Is the Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-120mm 1:4G ED VR recommended?
I'm currently using the Tamron 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3 Di II VC. I'm now considering buying the Nikon 24-120mm. Does that make sense? Can I take better pictures with the Nikon lens, or will I get better image quality? I want to use the lens on my next vacation to Greece. I hope you can help me with my decision.
(1 rating, 1 votes, rated)You need to be a registered member to rate this.
Loading...
It makes sense if you use the open panel or close it. Many high-light lenses have their strength and if you have to hide it far, it doesn't bring you much, especially as in some lenses the quality is approaching that of a "stink normal" lens. More precisely, however, data sheets and tests will say.
From Tamron, as far as I know, there's one with 18? – 300mm. It should be okay, despite the focal length range. Also has a good picture scale. I'd rather get that for myself than the Nikon or let it be the same and take the old Tamron. But it's just my opinion.
Yeah, the lens is great. It's not cheap, but good.
You could rent it for your holiday and if you are satisfied then buy it.
Hello
The Tamron 18-200 is already a "travel zoom" for holidaymakers/photographers. Nikon builds the AFS 18-140/3.5-5.6 VR and the AFS 18-300/3.5-6.3 VR in the niche. The AFS 18-140 is significantly better than the Tamron. The AFS 18-300 has a few problem zones and is sometimes worse than the Tamron but there are just 300mm for sports reporting
The AFS 24-120/4 VR is a FX reportage "Profizoom" and weighs almost 700 grams, is about 3/4 heavier and more voluminous than the Tamron. For a "holiday zoom" it has too little wide angle so you can take an AFS 10-24/3.5-4.5 for "downstairs". For group tours it has a bit too little tele
The DX version of the AFS 24-100/4 is the AFS DX 16-80/2.8-4 E VR and both optics have around 1200€ RRP, are 17 lenses in 13 groups. The 16-80 is "new", sealed, has an electrical aperture and focuses a bit faster.
The lens is actually intended for full format cameras and therefore expensive. I'd really think if you want to get the money out of it or don't better take you one of the two alternatives I proposed to you in the last question. And those who are lighter at the short end.
The pictures primarily make the photographer and the lens is just a small factor that affects the image quality a little. So if you don't get good photos with your Tamron, it's probably not gonna be much better with the Nikon.