The other day I was searching for information on the Nikkor AF-S 24-120mm f3.5-5.6 VR lens, and found Ken has a review for this lens, and he listed it as one of the 10 worst lenses. Basically, as he puts it, this lens is so soft it's good for only 4x6 prints. There are no real images from this lens on his review (I mean, can you really review a lens without providing sample pictures, especially when it's so bad?) On the other hand, he praised the Nikkor 18-200mm VR lens as "life changing", and we all know that the 18-200mm VR lens does not win any awards in the sharpness department.
I shot with this lens today on the ancient D70, and I could not disagree with him more. For sure, it's a slow lens, just like the 18-200mm VR is, and is meant to be a convenience lens that you take with you on vacations, casual shooting, family pictures, etc. I am not saying this is the best and sharpest lens is the world, but it's designed with a compromise, just like the 18-200mm VR is. I highly doubt the optical quality is any different between the these two lenses. From the pictures I have got from the AF-S 24-120mm f3.5-5.6 VR, it's a decent lens. Nothing like it's only good for 4x6 inch prints. In fact, I have not used any lens that bad in my life, however cheap they are.
I highly doubt Ken used this lens more than once and probably just shot a few pictures indoors, otherwise why is there no sample pictures in the review, and there are samples for the "life changing" 18-200mm VR? If you are considering this lens, I would suggest actually borrow/rent one and decide for yourself.
Nikon D70 & AF-S 24-120mm f3.5-5.6 VR, 120mm @ f6.3. click for larger.
Nikon D70 & AF-S 24-120mm f3.5-5.6 VR, Wide Open at 120mm @ f5.6. click for larger.
\
100% crop from picture above.
Nikon D70 & AF-S 24-120mm f3.5-5.6 VR, at 62mm @ f8.
100% Crop from previous picture.
