capturing of the frame i see on an instant and the 24-120mm gets it right spot on. 28mm seems to be not as intuitive enough to do the same. And also, the constant f4 somehow also give a snappier AF lock on, giving faster snapshots. One thing for sure, the zoom is much more smooth than 28-300mm, but somehow creeps a bit??
Thank you for the extensive comparison. I am really tempted by the 24-120 since it would make a nice one lens kit for me for vacation and general photography. I have faster glass if I need it.
I really enjoy your site, thank you for all you do.
Just returning with some initial comments on my D7000 & 24-120 f4 VR lens combo.
Overall very pleased with how the camera handles, but I have some annoying issues when viewing the RAW (NEF) images in Adobe Bridge / Photoshop CS5. Even though they appear to be fine on the camera screen, they all appear too dark and contrast heavy in Bridge. The latest version of the Camera Raw Plugin has also been installed.
I use Adobe’s Europe General Purpose 3 colour settings (which have worked well with everything – whether DIY or for press) and the camera settings have been pretty much as standard as possible throughout – preferring to post edit in Photoshop if anything needs tweaking. The D7000 Picture Control has been set to either SD or NL and the Active D-Lighting set to Auto. Colour space is set to Adobe RGB and ISO 100 throughout. No other settings have been amended.
If anyone has any views on why the images are looking too dark and with too much contrast in Bridge, I would be really grateful.
Hi Drew,
I have found so much info & help that is not in the Nikon manual from Thom Hogan’s book on the 7000 I unreservedly recommend it to you. Work through it and apply his tips on settings. It is so worth every penny & it is not expensive I could go on and on. The active D lighting is one area for example where you need some expert advice. I certainly did anyway.
All the best & let us know how you get on.
Thanks for your reply Chris – much appreciated. I will certainly look into Thom Hogan’s book, which looks like a very worthwhile route. I think I’ve been worrying about the notion that I may be downgrading from my D2Xs, but as you suggest, it’s more likely the case that I need to get used to the differences between the two cameras. The 24-120 f4 lens seems to have been a good choice and feels far more pro than the 18-200. Again, it’s just different and I have found myself adopting a different shooting style as a result.
Also, for those with a similar problem, the image results appear to be more of a Photoshop/Bridge (CS5) settings issue, as they look fine on the D7000 itself. I will continue investigating and post my findings when I make some headway!
Thanks again for your comments.
I have read your article on the Nikon 24-120, and it seems fairly positive. I am a beginning photographer, and am shooting the Iron Man event at Wilmington N.C. in October. Since I am flying I would like to keep the amount of gear down. I have more than one body, and several lens, but I would prefer to only take one lens, and camera if possible. After reading your article I am considering purchasing the Nikon 24-120 to go on one of my D700 bodies, and just carry this to shoot the whole event. What are your thoughts?
This is addressed to Steve:
You confused me with your rendering of “Iron Man,” but also got me reading further. Just for the record, the Beach 2 Battleship triathlon is an “Iron distance” triathlon that is not run under official World Triathlon Corporation (WTC) sanctioning, hence it cannot used that trademark. The separation of the two words conjures images of the recent movie series as well, so I had to look on the official Ironman site to see if there was such an event. At any rate, I’m a six-time Ironman triathlon finisher, triathlon coach, and frequent triathlon photographer, and I also shoot with a D700, so I’ll take a crack at giving some unsolicited advice under the proviso that I do not own this lens, but came here looking to see what Nasim had to say about it for my own purposes as a sports and studio portrait photographer.
The first thing I would want to know about your coverage of the event is what kind of access you’ll have. Do you have a media pass, and do you have unrestricted access to the course and the competitors, as well as various sites like the pre-race staging area, swim start, transition zone(s) and finish line area? If you do, then will you shoot from a motorcycle or open-topped car along the course? If you’re in a car you won’t be able to spend any significant time alongside or near cyclists, and will essentially be banned from the run course, whilst a motorbike can get closer to the athletes without interfering or running the risk of having them catch a draft. From a motorcycle , since your driver can’t cross over into oncoming traffic, the 24-120 focal length is superb for getting in full body perpendicular shots, broader perspectives, and being able to zoom in on faces, but won’t offer a significant advantage over a 24-70 until you get out in front of them, since even an 80mm lens can be pretty tight from even across the road when directly parallel. From a car, you’re not going to be allowed, nor should you get so close, to linger near the athletes due to the danger of collision as well as the risk of athletes drafting. Therefore, you’re not going to have enough reach at 120mm to get anything exceptional from a car, and the max. aperture of f/4 could be an additional factor preventing good subject isolation.
If you’re not on or in a vehicle, then assuming you can get to various points on the course, where you’ll be static, the 24-120 focal length should be excellent for capturing passing cyclists and runners, grabbing site establishment shots, and other details of the race. You should work out your focusing method and settings in advance, and assuming focus acquisition is accurate it will then come down to your choice of subjects and framing. If I were forced to the sidelines with the access of any typical athlete family member I know I’d want the wide coverage this lens can provide, but for my personal style I’d likely miss the extra reach of a 70-200 and some space on the wide end. That said, there are plenty of journalistic and creative opportunities to be exploited between 24 and 120 millimeters, so if you only have one body and one lens to bring it would be a great choice in consideration of focal length alone. As for subject isolation and speed/accuracy of focus, I hope to test those by renting this lens myself for an upcoming race.
I hope this post doesn’t come off as too presumptuous, condescending, or off base, but since you said you’re a beginning photographer and I assume you haven’t covered a triathlon before, and you didn’t give any further details about how you’ll be covering the race, I saw the need to ask some questions and cover some fundamental basics without specifically addressing the performance of this lens, since I don’t (yet) have one. Hope this was helpful to you and perhaps other readers, and good luck with the upcoming race.
Thank you Bitanphoto for your comments regarding the Nikon 24-120 in shooting major athletic events. My major concern is with the quality of the Nikon 24-120. I was going to purchase this lens for this event, but have decided against it due to my concerns about quality of images, and construction of lens. I will wait til Nikon has a better offering in this range. I am taking two bodies: both d700. And two lens: Nikon 24-70, and Nikon 80-200. I would prefer not to carry all this around for all day; that was my thinking in considering purchasing a Nikon 24-120. I have just got in from Georiga shooting an outdoor dance performance, and it would sure have been easier with one lens and one body.
Thank You,
Steve
Thank You,
Steve
Thanks so much for the review
Any idea which is sharper this lense or the sigma 70-200mm??
If you want a sharpness comparison compare similar lenses, like the 70-200 Sigma vs the 70 -200 from Nikon, otherwise you are comparing apples to oranges.
Ahh really, Woow I still need a lot to learn…..thanks
The reason I asked coz I tried the 70-200 from Nikon ( my friend has one ) and I liked how sharp the pictures were but I can’t afford it so now searching for a lens than can give me sharp pictures
But just curious why bothe lenses are apples and orenges coz of the different focal length ?!
Thanks….
Since no-one else has answered — the challenges of lens design vary greatly depending on focal length (or so I am told). Telephoto lenses tend to be simpler designs than wide angles, and zoom lenses are more complex than non-zooms. In this case, the 24-120 covers wide to moderate telephoto in a single 5:1 zoom range, so it is unreasonable to expect it to match a 70-200 zoom all else being equal (and they’re not, the 70-200 is a “pro” lens while the 24-120 is a “semi-pro” lens).
If you crave sharpness, primes tend to be sharper, cheaper, and faster than zooms. The 50mm f1.8G is about $200 (the equivalent 35mm f1.8G for DX is similarly priced), and both are razor sharp. The 85mm f1.8G is about $500. The sharpest lenses tend to be moderate telephotos, usually macros. The Tokina f2.8 100mm macro is under $500 and plenty sharp.
