Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums >

LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Jun 21, 2004, 8:56 AM   #1
Junior Member
Magee's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 19

First of all if anyone has comments about this lens, I would be glad to hear them.

YesterdayI got the opportunity to use a Nikon D70 and also various lenses. I used the 24-120/3.5 VR as well as the 28-200/3.5. Both produced alright results. I'm sure if I was more familiar with the D70, I could have achieved better results but this "loan" of the D70 was limited in time.

The day was cloudy and when using the full zoom for both lenses it opened fully (only F5.6) and set the shutter speed the best it could. In many cases the shutter speed was too slow and results were blurry. However the VR lens did better.

My question is on the non-VR lens couldn't I have just upped the ISO to achieve results equal to or better than the VR lens? I guess I'm trying to determine if the VR is worth the price difference.

I suspect the majority of my pictures will be in sunlite or cloudy situtations. I don't see it being worth it to me to purchase a VR lens if my ISO theory holds water. Of course, under low lite situations, hand held, the VR far and aways excels, but for me in sun and clouds mostly, would it be worth the price difference? Additionally, the D70 noise factor seems tolerable at higher ISOs.

Thanks for any opinions. Jim
Magee is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Jun 22, 2004, 12:30 AM   #2
Senior Member
Onyx's Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 402

The main reason I was persuaded to buy a D70 as opposed to the one from "that other maker" was the high ISO sample images I saw at the time of my intended purchase. The noise is not objectionable even at ISO1000, and apparently easier to "fix" with software (eg. noiseninja, neatimage) than that other camera.

Opinion of the 24-120 seems polarised. You'll read good reviews, and some not so good - not many fence sitters. It's certainly the cheapest lens you're likely to find VR on, yet some argue it's image quality leaves a bit to be desired.

Have a read of Thom Hogan's review here:


He seems to believe this particular lensdoes not do quite so well in low light situations where one traditionally benefits from VR technology. Siting a slow aperture - F/5.6 from 85mm onwards, which will dim your viewfinder and make AF especially tricky since the D70's AF doesn't do as well in low light as it's pro bothers D1 series or the D2H. Thom was also critical of its optical performance, compared to the 24-85DX at half the price.

As for the 28-200, I'm also considering getting one myself merely for the telephoto reach. The 70-300 felt ill suited to my needs when I tried it out, and I've got an old MF 28-200 which is usable but since getting proficient with the D70 I've gotten too lazy to manually do everything from metering to focusing. :-)The 28-200G is not an AF-S lens, meaning focus would be slow and noisey (or at least audible) compared to the 18-70 kit. And being the price range it falls in, I would expect strictly consumer build quality (lots of plastic), optical distortion at both focal ends and possibly poor performance at wide apertures but it would be friendly to the hip pocket.

If it were down to the 24-120 or 28-200, I would suggest the VR lens just for the AF-S function alone. It will spoil you and no doubt lead you to other lens purchases which are currently deemed unwanted.

Onyx is offline   Reply With Quote

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 9:32 PM.