I am interested in getting real world assessments of this lens. Thanks!

-- james (albanyjim1@aol.com), April 26, 1999

Answers

Great all-round lens. Perfect for travel. A little slow in some situations. A little too much barrell distortion, but not a major drawback. Well built. Can't go wrong, especially if you want the convenience of one lens. It spends more time on my camera than any otherlens because of its versatility.

-- m. strachn (mike.strachn@mail.house.gov), April 26, 1999.

Some people say it's heavy, but at under 20 ounces and taking the place of 5 prime lenses, I say it's pretty light. The range of this lens covers 95% of what most people shoot on a daily basis. It's certainly not as sharp as a good prime or pro zoom, but the difference is fairly small. What you do lose is speed, especially at the long end. If you're willing to stop down to f/11 or so the quality is outstanding. However, I would not hesitate to use this lens wide open.

For me the most objectionable characteristic is the distortion, which is apparent in straight objects near the edge of the frame. Be aware that this lens seems to suffer from considerable sample to sample variation, you might get a gem or a dog. Definitely test it and return it if it doesn't seem to perform well.

-- Barry Schmetter (bschmett@my-dejanews.com), April 26, 1999.

f8-f11.....can rival prime lenses

100-120....can be a little soft for the meticulous shooter

lens hood HB-11....so wide in order to accommadate the short end that it is somewhat useless. It like all other Nikon hoods is drastically overpriced. (side note: considering the prices, it makes you wonder where does nikon get its plastic from, Mars?) Others may disagree.

Zoom ring.....rather stiff in my opinion, others may disagree; some say that later units had this tightened up to eliminate lens creep. Nikon told me that they never encountered lens creep with any of their samples (okay?).

Filter size.....72mm; this is kind of odd considering my other nikkor lenses; too bad it could not have been 62mm.

f5.6@120mm thats plenty slow.

I encounter almost no flare/ghosting; this may differ from sample to sample.

Versatility is unmatched imo for its price range; I have used the 28-105Nikkor and I consider the 24-120 noticabley sharper in prints 8x10 and larger.

Weight? Light as a feather. Those who say its too heavy make me wonder if they have been using a 50/1.8 their whole lives.

Conclusion: If you are looking for a zoom that encompasses 24-120mm, has Nikon emblazoned on it,with a relatively modest price, and fairly sharp relatively speaking......YOU CANT GO WRONG.

Regards, Omar

-- Omar (thepond7@netscape.net), April 27, 1999.

I have a question about this Nikon 24-120 lens. I bought a Nikon 28-105 lens last week and noticed severe vignetting at 28 mm and significant vignetting at 105 mm when the lens is wide open without any filter or hood with both print film and slides. There is no vignetting at 70 mm. Some say that the 28-105 lens has wide sample-to-sample variation with respect to vignetting. Now I might return the 28-105 lens and get a 24-120 lens instead. What is your assessment of vignetting with the Nikon 24-120 lens when it is wide open at various focal lengths?

Thanks in advance.

-- Subhasis Laha

-- Subhasis Laha (slaha@lucent.com), April 28, 1999.

Re vignetting: I have not seen any noticeable vignetting at any focal length at any aperture.

-- Barry Schmetter (bschmett@my-dejanews.com), April 28, 1999.

Yes, one thing I forget to add in my brief comments....

I have not experienced the 24-120 vignette at any focallength/aperture combination; hence, I concur with b.schmetter's comments.

-- Omar (thepond7@netscape.net), April 28, 1999.

I cant imagine why any lens would have sample to sample variations when it comes to vignetting.

-- Ron Shaw (shaw9@llnl.gov), April 30, 1999.

Like most other 24-120 users, I like this lens a lot and it spends a lot of time coupled to one of my two Nikons. It is great with autofocus but not so good on my F2. The focus ring does not have the same solid feel as the focus ring on my 60mm f2.8 micro.

I think it is best used between 24 and 70mm, the telephoto end has some fall off in quality (subjective view). At 24mm there is some edge distortion. I have an old 24mm f2.8 manual lens which gives better results.

For overseas travel I usually take just the 24-120 and the SB-28 flash

-- Paul Ashton (prashton@iamerica.net), June 11, 1999.

Regarding quality -- my experience matches Omar's comments above.

Regarding vignetting -- using a Tiffen 72mm circular polarizer the vignetting is quite noticeable at 24mm. Clear sailing 28mm and up. A narrower (shallower mount) polarizer might work well at 24mm. A garden-variety UV filter doesn't darken the corners even at 24mm.

Not a lens for everyone. Casual shooters will have trouble paying so much more for this lens than for the new 28-105. The relatively slow maximum aperture calls for plentiful light even with ISO 400 film.

It's a fine compromise for walking around without a bag full of Nikkors. I'm fond of mine. But if the 28-105 had been released at the time I made my purchase, I might well have chosen it instead.

Regarding the hood and Nikon's pricing, search the Web for a cute page regarding "secret formula Nikon plastic" by Andrew Kim.

-- Jim Gifford (jgifford@ix.netcom.com), June 12, 1999.

If you must have a zoom, this is a good one as indicated above. However, when going wide I want to keep turning the zoom for more angle that's not there. In low light I want to open up more but can't. When doing near-far @24 I can't get close enough to my subject. If I had the money I'd get a 20mm, 50mm, and the 70-200 2.8 zoom.

-- Larry Korhnak (lvk@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu), June 25, 1999.

This lens in my opinion is a product of breakthrough tech incorporating 24, 35, 50, 85, 105, and 120 in one barrel. But will surely take its toll on the quality of image you are taking.

-- Alvin S. Granada (granada666@yahoo.com), June 26, 1999.