Circling back to the 24-120 — DxOmark measures the 24-120 at 24mm outresolving the 50mm f1.8 and performing comparably across its entire focal range. So, for a zoom it is pretty damn sharp.
I’m sorry I didn’t reply to your second post sooner. My apples and oranges comment was about lens design and focal length. If you liked the 70-200 Nikkor but it is too expensive, look at similar focal length lenses from Sigma, Tamaron or Tokina. The Nikkor will be sharper, but for a lower price maybe one of the others would fill your needs. The 24-120 Nikkor goes from wide angle to telephoto, is a diferent optical design, and thus I said it would be unfair to compare the two different types of lenses as being equals- they are different designs, at different price points from the same manufacturer. You might also consider looking on the used market for the 70-200 Nikkor if that is what you really want. There is no shame in buying a used lens from a reputable dealer, or from a private seller if you are allowed to test it prior to purchase.
比较客观的评价
Hi,
What about comparing this lens to Nikon 28-70mm? Will this new lens a better lens?
Did your review mention if the 24-120mm f4 has the rear environmental seal that helps keep out the dust and moisture?
Tom
Hey Nasim,
Thanks for the wonderful review. I currently own a D7000 with 18-55, 105 micro & 70-300 combo. Photography is not my bread & butter right now but I do plan to take it up full time in a year or so. Right now i really feel the need to upgrade my 18-55 & i was thinking of going for the 16-85 dx as it offers a wider end, additional tele range & a distance meter.
I do plan to go full frame probably in a few years (once i take up photography full time) which is why Im confused about whether I should go for the 16-85dx right now. Even if i buy the 24-120 or 24-70 right now I will be losing out on the wide angle end as i have a dx body right now since I like to shoot landscapes.
Can you give me some advice on what to purchase (or whether not to purchase right now) Nasim?
Hi SidArt Photography,
As no one else has replied:-
I bought a D7000 last year with the intent of buying a D700 replacement as I thought it ‘long in the tooth’
A direct replacement did not &, as I did more reading, knew there would not, be one so I bought a D800E.
The point of mentioning this is that I knew I wanted to go full frame so I did not buy any DX lenses. The only lens I was not sure about for the ‘future’ was the 24-120. I need not have worried. It goes on the D800E a treat! Great, and I mean that, really great. I liked the D7000 so much I decided to keep it even though that is a luxury for me. I too am a keen amateur and one without much money.
I di buy a 24-70 which is a lovely lens. I have to say it is not THAT much better than the 24-120 so I do use the latter most of the time.
My Conclusion. If you are eventually going to buy FX, and I will guarantee you will, then only buy FX lenses. My controversial comment is I would sell your 18-55 & the 70-300. Oops but yes I mean it. One lens will never ‘do all’ without compromise. I thought long & hard about this.
The caveat is if others read this I understand we all only have what we can afford otherwise I would have bought a D4!!
All the best. Great site isn’t it.
Hi, i am not sure if this was covered in the last 300+ comments.
I would like to know besides the obvious difference in focal length, would you recommend the tamron 24-70mm f/2.8 or this nikon 24-120mm f/4?
Since both lense have vibration reduction and the two lenses does cost somewhat similar.
Thanks
ps. great review!
Hi,
thank you for your review. I think the best review on the internet right now. Really love the attached pictures, not only graphs everywhere as on other sites.
I was reading forums and this lens is really mixed bag. I think a lot depends on a batch or actual lens, because I saw pictures with not that good resolution at the corners as you have. It would be also great to see how this lens performs on D800 and what do you think about the D700 vs D800 when mounted this lens.
I ordered one 24-120mm, tested on D600 and returned. It was really bad (at the edges) compared to results in this review. But I must admit that the test the test can be different from yours because of the different distance from the camera sensor to the target. I would like to ask you how far is the target at your tested focal lengths from the camera sensor?
Thank you very much.
Nice review, thank you!
Perhaps a good choice would be to rent one and see how it performs in a similar situation I am going to borrow my friends, he is not a pro but he just bought this lens a short while ago and loves it. I do weddings and wanted to try it out. I also have the 24-70 and 70-200 2.8’s and dont really think this lens is going to excite me.
Dear Nasim,
Thanks for the review of Nikon 24-120 mm lens for my Nikon D800. I am trying to enter into wedding photography and looking to buy this lens or Nikon 24-70 mm lens or Tamron 24-70 mm.
Please help in finalizing the same.
Thanks and Regards
Jatinder
You might want to rent (or borrow) the lenses first, to see what works best for you. I sold my Nikon 24-70, in order to put the money towards the D750 packaged with the 24-120. I justified the trade, because of the lighter weight and increased range of this lens, along with the VR factor. Now, after shooting a baptism with my new setup, I think that I was happier with the 24-70, coupled with my 70-200, on my 800.
Nasim – First off – hats off to you, your staff and your site. Clearly one of the most informative and well thought out sites, although I’ve only recently found it. I’ve recently stepped up from my D90 to a D600. I couldn’t overlook the holiday deal that essentially included the 24-85 VR for the price of the camera alone. While I hadn’t found your site yet – I also purchased the 16-35 f4 VR II lens: and I’m glad I did. My wife and I travel to Italy in 3 weeks, and I’m trying to decide if I should splurge on the 24-120 you review here. In addition to the 16-35, and the 24-85, I have the 70-300 VR – as well as a Sigma 24-60 f2.8 (an odd lens, although I really enjoyed it on my D90). I find most of my travel shots wider than longer – and I’m not happy with the compromises that I’d have with the 28-300. So – I was thinking of selling the 24-85, and possibly the Sigma as well and get the 24-120. I’d take the 16-35 and the 24-120, and possibly a 50 1.8 D on the road for travel….or do you think I’d be satisfied with the 16-35, 24-85 and my 70-300? I’d like to reduce my overall lens count, and start investing in better glass – but not sure I’ll ever make the leap to Pro 2.8 glass (although I love my 105 Micro!).
Again – thanks for your site – your pictures of Colorado bring back fond memories of my years in Boulder at CU, and then stationed in Colorado Springs with the Army.
Thanks for your time!
Hello Nasim,
I recently discovered your site, and am still exploring it……A breath of fresh air compared to other review sites, and beautiful images to boot!
I am trying to decide whether to let go of my 35-70 AFD f/2.8 and trade for the 24-120 f/4.0 you have reviewed here. Since I do not have a sample to compare, can you tell me what performance tradeoffs I might expect (other than max aperture and focal length)?
I very much enjoyed your objective review after having read a more subjective review on a popular site claiming the 24-120 and the 28-300 had pricing reversed because the longer lens had similar performance and was the better bargain. I was skeptical of that claim, especially since the 24-120 is fixed aperture throughout the range.
Thanks!
Great review, as always! Looking at a new full-frame setup, I was strongly considering the D600 + this 24-120 VR. Many reviews had me undecided, but your word is one that I feel I can trust – thanks for helping me make up my mind, with all your hard work. Really appreciate it!
Hi Nasim,
I have a nikkor 16-35 f4 and a nikkor 24-70 2.8mm, and that the 24-120 is at the same level as the 16-35, i.e., that it “is that good” and that the 24-120 it also is “a better buy then the 24-70”, except for when you are in really dusty or tough conditions the 24-70 will better resist to.
If that’s the case, I am fearing I’ll disappointed with the 24-120. Honestly the 16-35 is not that good, it has sharpness issues I never saw on the 24-70. I wonder if you are not a but too over-optimistic about this lens, and that you are refusing to accept that not all your readers do have the same experiences as you have.
Beside that, your reviews are well documented, well done. But somehow I have a feeling that a 24.120 will not be satisfactory to me, regardless how strong your views are.
