Lens opinion

In article , Floyd L. Davidson
wrote:

I would consider the 24-120mm f/4 as a general walk-around lens for
a FF Nikon. All three start out at 24mm, but the 24-120mm f/4 gives
you just enough extra reach if you need it. At f/4 it is pretty
fast and has the high end nano crystal coating, and has VRII.

Well, VR, not VRII

Actually there is no "VRII", but there is a second
generation VR and that is what the 24-120mm f/4G has.

there isn't a 2nd generation but there is.

you're contradicting yourself.

No contradiction. "VR II" is a nomemclature that Nikon
does not use to label their lenses. There is a second
generation of VR, but it is not called VR II on a lens
label.

if you mean the emblem engraved on the lens itself, that is mostly
aesthetic and isn't what determines whether it's vr or vr ii.

nikon calls it vr ii. that's all that matters. you are wrong.

http://www.nikon.com/about/technology/rd/core/software/vr_e/
Nikon¹s latest VRII lenses offer the ability to shoot at shutter
speeds 4 steps faster.

Note that lenses like the 70-200 f/2.8G VR II should be
parsed as "(70-200mm f/2.8G VR) II", not "70-200mm f/2.8G
(VR II)". The II applies to the lens, not to the VR.

nikon says otherwise.

in fact nikon specifically parenthesizes (vr ii):
http://www.nikonusa.com/en/Nikon-Pro...enses/AF-S-DX-
NIKKOR-18-200mm-f%252F3.5-5.6G-ED-VR-II.html
Versatile, high-power 11x zoom with Vibration Reduction (VR II)

When they want to make that point, they do it with parenthesises.

They do not label lenses with VR II. They may well use that terminology
in other circumstances.

if they use 'vr ii' anywhere at all (and they do), then there is such a
thing.

admit you're wrong and move on.

...Its equipped with Nikon¹s advanced Vibration Reduction (VR II) for
remarkable image clarity even when handheld shooting or in demanding
lighting situations.

http://www.nikonusa.com/en/Nikon-Pro...Lenses/AF-S-NI
KKOR-70-200mm-f%252F2.8G-ED-VR-II.html
With a f/2.8 fixed maximum aperture, VR II image stabilization and
Nikon¹s advanced lens technologies...

Fast f/2.8 maximum aperture and VR II

Nikon does not designate second generation VR with a
lens marking or title distinction.

yes they do. see above.

That is not what you show above.

what i showed above is you're wrong and can't admit it, so you will
argue about inconsequential details like the emblem on the lens barrel.

If Nikon were to introduce a successor to the current
24-120mm lens, with exactly the same VR but with some
other internal changes, it might well be called a
24-120mm f/4G VR II.

other way around. if nikon used the exact same optical formula but
improved only the stabilization, it would be called vr ii.

however, there's no point in doing that, which is why when they update
a lens, they update more than just one thing.

You still miss the point that the 24-120mm f/4 VR lens
does have the latest VR technology from Nikon. You want
to call it VR II? Go ahead, but that isn't what Nikon
calls it when they label a lens.

Again: The 24-120mm f/4 has what you are calling VR II.

nikon calls it vr ii:

http://www.nikonusa.com/en/Nikon-Pro...Lenses/AF-S-NI
KKOR-24-120mm-f%252F4G-ED-VR.html
The lens body is impressively slim and compact, despite having
built-in Vibration Reduction (VR II) and a host of Nikon¹s advanced
lens technologies

On 2015-01-12 13:59:30 +0000, (Floyd L. Davidson) said:

nospam wrote:
In article , Floyd L. Davidson
wrote:

I would consider the 24-120mm f/4 as a general walk-around lens for
a FF Nikon. All three start out at 24mm, but the 24-120mm f/4 gives
you just enough extra reach if you need it. At f/4 it is pretty
fast and has the high end nano crystal coating, and has VRII.

Well, VR, not VRII

Actually there is no "VRII", but there is a second
generation VR and that is what the 24-120mm f/4G has.

there isn't a 2nd generation but there is.

you're contradicting yourself.

No contradiction. "VR II" is a nomemclature that Nikon
does not use to label their lenses. There is a second
generation of VR, but it is not called VR II on a lens
label.

OK! it's settled. Eric should get the AF-S Nikkor 24-120mm f/4G ED VR.
http://www.nikonusa.com/en/Nikon-Products/Product/Camera-Lenses/AF-S-NIKKOR-24-120mm-f%252F4G-ED-VR.html

About

which Nikon says this:
"This upgraded, advanced 5x standard (24mm) to telephoto (120mm) zoom
lens delivers stunning image quality at any aperture or focal length.
The lens body is impressively slim and compact, despite having built-in
Vibration Reduction (VR II) and a host of Nikon’s advanced lens
technologies."


