which of these lenses would you pick?

[nimos]

A question for experts with unbiased opinions: For hi-quality general all-around shooting, which of these lenses would you pick for a DSLR?

Nikkor 24-120mm f/3.5-5.6G ED-IF AF-S VR

Sigma 24-135mm f/2.8-4.5 Aspherical IF Autofocus

Tamron SP AF 24-135mm f/3.5-5.6 AD Aspherical IF Autofocus

Tokina AF 24-200mm f/3.5-5.6 AT-X 242AF Autofocus

[eric s]

What will you use it for? Does the longer 200mm reach matter? Does cost matter?

I've heard that that Nikon lens is nice, but isn't it quite expensive? There were build problems earlier on, but I haven't heard about them recently (haven't been watching for them either.)

Eric

[nimos]

It will be used for nature scenery, sunsets, clouds and texture acquisitions such as stone, wood, cloth...

[Red]

I'll comment only on the Nikker 24-120. I was considering this lens and read a couple of reviews which panned the lens. I'd avoid it as you usually don't see that.

[checklg]

From what I've read the 24-120 VR is opticaly not so good at the 24 end but very good at the 105 end. As a result I wouldn't rush out and buy it.

From personal experience I've found the AF-Nikkor 28-105 mm f/3.5-4.5 IF a good all-rounder. OK it doesn't have a huge zoom or VR, and it's not as fast as AF-S. But with the effective 1.5 crop of the D100 it's like using a 150mm lens, and it does have a good macro facility.

[Red]

After reading many favorable reviews I have the VR 24-120 on order. If it seems credible, It will push out my excellent
28-105.

[LTBerry]

I have the 28-105 and use it every day and love it. Good macro, good all-around lens

[cameranserai]

I cannot comment on the new 24/120, but have it on order right now, based on 10 years usage of the old 24/120 with an F90X. I found traces of vignetting at 24mm, but overall I have been more than delighted with the overall usefulness of this lens over the years, from tight in close ups to portraiture.Since, though, we are all moving nowadays to digital, I am still wondering if I have made the right decision, since with 6+ million pixels, we can crop and enlarge with little loss of definition, making the extra zoom facility perhaps redundant. The final decision will, as always, depend on the advice I get from my admirable dealers, Grays of Westminster, when I - finally - pick up my new D70. I'll let you know the outcome. :?

[[email protected]]

For the list you mentioned, the Nikon 24-120mm VR is good enough to let all of the other lenses bite the dust, the Sigma, Tamron, and Tokina, their AF on Nikon are slower than earth compare to the AF-S on the Nikon, plus the VR feature on the lens let you shoot at 3 F-stops slower handheld in low light condition.

Don't litsen to the paranoia bs on the optical performance of the lens, so far is better than most lenses out there in the same class, of course, if you compare to those lenses with the price > $1,000, then is a different story. For the $510 price tag, this lens can't be beat.

A rule of thumb: go for the Nikon lens first before you consider anything else.



Cheers

[cameranserai]

Please see my new post - I was and still am confused about the 35mm equivalence of the new lenses in digital usage. Please also check if the zoom ratio quoted applies in 35mm format or digital since if 35mm you can add 50% for digital, so the 24/120 becomes 36/180 when used on a F70 - not at all what I wanted!



It seems that for all Nikkor lenses you need to add 50%, so while I had dismissed the "package" lens of 18/70 as being too short it would now appear to be the right lens. Go to

http://www.europe-nikon.com/category...&catId=117



This quotes the equivalence of the 18/55 but makes no mention in the other descriptions. Confusing or what?