Best,
Boudewijn
On the other day I went to store to test 24-120 vs 28-300 in terms of autofocus and both are distant apart, 24-120 is much faster. I am a bit disappointed that 28-300 doesnt do well as I was looking for a good carry around lens with 300 mm reach. Purchase postponed indefinitely!
I went ahead and purchased the 24-120mm lens for my multi-country business trip and I must say that I am more than satisfied with this lens, probably the best I ever owned even exceeding the satisfaction I got from 24-70, 70-200, 105VRII. The lens is sharp and VR works like charm. Cant ask for more…I may sell my 24-70 after spending some time with 24-120. GREAT, convinced that Nikon can make some good lenses…postponing the idea of switching to Canon for now!!!
Hello would you mind stating which blog platform you’re working with? I’m going to start my own blog soon but
I’m having a tough time deciding between BlogEngine/Wordpress/B2evolution and Drupal. The reason I ask is because your design seems different then most blogs and I’m looking for something completely unique.
P.S Sorry for being off-topic but I had to ask!
Hi Nasim,
I really enjoy reading your excellent review on this (and other lenses)!
My recent acquisition of D800 (stepping up from D200 DX) prompted me to return to the world of FX.
While using D200 many years, I find myself enjoying the general of the all-around 18-200mm lens. So when the 28-300mm came out, I was seriously considering it but was held back by two circumstances: overall poor reviews and my existing set of overlapping lenses from the F100 days (e.g. 24-120mm f3.5-5.6, 80-200mm f2.8 AF, 70-300mm ED). I haven’t decided to sell all my old lenses yet since I could get any value for them now.
Instead of stepping up to the 24-70mm f2.8, is the 24-120mm f4 a worthy upgrade from the original 24-120mm f3.5-5.6 (1996-2002)? Is the image quality significantly improved over the 1st generation? (I know you have made comparisons with the 2nd generation version with VR.) I am really looking for a high quality all-purpose lens (having enjoyed the 18-200mm DX for so many years).
What’s your perspective on this? Much appreciated!!
Thanks and best regards!
Hi David H,
I thought you will not mind me making this comment.
I bought one of the first Nikon D8ooEs coming from a Leica history. You will know of course no lene can ‘do it all’. I bought a D7000 whilst I waited for a D700 replacement as I considered it long in the tooth. Having no Nikon lenses I only bought FX lenses which included a 24-70 2.8. I did buy a 24-120 obviously the new edition f4 with VR.
I did not put it on my 800E at first thinking it would not be good enough but once I did I was so pleasantly surprised that I use it much of the time and am VERY satisfied with it. If you take the time to read down these comments on this page you will not find anyone hardly that will disagree. I think there may be one adverse comment but that is all. As hard as it is you will only enjoy a novelty experience using your ‘old’ glass on your new camera. If you consider it of sentimental value then keep it but do not hold yourself back but buy the best glass possible for a camera of enormous quality surely deserves it. It will be well documented that the 24-120 lens is not made to the same standard as the 24-70 but neither does the price reflect that. There is no such thing as a free lunch. All the best.
Hi my family member! I wish to say that this article is amazing, great written and come with almost all significant infos.
I’d like to peer extra posts like this .
Hi! Nasim:
Thank you for providing wonderful reviews. I enjoyed reading those.
Recently I purchased a 24-120 mm F4 VR lens and mounted it on a D600 to test. The pictures were sharp and colors were pleasant to my eyes. After the initial test, I have got one concern: The ghosting and flare were somehow too aggressive when I shot pictures with the sun just outside the image border. There was a string of different sized round shape flare in various colors along one of the sun beam traces. Its existence is quite obvious. I did not experience the similar issue with my 18-105 mm lens on D90 when I shot pictures either with the sun inside or outside the images. Since there has been no other complaints about the ghosting and flare issue on this site, I am wondering if this is due to the quality control of the lens or it is the nature of this type of lens with Nano coat. Any thoughts? Much appreciated.
Hi Danny, Did you ever consider that with a full frame sensor the lens is projecting image across a larger surface and flare at the edge is possible with a given lens hood. The smaller sensor on the D90 would mean that even if the same flare was there, it would have been outside the area of the sensor, yes?
Hi! Paul:
Thank you for the response. With the 24-120 on my D90 the flare size does seem to be smaller than those on the D600. The string of flare projects thru the central portion of the image. It is not limited to the edge. My 24-70 2.8 with the D90 also created some flare on one of the pictures. It was not as bad as the one with 24-120. Again that picture was taken with a polarized filter on the 24-70. It was not clear to me whether the filter or the 24-70 caused the flare to happen. Since the D90 is no longer with me, retest of the same gears is not possible. Taking thousands of pictures with the D90 and kit lens, 18-105mm, I did not notice any serious flare problem like this. It just makes me wonder if the Nano coating really functions as it designed to do.
Coming from a 5DII with 24-105 f/4L and being unhappy with its busy bokeh, when planning my D800E lenses I initially wanted the 24-70 2.8. But I learned the 24-70 only has mediocre bokeh, so I went with primes (Sigma 35 1.4, 85 1.4), and I’m VERY happy with the image quality… but quite UNhappy with the hassle of 2 lenses with less range than the 24-120, plus I’m really missing the VR. I’m going to try the 35/85/150macro combo a while longer (the creamy bokeh is AWESOME), but I’m now seriously considering the 24-120 as my travel lens, and where the bokeh bothers me, do a little Gaussian blur to tone it down. I know some purists would pooh-pooh the processing, but I don’t care.
Anyone with any experience smoothing the 24-120 bokeh with post processing?
HI DAVID.
I’m thinking of getting my first Nikon after 20 years of Canon. I was planning on the 5D MkIII but when I started price comparisons, the Canon body was at least 500-700 more than the higher Mpxl Nikon D800 (i’ve decided against the E version because I shoot a lot of things where the moiré might be a problem) The higher cost of the Nikon 24×120 lens compared to the cost of the MkIII kit price with the 24×105 F4 lens evens the playing field, but I saw you used Sigma prime lenses and loved them. This would help me greatly in cost savings since I’m being encourages to get the Nikon 85mm. Is there any place I may see some examples of the sigmas, both the 35 and 85, in portraits? Certainly would appreciate it.
Also, what does Nikon give you to deaden the moiré’s caused by the 800E? I was initially set on getting that one since I shoot a lot of product for print, but it seemed like more trouble than just using the UnSharp Mask which has been my primary sharpening tool since PS2.
As for the softening bokeh, whether there is one or not, my technique has usually been to do a selection or a rough shape path close to the subject then to feather it to 20-40 pixels. I then would copy the subject and paste into a foreground layer. Then on the base layer (always copy the full image first into a new layer) I apply the Gaussian Blur filter to soften the BG to where I want it. The soft edges of the feathered edges usually blend in very well and a little mask touch up could be applied if needed. I still mainly use Photoshop CS3 but I have CS6 on cloud subscription.
I have not taken a lot of portraits yet. Check out the Flickr groups for samples of the 35 and 85:
www.flickr.com/group…@N20/pool/
www.flickr.com/group…@N22/pool/
Lots of beautiful shots taken with those lenses. I have a bunch too, but haven’t uploaded too many yet.
I’m currently leaning toward the faster Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 VC. Check these out:
www.flickr.com/group…-2-8/pool/
My overall impression is that the Tamron 24-70 photos look more professional/artistic than the Nikon 24-120 photos. That’s just my opinion.
NASIM MANSUROV ,
Thank you for the in-depth testing/review for this lens. I’m planning to buy my first Nikon very soon, the D800, but since they don’t sell it as a kit, I had to do a lot of looking for the right lens. I’ll have to settle for just one lens for now and I had picked the 24×120 as my first lens for the camera but I had seen a lot of mixed reviews. You just can’t beat you comparison tests and that helped me out a lot.
Thanks again.