--
Regards,

Savageduck

nospam wrote:
In article , Floyd L. Davidson
wrote:

I would consider the 24-120mm f/4 as a general walk-around lens for
a FF Nikon. All three start out at 24mm, but the 24-120mm f/4 gives
you just enough extra reach if you need it. At f/4 it is pretty
fast and has the high end nano crystal coating, and has VRII.

Well, VR, not VRII

Actually there is no "VRII", but there is a second
generation VR and that is what the 24-120mm f/4G has.

there isn't a 2nd generation but there is.

you're contradicting yourself.

No contradiction. "VR II" is a nomemclature that Nikon
does not use to label their lenses. There is a second
generation of VR, but it is not called VR II on a lens
label.

if you mean the emblem engraved on the lens itself, that is mostly
aesthetic and isn't what determines whether it's vr or vr ii.

nikon calls it vr ii. that's all that matters. you are wrong.

http://www.nikon.com/about/technology/rd/core/software/vr_e/
Nikon¹s latest VRII lenses offer the ability to shoot at shutter
speeds 4 steps faster.

That is exactly the VR that is used in the 24-120mm f/4G VR lens.

It is not called VR II by Nikon, though many advertizers do label
it as VR II.

Note that lenses like the 70-200 f/2.8G VR II should be
parsed as "(70-200mm f/2.8G VR) II", not "70-200mm f/2.8G
(VR II)". The II applies to the lens, not to the VR.

nikon says otherwise.

in fact nikon specifically parenthesizes (vr ii):
http://www.nikonusa.com/en/Nikon-Pro...enses/AF-S-DX-
NIKKOR-18-200mm-f%252F3.5-5.6G-ED-VR-II.html
Versatile, high-power 11x zoom with Vibration Reduction (VR II)

When they want to make that point, they do it with parenthesises.

They do not label lenses with VR II. They may well use that terminology
in other circumstances.

if they use 'vr ii' anywhere at all (and they do), then there is such a
thing.

admit you're wrong and move on.

Nikon does not call the 24-120mm f/4 lens a "VR II"
lens. But it does have the same VR that you are whining
about.

...Its equipped with Nikon¹s advanced Vibration Reduction (VR II) for
remarkable image clarity even when handheld shooting or in demanding
lighting situations.

http://www.nikonusa.com/en/Nikon-Pro...Lenses/AF-S-NI
KKOR-70-200mm-f%252F2.8G-ED-VR-II.html
With a f/2.8 fixed maximum aperture, VR II image stabilization and
Nikon¹s advanced lens technologies...

Fast f/2.8 maximum aperture and VR II

Nikon does not designate second generation VR with a
lens marking or title distinction.

yes they do. see above.

That is not what you show above.

what i showed above is you're wrong and can't admit it, so you will
argue about inconsequential details like the emblem on the lens barrel.

The 24-120mm f/4G VR lens is not called a VR II lens by Nikon, but
it does have the latest VR technology.

Are you getting the point yet?

If Nikon were to introduce a successor to the current
24-120mm lens, with exactly the same VR but with some
other internal changes, it might well be called a
24-120mm f/4G VR II.

other way around. if nikon used the exact same optical formula but
improved only the stabilization, it would be called vr ii.

however, there's no point in doing that, which is why when they update
a lens, they update more than just one thing.

You still miss the point that the 24-120mm f/4 VR lens
does have the latest VR technology from Nikon. You want
to call it VR II? Go ahead, but that isn't what Nikon
calls it when they label a lens.

Again: The 24-120mm f/4 has what you are calling VR II.

nikon calls it vr ii:

http://www.nikonusa.com/en/Nikon-Pro...Lenses/AF-S-NI
KKOR-24-120mm-f%252F4G-ED-VR.html
The lens body is impressively slim and compact, despite having
built-in Vibration Reduction (VR II) and a host of Nikon¹s advanced
lens technologies

They don't call that lens a VR II lens...

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

Savageduck wrote:
On 2015-01-12 13:59:30 +0000, (Floyd L. Davidson) said:

nospam wrote:
In article , Floyd L. Davidson
wrote:

I would consider the 24-120mm f/4 as a general walk-around lens for
a FF Nikon. All three start out at 24mm, but the 24-120mm f/4 gives
you just enough extra reach if you need it. At f/4 it is pretty
fast and has the high end nano crystal coating, and has VRII.
Well, VR, not VRII
Actually there is no "VRII", but there is a second
generation VR and that is what the 24-120mm f/4G has.
there isn't a 2nd generation but there is.
you're contradicting yourself.
No contradiction. "VR II" is a nomemclature that Nikon
does not use to label their lenses. There is a second
generation of VR, but it is not called VR II on a lens
label.

