Nikon 28-105 vs. Nikon 24-120 zoom
Anthony Nardelli
priorities, neither lens will provide you the "super" sharp or high
resolution images that you seem to be looking for. Each is a good general
purpose zoom lens. However, if I HAD to choose, I would select the
28-105mm AF-D over the 24-120 AF-D. Here are my reasons why (please note
that some of you may have already read this comparison):
Sharper images: I performed some sharpness tests using a USAF test chart
and concluded that the 28-105mm was a tad sharper, especially at focal
lengths 50mm or less. Using Ilford XP2 Super, a heavy Manfrotto tripod,
MC-30 cable release and an F90x camera, I shot a few rolls comparing several
focal lengths (28mm, 35mm, 50mm, 70mm, 85mm and 105mm) and several aperture
ratios (wide open, f5.6, f8 and f11). The 28-105mm was visibly better at
the lower aperture ratios and focal lengths although the gap narrowed as I
went up the "scale" (it was difficult to see any significant differences at
f11 but the 28-105mm appeared to edge out the 24-120mm).
62mm Filters: While seemingly not important, I can share filters with my
other lenses including my 60mm Micro, 70-300mm AF-D ED and 20mm AF-D 2.8 and
not have to carry several filter sizes. In addition, the cost of 62mm
filters is significantly cheaper than 72mm filters (in some cases it's half
the price).
Up to a 1/2 Stop Faster: The 28-105mm is up to a 1/2 stop faster at most
focal lengths. This is not a dramatic benefit but it does mean that little
extra speed for low light/indoor light scenarios. In addition, the
viewfinder is noticeably brighter because of the larger aperture ratio. If
you ratchet out a 24-120mm to 85mm or above, the f-stop becomes 5.6, which
impacts what you see in the viewfinder and can make dim light photography a
little more difficult. Also, a brighter image means the AF can function
better (I've sometimes noticed a slight decrease in AF performance as the
f-stop increases).
Macro Function: Many individuals cannot afford expensive macro (micro)
lenses. This feature of the lens is an added bonus and provides users with a
maximum 1:2 reproduction ratio. Even though I have the 60mm Micro, having a
macro feature on this lens mean I can carry less and/or take spontaneous
intimate pictures. While not as good a performer as a dedicated macro lens,
the 28-105mm AF-D IF provides me with good close-up picture quality. Bear
in mind that, according to Nikon, there may be vignetting at 105mm in MACRO
mode (and I do mean MAY, I have yet to see major impact on a picture).
Don't worry! As the reproduction ratio at 85mm is almost IDENTICAL to the
105mm, you can use this focal length you can avoid ANY possibility of
vignetting in your pictures. If fact, the maximum reproduction ration at
the 50mm setting is 1:2.74, which is quite impressive.
Lighter and Less Bulky: Another seemingly innocuous benefit, the 28-105mm
is 100 grams lighter (about 1/4 pounds) and has a lot less bulk than the
24-120mm. Sometimes, I want to carry as little weight and bulk as possible
but still have handy focal ranges when taking pictures. While not having
the same focal range as the 24-120mm, it's far lens cumbersome to carry.
9 Blade Diaphragm: This is a surprisingly important but subjective benefit.
A 9 blade diaphragm means a rounder aperture and in my opinion, a more
pleasing bokeh (out of focus effect). I believe the 24-120mm AF-D IF has a
6 (7?) blade diaphragm and is therefore more likely to take pictures with a
more "artificial" or "harsh" out of focus bokeh. This benefit, however, is
largely a matter of personal taste but I would be inclined to say most
photographers would prefer its bokeh over the 24-120mm bokeh (assuming they
even notice or care).
Distortion: The 28-105mm AF-D IF has almost no distortion when compared to
the 24-120mm AF-D IF. In fact, the only time I see any distortion is at
28mm, otherwise it virtually distortion free. Unfortunately, the 24-120mm
AF-D IF has noticeable (but not intolerable) distortion throughout is focal
range.
I hope this commentary helps you decide what to do. Remember, the 28-105mm
AF-D IF is not a "super" lens but it's quite versatile and fairly sharp for
a general purpose zoom.
Regards,
Anthony Nardelli
Anthony Nardelli
I've read David's article already and it only really addresses lens
sharpness (and there is no direct comparison between the two lenses). In
addition, my commentary addresses issues other than sharpness (i.e. bokeh,
filters, etc...). Bear in mind people do not necessarily buy a lens just
for its apparent resolving capabilities.
IMHO, the quality of these lens are fairly close and individual
manufacturing variances could account for our differing observations.
However, both Photo Zone (which utilizes lens user feedback) and Photodo
(which uses MTF testing) seem to support my assertion that the 28-105mm AF-D
is sharper than the 24-120mm AF-D.
Regards,
Anthony Nardelli
biology oz
See http://imperium.bayside.net/ruether/ for conflicting view
Cch2616
in Photodo. I am not an expert in lens testing, but my interpretation on the
Photodo MTF testing is that the 24-120 is better than the 28-105 in the wide
angle range, but the 28-105 is better in the longer range. Am I correct?
Chi
Anthony Nardelli
correct when the lenses are stopped down at f/8. The 24-120mm AF-D edges
out the 28-105mm AF-D until about the 50mm range, when it becomes apparent
the 28-105mm AF-D performs better. When wide open, the 28-105mm AF-D is
rated better at wide angle focal lengths.
With regard to telephoto lengths (70mm and beyond) the 28-105mm AF-D rates
better than the 24-120mm AF-D lens wide open and stopped down. Bear in mind
that there are no directly comparable focal lengths and you have to
extrapolate MTF performance.
Regards,
Anthony Nardelli