Thanks so much for your review! I have recently upgraded from a D90 to a D7100 and would appreciate your thoughts on how well this lens is matched to the D7100. My 18-200 matched up well with the D90, but does not do as well with the D7100 and I am looking for a replacement walk-arond lens.
I also have a Tokina 12–24 F4, Nikon 35 1.8 DX, Nikon 70 -300 VR, 105VR Micro, and Tamron 200-500. They all have held up to higher resolution of the the D7100 so far. BTW: I was surprised at how well the 70-300 has done.
Thanks.
Terrific review and i must say i was so impressed that i went ahead and bought myself a refurbished copy from Nikon itself.. shop.nikonusa.com).
Cost was around $860 with Taxes ……Definitely cheaper than the original tag of $1300.
The focal range was mouth watering and i was “Desperately” waiting for this lens all this time.
Received it on time and at first glance there was nothing to differentiate it from a non-refurbished lens..
Following day i had to leave for NY city, guests were visiting and i couldn’t be more happy. I was carrying my new puppy and would get a chance to take some fabulous pictures.. At-least that’s what i thought..
Boy, was i wrong…The pictures were ordinary to say the least. There was nothing that would evoke the WOW factor. I couldn’t differentiate the picture sharpness between my new lens and the 70-300 VR that i use the most and was carrying to compare.
After around 400-500 actuations, my impression was “Utterly Disappointed”. In no way would the cost of this lens justified the results i got.
Spoke with Nikon customer service and returned the lens the following day.
Not sure if it was just a bad piece but i really really wanted this lens..
P.S: I’m not a pro but definitely not a photo slouch as well :)
Sanjeev
Excellent review and detail analyses, very enjoy your post!
Hi Nasim,
thank you very much for this review concerning two lenses on which I’m really interested in (24-120 and 28-300). I’m in the buying process and after having decided to go for D610 now I’m unsure on what to buy as my lense. I’m not a pro, I just like nice photos and with good gears even a crap like me could do decent ones (I previously owned a Canon 7d which has been stolen….now I want to switch to fx format and the Canon 6D doesn’t satisfy me that much). The issue is that I really like to have all in one. I’m lazy and I don’t bring different lenses with me. I know I could achieve better results, but my pics are more connected with remembrance rather than results. I previously had 18-200 on Canon 7D and which would lead to a 28-300 as a natural substitute. I like to make macro pics and zooming to long distance detail (as during sailing from sea to land). The 24-120 seems to be a “perfect” lense, but the lack of those 121-300 give me something to think about. Considering, my level, my purpose, the camera and those lenses, which is your suggestion?
Thank you very much
Hi Nasim – thanks for the good info. I was considering the Df, D800 and D610 as an upgrade from my current D60. Shoot wildlife on safaris, equestrian sports and dabble in landscapes and macro plants etc. Finally pulled the trigger and purchased a Nikon D610 as the best compromise between safaris and equestrian sports. Now working on lenses. I plan to purchase the the 80-400 before the trip in May 2014 to Namibia and eventually a Nikkor 70-200 2.8 VRII. Right now focusing on landscape/all around lens-considering the Nikon AF-S Nikkor 24-70 F2.8 G ED vs Nikon AF-S Nikkor 24-120 F4G ED. Do you have a recomendation of one over the other? Only wanted to mess with 2 lenses in Namibia. Thanks. r
Read more: photographylife.com/nikon…z2pXviYhln
Nasim,
I own a D700 with 3 lenses – the original Nikkor 24-120 D (non-VR), 50 1.8 G and a Tamron 90 2.8 macro. I like the versatility of the zoom, however I have been using the 50 almost exclusively in recent months.
I will be looking to purchase the latest Nikkor 18-35 closer to the summer; in the meantime, I would like to update my 24-120 with something current. If you were choosing between the 24-120 f4, the Sigma 24-105, or perhaps the Tamron 24-70 2.8, which lens would you recommend?
Thanks very much. Chrissy
Hi Nasim,
Over the past 4 years I have been shooting with a Nikon D5000 paired with 18-200mm and 35mm f1.8 lenses. The 18-200 stays on my camera 95% of the time because I find it extremely useful in my travel – both for landscapes/cityscapes and general street / portrait shots. I have recently upgraded to a D610 and a 16-35 f4. I also bought the 85mm f1.8G primarily for portraits.
I am looking to complement this FX kit with a longer focal length “walkaround” lens, similar to the 18-200, and am debating between the 24-120 f4 and the 28-300. Given that I already have a wide angle in my kit I don’t necessarily need the extra 4mm of the 24-120 but i also don’t want to sacrifice on IQ.
Which of the 2 would you recommend?
Thank you,
-Ashish
PS. I am keeping my DX body as backup so occasionally may pair this lens with it for more reach.
This lens is good for travel. it is very convenient. with this lens you can go anywhere without taking any other lens.
Hi Nasim,
Bought this lens based on this review of yours, few years ago. It was glued on my D700, and now i use it very regularly on my new D4S! Amazing lens and amazing sharpness, but its seems like its even sharper on my D4S… Maybe im tripping lol.
Greetings
I’m so confused as to what I should do. Reviews go back and forth.
I have d7000, 50 1.8, 70-200 vr2, 18-108. I do weddings as a second shooter and small intimate weddings. Senior portraits, families.
I’m looking at nikon 24-120 f4 which is on sale for 1000 which is 300 off but tamron has the new 24-70 2.8 at 1300. I like the longer range of the 24-120. Really looking for a sharper lens than my 18-105.
Would like the fixed f4, but my real question is how much of a difference will I see in color, sharpness…? I know it focuses faster and would like to use it as mentioned above.
Is it worth it to purchase? Would I be disappointed if I ever go to full frame?
I was given some money from my church after taking pictures from a mission trip to equidor and would to put towards camera equipment. I want to be mindful of how to use it.
Suggestions are welcomed on how to use it.
Nasim
Can you give any comments comparing this lens to the 16-35, I like most photographers shoot a bit of everything that takes our interest so I ask the question not just in an optical performance perspective but also in which of these two lenses are more useful for the average street shooter
I know from previously using a 18-200 on a DX setup that often I found myself using the lens close up at 18mm as it seemed to give an interesting perspective in many situations
Im looking to purchase one of these two lenses for my D800 and just cant seem to make a definitive choice
Please help !
I’ve owned both the 24-70 f/2.8 and the 24-120 f/4, and let me say that they’re each fine lenses. I shot with the 24-70 for two years, then switched to the 24-120 for the past two years because I wanted the extended range and VR (plus the lighter weight turned out to be a nice bonus, but it wasn’t a factor).
However, I was always somewhat dissatisfied with the lack of the subject “popping” at f/4 as much as I was used to with the 24-70 at f/2.8, plus for event and live band photography with moving subjects, VR turned out to be less useful than I expected, since it doesn’t freeze motion. Most crucially, the distortion at 24mm was too much for me to bear; it really is pretty bad, lens correction in Lightroom notwithstanding (and remember, lens correction removes part of the image at the edges).
When I shoot events, I also like to get nice detail pics of items and objects isolated from the background, and would either switch out lenses to a 50mm or a 35mm (whenever I’d rent one) to capture those, which is a hassle, switching back and forth (zooming to 120mm produced adequate bokeh and isolation, but not quite the look I wanted). I also took fewer shots past 70mm than I expected, especially if I was slinging two cameras and had the 70-200 f/2.8 on the other one. Eventually, I was reviewing old pics I had taken with my original 24-70 and was stunned at how great the bokeh was and how much the subject popped out of the pics (even though it’s “only” one stop faster). In the end, I recently switched back to the 24-70. It may be heavier, it may not have the range, but the subject pops at 2.8 and the distortion is negligible (especially compared to the 24-120). I had been thinking that the 24-120 wasn’t quite as “wide” at 24mm as the 24-70, but directly comparing them revealed the 24-120 actually was a little wider; I suppose the distortion creates that illusion of it being narrower than the 24-70. So take that for what it’s worth.