OK! it's settled. Eric should get the AF-S Nikkor 24-120mm f/4G ED VR.
http://www.nikonusa.com/en/Nikon-Products/Product/Camera-Lenses/AF-S-NIKKOR-24-120mm-f%252F4G-ED-VR.html

About

which Nikon says this:
"This upgraded, advanced 5x standard (24mm) to telephoto
(120mm) zoom lens delivers stunning image quality at any
aperture or focal length. The lens body is impressively
slim and compact, despite having built-in Vibration
Reduction (VR II) and a host of NikonâEUR(Tm)s advanced lens
technologies."

That was exactly my point. The 24-120mm f/4G VR lens
has the latest VR technology from Nikon. They don't
label lenses with to show that. Just because the lens
is labeled "VR" rather than "VR II" does not mean it
doesn't have second generation VR.

There is no Nikon lens labeled with "VR II" where the
"II" refers to the VR generation instead of the lens
generation.

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

On 2015-01-12 14:17:59 +0000, (Floyd L. Davidson) said:

Whisky-dave wrote:
On Monday, 12 January 2015 12:44:10 UTC, Floyd
L. Davidson wrote:
Eric Stevens wrote:


Is this a walk around lens? You said "carry around",
and said it was basic, so that seems to be the need.
That is not a macro lens. That is not a studio
portrait lens. That is not a wide angle landscape
lens either.

A friend of mine is considering the tamron 18-270mm as
the walk around lens. I think the quality is a bit on
the low side and I'd prefer the canon 55-250mm to
complememt the 500D with the standard kit lens of 18-55
that she brought with it.

The idea of a walk around is one lens. Needing two just
doesn't do the job. Hence in that one sense that 18-270mm
is better than a pair that splits the spectrum at 55mm.

But a 15x zoom range means it necessarily is going to be
a relatively poor quality lens. If that is acceptable,
she'll do fine. If she wants to make high quality large
prints, it is never going to make the grade.

I'm not familiar enough with Canon's lens lineup to give
a recommendation, but they no doubt have something in
the 4x or 5x zoom range that makes a good walk around
with professional quality optics. She may or may not
find that more useful despite the higher price.


The one thing to remember here is Eric is looking for a “walk-around�
lens for an FX Nikon. The Tamron 18-270mm isn’t a FF lens, it is design
for APS-C sensor DSLRs, and it doesn’t have particularly fast AF.
Eric’s best option is still the Nikkor 24-120mm f/4.


--
Regards,

Savageduck

Savageduck wrote:
On 2015-01-12 14:17:59 +0000, (Floyd L. Davidson) said:

Whisky-dave wrote:
On Monday, 12 January 2015 12:44:10 UTC, Floyd
L. Davidson wrote:
Eric Stevens wrote:

Is this a walk around lens? You said "carry around",
and said it was basic, so that seems to be the need.
That is not a macro lens. That is not a studio
portrait lens. That is not a wide angle landscape
lens either.
A friend of mine is considering the tamron 18-270mm as
the walk around lens. I think the quality is a bit on
the low side and I'd prefer the canon 55-250mm to
complememt the 500D with the standard kit lens of 18-55
that she brought with it.
The idea of a walk around is one lens. Needing two
just
doesn't do the job. Hence in that one sense that 18-270mm
is better than a pair that splits the spectrum at 55mm.
But a 15x zoom range means it necessarily is going to
be
a relatively poor quality lens. If that is acceptable,
she'll do fine. If she wants to make high quality large
prints, it is never going to make the grade.
I'm not familiar enough with Canon's lens lineup to
give
a recommendation, but they no doubt have something in
the 4x or 5x zoom range that makes a good walk around
with professional quality optics. She may or may not
find that more useful despite the higher price.

The one thing to remember here is Eric is looking for a
âEURoewalk-aroundâEUR� lens for an FX Nikon. The Tamron
18-270mm isnâEUR(Tm)t a FF lens, it is design for APS-C
sensor DSLRs, and it doesnâEUR(Tm)t have particularly fast AF.
EricâEUR(Tm)s best option is still the Nikkor 24-120mm f/4.

Did Whiskey-dave or myself suggest the 18-270mm for Eric???

I thought we were discussing what a walk around lens
should be, and that was an example that provided a
different perspective.

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

Whisky-dave wrote:
I can't see
the point in lugging around a full frame DLSR camera
then opt for a lower quality walk around lens. But then
again is the 24-120mm really a walk around lens ?

The 24-120mm is intended to be a walk around, and in
fact is a pretty good one.

