About once a week I get a question from a friend, family member or aspiring photographer. \u00a0It goes something like this:<\/p>\n
“My father is looking into a solid zoom lens for his Nikon D40 and is considering the Nikkor 24-120mm. Although I have attempted reviews online, it seems they are all written for people that understand what they are saying. Anyhow, he found a used Nikkor for $350. Is this a good lens?”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Ah yes \u2013 the “what should I buy” question. \u00a0[Protracted sigh emits from our protagonist]<\/p>\n
This topic is probably the hardest one to answer because the inquisitor is looking for technical expertise, but wants that technical jargon converted into a binary answer (i.e. Good vs. Bad). \u00a0The problem is that you have several factors at work, and only you know how to weigh them.<\/p>\n
The main factors are:
\n Convenience<\/em>: \u00a0How heavy is it? \u00a0How big is it? \u00a0Is it waterproof?
\n Quality<\/em>: \u00a0How bright is it? \u00a0How sharp is it? \u00a0Can I drop it?
\n Cost<\/em>: \u00a0What does the buyer consider expensive?<\/p>\nThese three factors act against each other. \u00a0If you want higher quality, it’ll cost more or be less convenient. \u00a0If you want convenience, the quality will be lower and cost higher. \u00a0You want cheap? \u00a0It’ll be ugly and fuzzy.<\/p>\n
So what balance of the three factors will sway this person’s dad? \u00a0It depends on what matters most to him.<\/p>\n
Personally, I would expect a 24-120mm lens to cost about $1,700, be f\/2.8 throughout the range, and have little significant distortion. \u00a0A $350 lens of that focal length is probably fairly dim (f\/4-f\/5.6?) and probably exhibits some distortion and\/or chromatic aberration.<\/p>\n
You want cheap? \u00a0It’ll be ugly and fuzzy.<\/p> — Proverb<\/cite><\/blockquote>\n
While I personally would dismiss the cheaper lens out of hand as not being what I would consider “solid,” he might dismiss the more expensive lens as being not worth the price.<\/p>\n
So my typical answer, which firmly establishes me as a credible source, is: \u00a0“I have absolutely no idea.”<\/p>\n
Only he can know whether it’s a good balance of cost, convenience and quality, and that will probably only come from shooting with it for a while. \u00a0In some cases a soft, distorted lens can look better than a sharp one; it just depends on the application.<\/p>\n
One way to make the decision might be to look at sample images from the lens, and another would be to go to a camera store and shoot some images with the lens. \u00a0The final way would be to learn a bit more about what that technical jargon in the reviews means and make an educated guess. \u00a0And in the end, one lens probably isn’t going to cover every situation, despite the claims of the manufacturer.<\/p>\n
So I’m sorry to disappoint, but I can’t tell you which camera to buy.<\/p>\n
Oh, and the camera above? \u00a0It’s a Nikonos 3 \u2013 great for shooting underwater and kinda, well\u2026 cruddy on land. \u00a0Again, it’s all about compromises.<\/em><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
About once a week I get a question from a friend, family member or aspiring photographer. \u00a0It goes something like this: “My father is looking into a solid zoom lens for his Nikon D40 and is considering the Nikkor 24-120mm. … Continue reading