BPR–I just recently sold my 24-70, and bought the D750 that came with the 24-120. Your comment raises the same, exact thoughts and concerns that I had, after shooting a baptism with the new lens last night. Now, I’m second guessing my trade.
I have been using this lens for close to 2 months now – first copy I got stunk – it was disappointing, second copy was much better. the CA on this can be bit annoying and the lens sharpness takes a dive after f11 (which makes landscape photography tricky) – difference between f11 and f16 is quite big so for landscapes I have to remind myself NOT to zoom in more than to 50mm – I think landscape sweet spot for this lens is 35mm at f8 focusing at about 20-30ft (min dist would be about 10ft which for the landscapes becomes not an issue). If I absolutely need to focus at about 15ft then f11 is still pretty sharp but nowhere close to f8 (but still awesome) – f16 is still usable, but becomes very mushy – anything over f16 is really only good for specialty photos (bulb exposure for the city night photography where we do not want to worry about people walking in front of camera – as a example – night shots are easier to get sharp imho) – overall great lens (and I got it for 750 because of the bundle deal – thanks again Nassim)
отличный обзор, Насим. всегда читаю ваш блог и получаю много полезной информации и советов. недавно я приобрел Nikon D610 и 90% именно следуя вашим советам. но так я начинающий свадебный фотограф, то хотел бы получить подсказку. у вас тут был обзор на объектив Tamron 24-70 2.8 VC и мой вопрос таков, какой из них предпочтительней для свадебной фотографии и вообще как универсальный объектив? заранее спасибо и очень надеюсь на ответ.
Great Reviews, Thank you so much.
Can you comment on picture quality of this Nikon vs the newer Sigma 24-105 mm F4 DG OS HSM? Nikon is currently offering this lens for $600 off with purchase of certain cameras, so now its about $200 LESS than the Sigma 24-105. I’m sure to die hard Nikon fans, its a no-brainer. But just wondering if the new sigma Art is better; despite less reach.
Thanks much!
Thanks for the very informative review. I must say though that I respectfully disagree with your conclusion that this lens isn’t for portraiture. Portraiture doesn’t depend on having greater aperture than f4. Too many photographs use f2.8 and greater as a crutch, often in ways that only the photographer appreciates and the clients doesn’t. Most of my clients prefer the pictures where their whole head is in focus…not just the neareast eyeball. Especially when there are more than one person in the picture, I rarely will open wider than f4. From the performance you’ve demonstrated with this lens there is no reason it can’t be used as a very versatile portraiture lens.. giving you wide environments to tight head-shots.
I’ve had the 24-120 F4 and 24-70 F2.8 for a few years now. I shoot mostly weddings. I used the 24-120 for a 6 month period exclusively and would happily shoot with it as my only lens however… I use a lot of flash in my shots (often at very low levels) to balance lighting conditions. I found the 24-120 with VR on would sometimes give me a double image. I switched back to the 24-70 and would rather have the f2.8 and a slight blur with the flash.
If I look at most of my wedding shots they are either around the 28mm area or between 50-180. It would be great if Nikon would make a 2.8 lens that was 45-180, I could then carry a 28 or 24mm lens in my pocket for the wider needs. I often find that I have a 24-70 attached and want longer or a 70-200 and want shorter. I’d even settle for a 45-180 F2.8-F4.
Thanks for the review Nasim, Its nice to see my impressions of this lens echoed by someone else. I have been saying the same thing for ages. I have actually sold my 24-70 and switched to the 24-120F4. The VR is fantastic and low ISO shots I was struggling to take with the 24-70 all of a sudden are quite easy with a hugely better keeper rate. The loss of a stop of light is more than made up for with the VR. Well done for the review…..
Have had a D800E since February 2013 and use the
24-120 as the standard lens. I use this for 70% of pictures and the results are
consistent and excellent. The D800E’s resolution takes no prisoners and this
lens works well in most conditions. Bokeh… may not be its strongest point but
I use a 70-200 VR2 when I want this – or use Photoshop to add it. Don’t be put off by those who are looking to
criticise the 1 or 2 minor areas where this lens may not match an f2.8 heavy lens. You can’t use the 24-70 every day and the 120 is very useful.
And as Nassim points out, its pretty close in sharpness to the 24-70 too. Have taken over 20,000 photos with this lens and its had quite a rough life.
Its a great lens!
Hello Nasim,
I feel like there is many photographers who is struggling between Tamron 24-70 f2.8 vc VS Nikon 24-120 f4 vc. Both same price, both FX, both VC, difference beetwen aperture and focal length. Numbers are easy to indentify but how is it related to normal usage of lenses ? Is it possible to put some pics beetween real life bokeh on the street/people/food, sharpness or both in landscape photography ?
thanks for help, and sorry for bothering, you probably recieve plenty of similar messages…
Kind regards
Shemeck
Hi guys
Great review as usual, but I have to say that I use it all the time also on my D7100.
I have one question, when you compare corner sharpness, you focus on the center or on the corner of the test chart ?
thanks
Very nice review. I especially like that you compare with the 24-70 , i havent seen that before.
I heard that the 24-120 F/4 was not a sharp lens and i have lokking for a midrange lens for long time so now i have decided which to buy.
/ Nik
A great and thorough review. Thanks! I’m upgrading from a DX with a 18-140 zoom to a D750 and have decided to go with the bundled 24-120 F4 as a general everyday carry around lens. As a relative newcomer to DSLRs without deep pockets, I haven’t tried a lot of lenses, so tend to go on the strength of reviews. These can be slightly confusing. I wondered about the 28-300 as an alternative but this review nailed it for me on sharpness and AF speed, despite Ken Rockwell’s recommendation. The only wrinkle for me is whether the sigma 24-105 would be so much better optically. A certain widely known YouTube reviewer quite unequivocally trashed the 24-120 and advised getting the Sigma instead, but there have been some mentions of AF issues with this lens possibly because of compatibility with the camera body. It would be great to see a review of the sigma 24-105 here and an authoritative head to head comparison with the Nikon 24-120
Hi Nasim,
Wonderful review!
I will be turning 70 in a few months, and plan to upgrade from my crop sensor (Canon 60D), to a full frame (Nikon D750). I am tired of waiting for Canon to come out with a full frame camera comparable to the D750. As I do not have too much money invested in lenses, I will bite the bullet and make the switch (unless Canon surprises me for my birthday with a great upgrade to the 6D).
The D750 seems like a bon brainer; the lens selection is more difficult. I do a lot of travel photography, and I am looking for a good walk around/travel/all purpose lens. I considered the Nikon 24-70 and the Tamron 24-70, which has image stabilization. Both are too heavy and expensive for me. And, the reach is not sufficient for my needs. I considered the 28-300 but it is not sharp enough, and it is also too heavy. That leads me to the 24-120. After checking my shooting range, I discovered that 85% of my crop shots are between 18-80 (on the Tamron 18-270). This is about 27-120 on a full frame. So, the 24-120 should work out fine. However, many of the reviews I read were not all that favorable. Until yours! Your review has swayed me! When I do buy, it will be the Nikon D750 and the Nikon 24-120. And, with the current price when the two are paired together, I think the combination can’t be beat. Thanks again for your great review!
Based on Nasim’s review of D750 and 24-120 F/4, i decided to graduate from D3300 (with Kit Lenses) to FX world. WOW!!! What a difference. D750 is a great system and my 24-120 is very good every day lense to me to take great pics. Thanks Nasim for your articles and reviews. You are a great help to photographer like me. Keep up the good work.