I generally use two camera bodies, and the 24-120mm is
usually on one or the other of them. The camera
selected for any given job will have the lens most
appropriate for whatever is to be done, the other one
will be ready for whatever else might come along and
will have the 24-120mm.

Doesn't always work that way, but most often.

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

On 2015-01-12 17:09:04 +0000, (Floyd L. Davidson) said:

Savageduck wrote:
On 2015-01-12 14:17:59 +0000, (Floyd L. Davidson) said:

Whisky-dave wrote:
On Monday, 12 January 2015 12:44:10 UTC, Floyd
L. Davidson wrote:
Eric Stevens wrote:

Is this a walk around lens? You said "carry around",
and said it was basic, so that seems to be the need.
That is not a macro lens. That is not a studio
portrait lens. That is not a wide angle landscape
lens either.
A friend of mine is considering the tamron 18-270mm as
the walk around lens. I think the quality is a bit on
the low side and I'd prefer the canon 55-250mm to
complememt the 500D with the standard kit lens of 18-55
that she brought with it.
The idea of a walk around is one lens. Needing two
just
doesn't do the job. Hence in that one sense that 18-270mm
is better than a pair that splits the spectrum at 55mm.
But a 15x zoom range means it necessarily is going to
be
a relatively poor quality lens. If that is acceptable,
she'll do fine. If she wants to make high quality large
prints, it is never going to make the grade.
I'm not familiar enough with Canon's lens lineup to
give
a recommendation, but they no doubt have something in
the 4x or 5x zoom range that makes a good walk around
with professional quality optics. She may or may not
find that more useful despite the higher price.

The one thing to remember here is Eric is looking for a
âEURoewalk-aroundâEUR� lens for an FX Nikon. The Tamron
18-270mm isnâEUR(Tm)t a FF lens, it is design for APS-C
sensor DSLRs, and it doesnâEUR(Tm)t have particularly fast AF.
EricâEUR(Tm)s best option is still the Nikkor 24-120mm f/4.

Did Whiskey-dave or myself suggest the 18-270mm for Eric???

Yup! It was the loosely comprehending Dave who made that suggestion

I thought we were discussing what a walk around lens
should be, and that was an example that provided a
different perspective.

We were,
....and I believe that for Eric's needs for a D750 we actually agree, he
will be well served with the 24-120mm f/4 VR. The 18-270mm Tamron is
not really suitable, and it is a poor match for a Nikon FF DSLR.


--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 1/12/2015 12:47 AM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2015-01-12 00:04:14 +0000, Eric Stevens said:

I'm contemplating replacing my trusty D33 with A D750 and the question
arises as towhat I use as a basic carry around lens.

At the moment I'm using a Nikon 16-85/f2.8 with which I'm quite
satisfied but this is a DX lens and won't handle the switch to a FX
camera. I'm planning on keeping my 70-200/f2.8

I've considered three lenses, all Nikon:

24-70/f3.5

24-85/f3.5

24-120/f3.5

I have no experience with any of these lenses but from what I have
read I have homed in on the 24-85/f3.5. If the gun fight out in the
street can be calmed down and bashing and crashing in the car
parkeliminates the human drivers, I would be interested in the
thoughts of the few knowledgable people left standing.

I would consider the 24-120mm f/4 as a general walk-around lens for a FF
Nikon. All three start out at 24mm, but the 24-120mm f/4 gives you just
enough extra reach if you need it. At f/4 it is pretty fast and has the
high end nano crystal coating, and has VRII.

I don't know of a 24-70mm f/3.5, but I am familiar with the 24-70mm
f/2.8, which is one of the Nikkor Holy Trinity of f/2.8 lenses. If you
want a sharp, fast, normal, mid-range zoom look no further than the
24-70mm f/2.8. It does not have VR, but it doesn't really need it, and
it is not cheap.

Also the 24-85mm is actually f/3.5-4.5, which is not what your f/3.6
implies.

So for value and versatility my vote goes to the 24-120 f/4 VRII.


I was faced with a similar decision. When I go places with my wife, my
priority is not photography. If a photo op comes, great. When I go on a
photoshoot, I carry far fewer clothes and far my photo stuff, than when
I go with my wife. Therefore, My choice for a carry lens for trips with
my wife was the Nikon 28-300. I can usually slip in my 15-36, or a fixed
20mm f4. I know I do not get the quality with the 28-300, but I'm OK
with that.

--
PeterN

On 1/12/2015 1:22 AM, Floyd L. Davidson wrote:

snip



The 24-120 f/3.5-5.6 is the older version of the
24-120mm, and is considered as perhaps the poorest lens
ever produced by Nikon.


Worse than the 43-86?
Hard to believe.


--
PeterN