I'm looking for a light-weight, non-DX, walk-around lens. I've seem some pretty good images from this lens, but there seems to be a whole lot of bad comments out there but I don't know if they were before the VR version or after. Any comments would be appreciated.

John--The original version was definitely full of compromises and not well liked, so I'm sure many comments refer to it.

I'm actually wondering the same thing about the newer version. I used it for a little while before the 18-200 came out but I alternated with my 24-85/f2.8-4. And then it became my daughter's lens when I got the 18-200. Now that I have a D700 and want a non-DX walking around lens... Of course I have to get it back from her if I want to try it:-)

So for now I'm using the 24-85 (f2.8-4 version, which I love for the macro and find quite sharp). I also have the slightly newer 24-85 VR lens, but it is a little slower and I think not quite as sharp.

So I'll be curious what you find out as you dig. --David

Howdy Photo_Pro,

I bought this lens when it came out in 2003 and used it with a Kodak 14n for a calendar shoot. It worked fine but I had issues with purple fringe and spent a couple of extra non-billable days in post production getting images ready for printing in Hong Kong.

I put it aside and let it sit for a year or so. Then I took it to the motocross track and used it with a D1x. Here I really liked the range and there were no issues with purple fringing. What I did run into was, since the front elements telescopes in and out, the lens worked like an accordion and sucked in the dust that is inevitable in the air at a motocross facility. After a month or so the interior of the lens was full enough of dust to influence the contrast of the lens. Also the focus ring was beginning to become sticky with dust. Focus was fair, not tack sharp, so I put the lens back in the bag for another year. In hind site I should have sent the lens in to Nikon Service for focus check while it was under warranty.

So now a couple of years have gone by and I decided that I would sell the lens for whatever I could get and call it done. No takers for the lens at $300. Not even an offer. This was 8 months ago.

Took the lens off the market and took it into Nikon Service for clean, focus check, and what ever else they do. If I remember correctly the cost was under $200.

Now I love it. I will not use it on my prone to purple fringe camera bodies and I will not use it at a motocross facility. It is still prone to suck dust so watch for that.

It has become my walk around lens on my D2h. It is light, has good colors, good contrast, cheap enough that I am not worried about breaking it, and cheap enough to have fixed.

It is great at night with flash, and sharp enough for daily use. I would not use it for super critical sharp stuff but it is crisp enough for people and places and things. It is not a product lens or a sports lens.

Conclusion: I like it. It has its drawbacks. It is not good for a dusty environment. Mine is sharp, not tack sharp. It is great for event work and corporate meetings and I have used it for model head shot work in the field. It is a keeper and a daily user.

Thanks Rick,

I assume you do not have the VR version. If they did anything to improve the lens when it became a VR, it could have only gotten better. I'm looking for something that I can walk around a botanical garden with and if prone, attach a creative lighting flash ring and not be too weighed down.

Do you believe the purple fringing you mentioned was a product of the lens on a full frame film body that may also happen on a digital FX body?

Howdy Photo_Pro,

Not sure why you are assuming that my lens is not the VR version. I was answering your question regarding the VR version that was released in 2003 and is now discontinued.

I am referring to the VR lens. I own the VR version.

I believe that the purple fringing had nothing to do with full frame but with the camera sensor itself. The 14nx does have issues with fringe. The reason I brought up the camera model is that I have found that different lenses behave differently on different bodies. I was simply being specific. What body do you plan on using it on?

In your suggested use at the botanical garden you would like the size and weight but may not like the f-stop range. There may be times when you could use a shallower depth of field than what this lens offers.

If you live anywhere near me I would be glad to loan you the lens for a couple of days and let you see if it would work for you. I am near Palm Springs California. I would imagine that it would be difficult to find one of these lenses to rent.

Sorry, I thought the initial release, in 2003, of this lens was not a VR version. As for its' current status, it still shows on the Nikon website list of standard zoom lenses and is still for sale at the major dealers. Was there an initial VR version of the lens that was upgraded? I have come across some comments about this lens as being "made in Japan" inferring that others may have been made elsewhere.
Thanks for the offer, but, while I have many fond memories of trips to Palm Springs and would love to return, I have no plans to be in your area in the near future.

FWIW, there are only two models of 24-120. The original ('96-'02) which was a D lens but had neither VR nor AF-S and the subsequent, introduced in '03 with AF-S and VR.

However, there is some additional confusion because the first two series of the new lens were made in Japan (SN 2xxxx & 4xxxx) while the newest series (5xxxx) is made in Thailand. And some folks think that that corresponded with a change in quality. I can't vouch for that as I only have the "Japan" version.

Note that there is pretty much no reason to assume that one plant is all that much better than another at this point (D300 and similar are made in Thailand, as I believe some D3 cameras may be also), but traditionally the Japan plants were reserved for the higher end kit, so...

--David

The 24-120 is almost the worst glass I've ever used. I had 2 and got rid of both.
The 18-200 is great! Consider this as a 'walk around' lense, I use both DX and non DX and both work well on D3's
Gav

Gavin--Do you use the 18-200 in DX mode on the D3 or in FX mode? DX mode is below the rez I need for stock.

When I tried mine in full frame mode I didn't like the obvious vignetting. However, what didn't occur to me was to compare the vignette at the focal lengths that were the same as I could get with my 24-85 vs. the longer lengths (e.g. if it has the capability to go longer then even if it vignettes it is a capability I would not have had otherwise).

I'd re-try it but I'm already in Alaska and brought my 18-35 and 24-85 (the f2.8-f4 version) with me instead of the 18-200, as I'm still sorting out what to do for my wideish zooms for FX.

Thx--David

After all the feedback, which is most appreciated, and my personal research, I've come to the conclusion, that there is no good answer.

The 24-120 is old technology with the first generation VR and questionable optics. But it is the only FX lens in the focal length range. The 18-200 is a DX and would provide little, if any, advantage with my D3x over my D2x. (David... I would be interested in anything you find out about controlling vignetting of the 18-200 in in FX mode)

I already own a 17-35 2.8, 28-70 2.8, 200mm Micro, and the 70-200VR. All great lenses, but the 28-70, 200 Micro, and 70-200 are either not long enough or too heavy for projects like roaming a botanical garden for hours.

A reasonable compromise may be the 105 Micro VR. But it is pricey.

The best of all worlds is a new FX lens from Nikon addressing the issues of the 24-120 with VR II technology.