I am about to upgrade the mid-range lenses for my D7100. Could I have some advice regarding the choice between the 24-85 F3.5-4.5, the 24-120 F4 and the 16-85 F3.5-5.6 DX ? I intende to upgrade to Full Frame in 1-2 years. Cost is not an issue in the range 16-85/24-85/24-120. Primary concern is sharpness when used on the D7100 and , later on a FF camera. Thanks in advance for your consideration !
I would recommend 24-120. It will work great on DX, but also work very well on FX. Has a great range, so in theory, you could use as your walk around lens. Furthermore, 24-120 is constant F/4 compared to other lenses, so that is very useful and doing some low light shots.
Hello Nassim,
I’m currently considering to buy this lens, but I’m wondering if the Sigma 24-105 f/4 ART would do better in terms of sharpness.
Have you already tested this lens ?
Love this site. Have lurked and learned for years and very much appreciate. I have a D750 and love it. I find myself using the 70-200mm f4 a lot but it is too heavy and big for travel and walkabouts. I’m thinking about getting this lens.
This lens and review are about six years old. With the benefit of hindsight, how would you think they have fared? Also, I’m wondering if you or any of the esteemed readers of PL believe Nikon will come out with a replacement to this lens soon. In other words, should I wait? If so, how long — when does Nikon make new lens available? Are they always announced in advance?
Great Review as always. I am big fan of your reviews coz I bought my D750 after reading your reviews, etc and now I’m definitely going to buy this 24-120mm lens.
Thanks, very nice review. But there’s one thing that I think about. You say, that 24-70 is built like a tank and can withstand anything. I understand that You compared here only the feel, look and sealing of the lens, not actual mechanical internals? Because after a long and detailed talk to the experienced service man i am aware that 24-70 was the worst built and fragile nikkor lens, extremely easy to damage… Until version II arrived, taking it’s place in that matter.
I’ve just this lens because of many positive feedback on the web. I’ve also compared it agains Sigma 24-105 f/4 when I was in the shop (not the best environment to test a lens) and Nikon was just a little sharper and more consistent from shot to shot.
Only after I realised that at short distance is not a real 120mm but something live 90mm or so. In Nasim review I remember that he described this lens as a real 120mm not like the 28-300 VR.
I own also a plastic tamron 28-300 XR Di and 24-120 shows exactly the same focus breathing….. it’s a pitty….
Hi Nasim,
Please be so kind to explain if this lens 24-120mm would do a good job on shooting at sea, meaning catching focus good enough if shooting a photo of a moving ship from other also moving ship. So i am in the move as well as my subject. I am using D700 by the way.
Thank you
Hi Nasim,
Thanks for the updated review. I have the original 24-120 D as well as 50 1.8 G, 18-35 G & 70-300 G for my D700. A year ago, I purchased a Fuji X-T10 with 18-55 & 35 f2 lenses.
I still use the D700, but I haven’t used the 24-120 in a long time. Do you think it would be worth considering the current (or ultimate replacement) 24-120 given that I have the X-T10? I still enjoy shooting with the D700.
Thanks,
Teddy
Teddy, I have used the original 24-120mm D before – it is not a good lens compared to the modern 24-120mm f/4G VR. I think you will love the new one if you try it out on your D700, so yes, I would definitely recommend the current version over the one you have right now.
I would be really interested by a full review of the sigma 24-105 art and a comparison with the Nikon.
A comparison to the 24-85mm VR would be useful. Many would prefer it’s lighter weight and if the 24-120 is weak at the long end maybe the 24-85 is a worthwhile alternative.
I prefer the fantastic 16-80 f2.8-4 on a D500. The 24-120 f4 should now be updated with the last techologies (FL, E, VRIII)
Back in 2011 I read your comments about the 24-120F4 and based on them I purchased it along with my D700. It’s always been a great lens on that body and even tho’ it’s coming up for 6 years old it is still the one lens that gets used the most
Hi Nasim,
Thanks for the updated review. Is it possible to add an IQ comparison against the new 24-70 f/2.8 VR? I’d be interested in seeing how it compares to it, especially in the corners.
FWIW, I’ve been using the 24-120 f/4 for 5+ years now, first on a D700 now on a D750. It’s the lens I use the most as it’s the most flexible. I only have a couple of complaints about it:
– I think it lacks micro-contrast. Images taken with, say, a 35 f/1.8 FX tend to have a bit more “pop” whereas images taken with the 24-120 tend to look a bit flatter. But that’s OK, given the flexibility of the 24-120.
– Does the lens tend to extend if pointed straight down? I *think* that was not the case when I first got it, but it definitely happens now.
– Has anyone else had issues with the lens hood? What attaches it to the body tends to wear off and after a while it stops locking in place. If you’re not paying attention, this can actually result in very bad vignetting if the lens hood accidentally rotates a bit when taking a shot. I’ve gone through two of them and they both had the same issue. I should maybe try a third-party one in case it’s a bit more solid?
Finally, given how popular this lens is, I really hope Nikon updates it soon. My wishes will be (in that order): 1) better IQ at the long end and 2) improved corners at the wide end. Any rumors of such an update?
Regards,
Tony
Thank you Tony!!
Like you I’ve noticed issues with the lens hood. I’ve had the lens now for like two years and it stops locking in place and sometimes I wonder if it would be best to leave it off completely. I get bad vignetting when I shoot images vertically and at the longer end of the zoom range (90-120 mm), but I’m not sure if it has anything to do with the lens hood. I just got myself a D500 with the 16-80 f/2.8-4 VR kit lens. Gonna test out the lens this coming week and see how it compares.
Hopefully Nikon will come out with an update to the 24-120 if not next year, then hopefully the year after.
Mike
I swear by this lens. It is the lens I relied on when making a photo-documentary of the war in Syria as well as in refugee camps in Jordan and Lebanon. The focal range is perfect for so many situations. It is sharp, light and suprisingly rugged considering the environment it had to face. Working in a war zone will test any equipment. Don’t hesitate, buy it.
Thanks for updating and re-posting Nasim. I had been looking for a comparison to the Sigma 24-105.
Based on the resolution charts I would prefer the Sigma. I’m aware lens design is always a form of compromise. In fact I remember the reviews when zoom lenses first came out in the 1980s that said going to 24mm in a standard zoom couldn’t be done, or at least certainly shouldn’t be done because of the compromises created! Anyway, the Sigma seems to fit my requirements better because it is sharper across the frame at mid-apertures and wide focal lengths where I would want it for landscape shots, and it retains better sharpness in the centre wide-open at the telephoto end, which is where I would want things for portrait work.
To that extent, even if the 24-120 f4 Nikon is generally a good lens, it would seem to have been miss-specified optically somewhat. Hopefully, Nikon could modify the formula in a new version, like they have done in the 24-70E [did you notice how those MTFs are very similar to the old 28-70/2.8?]. Does your updated review foretell an announcement of an updated version?
After reading this review, I think I will keep my old 35 70 2.8 d and the 70 200 2.8 and get the 16 35 f4. You get pretty much the same sharpness with the 35 70 and it is lighter and better bokeh with the 35 70 and the 70 200. The 16 to 35 is the answer. The only thing is different filter threads. Oh well
I’ve bought, and returned, this lens twice over the last three years. I really wanted to like it but it’s just mediocre. I have the 28-300 and while it’s no better, and a little worse, I can accept that in such a versatile lens. For every time I would accept the 24-120’s short comings I would also accept the 28-300.
I finally came to the realization that the 24-70, is enough better to not use the 24-120 for important photography and the 28-300 is enough more versatile to beat it out for casual use.
Again, I REALLY wanted to like it but…
Hi Nasim,
don’t know if it is related to your last update, but I’ve just noticed that the charts of the 24-120 lens differ from the ones posted in the 24-85 review (in the lens comparisons section). Am I missing something?
Hi Nasim
While mine is pretty good on both my D750-D7100 I am surprised by photozone.de giving it just 2.5/5 for optical quality, with pronounced distortion except at 35 mm.
Does it means there is great disparities in Q.C. at the lens factories ?
regards
Great Review! Nasim
I purchased this 24-120 mm f4 after reading your review (may be 2 years ago). I have all other Nikon lenses (the expensive ones too). I used to lugging all those big lenses on my vacations. One time, I even brought two body with 24-70 and 70-200. It was a hell…. Now, I just bring my D610 and this 24-120mm f4. I can take pictures that I want to take. If we are selling our photos, I think it is ok to bring big lenses. If only for vacation and want to take nice pictures, the 24-120 mm f4 is the solution.
Weight is becoming an issue for me also particularly for international travel, so I am actually trading in both my 24-70mm and my 70-200mm and going with a lighter, one lens solution. Although both lenses have been awesome, I have not used them quite as much as I would have thought when originally purchased. Therefore, although the 24-120mm may not be quite as optically good, my back and shoulders will certainly thank me for it:)
mmmm…..
I read all comment… now…. Buy or don’t buy a 24-120 f4 for my D7000???
I’m confused, I need to replace my 18-105… (I don’t sell them)
I’ve:
Tokina 11-20 f2.8 dx
Nikkon 35 f1.8 DX
Nikkon 18-105 DX
Nikon 70-300 ED 4.5-6.3
Nikon D7000 and D3100 (my first camera)
Great review. I am considering this lens for use on a D810 when on the road primarily to increase focal length and second to reduce weight when compared with the 24-70 2.8. Since focal length is my primary concern, I’m thinking it might be better for me to stick with the 24-70 and rely on cropping to gain the extra digital zoom capability. Thoughts?
So I decided to buy d750 and was getting the 24-120 lens with it, but was not sure if that was good enough for travel photography. Then i read your review and you are absolutely right, this lens is amazing for travel and landscape….I am very happy with my decision. I am loving every shot clicked with this lens….Thanks for the detailed review…this page is now on my favorite list to learn and understand topics related to photography.
thank you for your honest appraisals, comparisons, examples, and tech analysis that is way over my head, but it gave me assurance of your practical experience born out in the graph analysis.
I am wavering if I want to get a 9+ from B& H or a new one. My use will be very casual and not much as a hobbiest.
Would you suggest the 9+ or 9 for this type of usage?
Wow, i’ve never seen such an amazingly detailed review of a lens, thank you very much.
Por favor !! Como se comportaría el Nikon 24-120 F 4 VR en un formato Dx ??
Muchas gracias por su respuesta.
I’ve now had three Nikon 24-120mm VR G lenses in the past six months, photographed on a new Nikon D810 which has successfully made 72 inch prints with a high resolution Nikon micro lens. First lens: good contrast but terrible resolution at 24mm to 35mm–all shots done at f8. Second lens: poor resolution and contrast from 24mm to 70mm. Third lens: poor resolution and contrast at 24mm and 28mm, marginal resolution and contrast at 35mm and good resolution and contrast at 50mm and beyond–again, all shots done at f8. All three lenses were brand new and taken from D810 and D750 kits that had never been opened–this was all done in the largest professional camera store in Los Angeles. Your review is from 2010, and the wide angle shots have excellent contrast and resolution. The question the camera store an I have is what is the country of origin on your six to seven year old Nikon 24-120mm lens? Could the possible change in manufacturing locations or manufacturing process, or lens design be part of the answer? My three lenses were manufactured in Thailand. Is your lens from Japan, China, or Thailand? Three sets of Nikon reps (ranging from technical to field, to lens specialists) have been contacted about this problem and none have provided an answer. Your insights will be greatly appreciated. Thanks again.
Wow, that’s off-putting, to say the least. Thanks for sharing your experience. Looking forward to a reply on your question – this is quite intriguing.
Ed, that is a strange experience. My 24-120 f/4 is clearly labelled Thailand, and it came from a D750 kit as a ‘white box’ brand new offering. Mounted on my D810 it yields images at all sub 100mm focal lengths which are, technique permitting, so sharp you could cut yourself. The depth of field, or depth of focus on larger sensors is much narrower, and the issue of camera shake is also a problem, it shows up on large high res sensors unless you’ve taken the right steps to ensure you’re side-stepping it. Use of VR set to Normal, handheld, or use of a tripod with VR switched OFF, and try to keep the shutter speed at 150% of the focal length in use, so shooting at 24mm you need to be around 1/45th or faster. I am sure you’re aware of most if not all of this, but I state it for the benefit of all who read the thread and the review. With my own example of the lens, I have a theory, no proof, but here goes…
When Nikon design and begin production of a complex instrument, with so many glass elements, arranged in groups which inter-react with each other to adjust focal length, and keep focus and CA under control, with all the gearing and metal engineered inside them, it is obvious that tolerances are critical – and usually denoted as a +/- figure for acceptance on each individual part. This being the case, there is obviously a cumulative effect, if most of the elements, or metal engineering parts are off by a tiny fraction, the sum of these variances can and will affect the image the lens is capable of producing. My particular lens is giving me stunning sharpness, and compares very favourably with the 14-24mm Nikkor f/2.8 I use. The only issue is, being a large sensor camera, the zone of sharp focus decreases as the focal length increases – this is a common to all lenses issue. It is simple optical physics. As focal length increases, and as sensor size increases, the zone of sharpness narrows – even at f/8.
I hate to say this, but in your case, the only common factor to all of the lenses you tested is actually your camera body. Could the autofocus system be slightly off, giving you a front or back focussing error?
It would be nice to try one of those lenses again, on another known full frame body, preferably the d800e or d810 or new d850 as the larger sensor will exaggerate any issue the lens has – best locked down on a firm tripod, using self timer and exposure delay, or Mup and exposure delay, with VR completely off. If there is a lens issue, it will show up under such a test – if all seems fine, repeat the test using your own DSLR and see if you can get these issues to show up.
I could not be happier with my own copy of the lens but, if your own experience truly shows it was the lenses which were off, I can only account for my own copy being assembled with zero tolerances, and better QA procedures on the day it was produced. I would not part with it, it’s my main lens and has produced breathtakingly sharp results unless I am an idiot and mess up technique – it happens! we all forget to set something, or switch something off etc.
I hope you get to the bottom of this, but the fact you tried three lenses is kind of telling me that it is probably the autofocus on the camera itself, or maybe a dirty contact on the lens mount, or something of that nature. It would be a shame if you can’t get one of these lenses to work out for you – I love mine and would never part with it unless Nikon update it with an even better version.
Thanks for your feedback. Nothing was wrong with the camera body or autofocus. Autofocus was calibrated using the same D810 body for each of the three lenses by a highly regarded professional photographer at the largest pro store in Los Angeles. I finally received a “magic” Nikon 24-120 lens (fourth total lens) that performs much better–still far from great (will never produce an acceptable 72 inch print) but will produce acceptable moderate scale prints (24 x 36 inch and possibly 30 x 40 inch). If you receive a suspect lens, let alone an inferior lens, work with your dealer and provide specifics. This will also help to provide feedback to the camera/lens manufacturer.
Hi Nasim,
My question is that, is it wise to buy nikon 16-35 f/4 lens for landscape photography? Whereas I m using nikon 24-100mm lens in nikon d750 camera.
O yirang, I was thinking of your interest in the 16-35 f/4 lens and found a review on Lenstip which worried me – this is what they say about the 16-35
“To be honest I am very surprised that such a weak lens was launched on the market at all. The optics specialist, working on it, didn’t manage to correct properly one single optical aberration, apart from the vignetting. Such a weak project should have been rejected as early as the planning stage. The Nikon company not only launched it but also demands 4,000 PLN for it. It’s really no surprise we advise against buying it.
Anticipating arguments that we were just unfortunate enough to test a faulty specimen we must strongly emphasize the fact that we dealt with two instruments coming from two independent sources and, most likely, also from two completely different batches; still their test results were very similar to each other.”
This is what the same site, Lenstip, say about the 14-24mm f/2.8 that I suggested in a post earlier today:
“This lens is a perfect example of a situation in which engineers and designers had more to say than accountants. If we start from an assumption that we don’t have to worry about the price and dimensions too much because a professional will understand that good optics must be expensive and must weigh a bit, we get a device in the style of the Nikkor 14-24 mm. It is perhaps the best wideangle lens we have dealt with so far. Excellent parameters, simply outstanding image sharpness, perfect build quality, efficient and accurate autofocus and only two minor flaws – it is probably the best way to summarize what you get if you buy the Nikkor. In fact this instrument is a must-have for every owner of professional, high-end Nikon reflex cameras who also needs a really wide angle instrument for his/her work.”
That really shocked me, but if you are on the cusp of spending £700 I thought I should get this info to you fast.
Regards,
Ross
Thank you for the updating review.
I have this lens, and other professional Nikon lenses. If I am allowed to bring only one lens, this will be my lens. For traveling, this is also my lens.
I love the range and the sharpness. Not the sharpest, but with post-processing, we can make the result very sharp.
It is true that 24mm is not quite wide enough for a serious landscape photographer, that is, someone who intends to pursue landscape as a main interest. You should definitely consider something that will get you down to the ultrawide range. If you pick up that lens, here in the UK I think they are changing hands new at around £750. If you don’t mind the weight of it, and buying a good used one, you could, for about another £200 get hold of the 14-24mm f/2.8. Bear in mind that if you do that, the lens is a bit touchy if you include the sun in the frame, or just outside the frame. Contrast remains good, but you will see flare. If you are shooting without the sun impinging on the scene, you’ll find the 14-24 amazing. For that money and in those circumstances, that would be my own advice. The lens holds it’s value well, so you could always re-sell it if you feel you’re not using it, or don’t like it after all.
As to the 16-35mm f/4, I can’t help you, I came to full frame from DX cameras, and loved my Sigma 8-16mm very much, wonderful DX lens that is, and it represents a 12mm lens in full frame with the crop factor of 1.5x – though it cannot be used on full frame, it is a DX only. The step up to the 14mm on the full frame 14-24mm just fitted my needs.
Take a few weeks and read and watch all the reviews that you can find on the 16-35mm and that should put you right. Extreme wide angle lenses are quite weird the first time you start using them, so read a few articles on actually using them too – it is great preparation, nothing worse than getting the gear out of the camera bag and finding nothing to shoot with your nice new lens!
Will this lens be able to handle high resolution cameras like the d850?
It is one of the professional range with a gold line designated by Nikon, and mine is sharp as a razor on a D810 between f/5.6 – f/11 and 24mm – 100mm. It does soften slightly beyond that but it is a superior lens, and unless you want to accumulate prime lenses, I can’t see a problem on a D850 with this. They can be had for a very reasonable price right now too, if you’re ok with Ebay rather than a retailer, mine cost hundreds less than retail as it was a white box (a lens supplied in a kit with a camera, and then, separated and sold individually).
At prices like this, you should just get one, and if there is any issue at all, you’ll see most of your money back when you sell it. For the zoom range this is my go-to lens now, I have an ultrawide too, but unless I need the coverage, this 24-120 stays on the camera most of the time. Hope that helps
Awesome review. I recently bought D750 with 24-120 mm kit. Love it totaly.
That number 2 sample picture has different aspect ratio. How did you get that?
I would love to keep that ratio for all my landscapes :)
You gave the Nikon 24-120 a pretty good review. What are your thoughts about the Sigma 24-105 in comparison to this lens for landscapes?
I tried the Nikon 24-120 that a friend had and found it not to be very sharp at all. Other reviewers have stated the same for this lens. I am somewhat surprised at your review as it goes against the grain of what I have read, and tried myself. Even on DXoMark it doesn’t review well. Am I missing something??? Thanks for your insights.
Thanks for your feedback. Nothing was wrong with the camera body or autofocus. Autofocus was calibrated using the same D810 body for each of the three lenses by a highly regarded professional photographer at the largest pro store in Los Angeles. I finally received a “magic” Nikon 24-120 lens (fourth total lens) that performs much better–still far from great (will never produce an acceptable 72 inch print) but will produce acceptable moderate scale prints (24 x 36 inch and possibly 30 x 40 inch). If you receive a suspect lens, let alone an inferior lens, work with your dealer and provide specifics. This will also help to provide feedback to the camera/lens manufacturer.
I must admit, this is one of the best Lens reviews I have ever seen on the internet. Thank you sir for your seriously detailed review. It’s made me think about getting this lens for my D810. Maybe. :)
Really good colors. Are these directly off the sensor or do u post process?! Which program/filter do u use!!!
Hi
I have Nikon d7100 with 18-105 . I want to upgrade my lens with better lens with constant f and sharpness.
I decide to buy 24-120 f4, is it worth or not?
can anyone help me?
Hi Nasim,
Wonderful review indeed! Would you advise if the Nikkor 24-120mm f/4 is a better combination than the Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 + Nikkor 80-200mm f/2.8 ? Thank you so much in advance …
Hi Mohd,
The 18-105mm is a good lens, but is slower at it’s maximum aperture of f/5.6. The 24-120mm is better as it’s a constant f/4 rating.
However, the 24-120mm is also an FX lens. This means that on the d7100 camera (which is a DX or crop sensor or APS-C camera), the effective focal length becomes 36-180mm. If you are currently using the 18-105 for some wide angle shots, you may feel the 24-120 mm doesnt do that as you used to.
The 24-120 mm makes more sense if you are planning to upgrade your camera to FX format (like the d750 or d810).
Hello and thank you for this comprehensive useful review, well done!
I Currently own the D850, and I’m looking to add an everyday quality zoom lens suited for travel, portrait, street, some landscape,
basically if I go on the road or on a trip this will be the lens mounted, aside from special cases where I will change.
(I also own Tamron 15-30mm ƒ2.8, Nikon 50mm ƒ1.8G, Tamron 90mm ƒ2.8 Macro, Nikon 200-500mm ƒ5.6)
I am wondering if I should get the 24-120mm ƒ/4 or go with the 24-70mm G2 by Tamron.
I know the G2 is a very sharp high performance lens, Do you think the 24-120 can match the 24-70 G2 quality?
Does it hold up on the D850?
Would love to hear you opinion
Thank you!
I used to have the same quesiton, until i decided to test the G2 and the lens present focus issues (heavy front focusing) and i read similar reviews talking about that issue. I have the 24-120 i do like the lens, but i dont know i get the 24-70 G or the 24-70 Vr. They cost almost twice and they are really heavy.
Great article.
I am not a professional photographer but recently did whole wedding shoot from this 24-120mm lens only. Great quality, It is tack sharp near f5-6 range. Despite having two primes (50mm+85mm) but the versatility of this lens didnt allow me to use primes. The bokeh is not creamy but it was reasonable as the decor of the venue was great and i like the background in the pictures. In such events, you dont have chance to loose the moment.
When using it with on camera flash (not pop up flash), it produced stunning pictures. Now f4 is new standard and most recent camera perform great on high iso.
Great review, very detailed. Your site, specially the lens and wildlife tutorials is my go to reference. After reading the review, just ordered this lens as a travel lens for my D500. Thank you.
I am currently using a Nikon D5300 and pair this with the 18-105, I am thinking of this lens as an alternative to my existing lens, this will effectively be 36-180 on my dx body. My question is whether I should go for this and sell my existing 18-105? I wont be getting wide shots with this so can anyone suggest me an apropriate paring with 24-120 so that wides are also covered in the focal range.
Thanks.
Thanks for the reviews. Can any one share his/her experience if this sucks too much air/dust ?