|
|
|
|
| 28mm |
|
|
| 35mm |
|
|
| 50mm |
|
|
| 70mm |
|
|
| 85mm |
|
|
| 105mm |
|
|
|
|
|
| 28mm |
|
|
| 35mm |
|
|
| 50mm |
|
|
| 70mm |
|
|
| 85mm |
|
|
| 105mm |
|
So it appears at both wide open and at f/11 (usually the best aperture for resolution) the 28-105 yields a better centre image. The edge detail fall off seems to be more with the 28-105 for a certain range of focal lengths. When projected on a screen I didn't pick differences but then my projector lens is nothing amazing. I trust the optics in my nice old Reichert laboratory microscope more than I do the projector lens.
Tested at all apertures at 24mm, the 24-120 shows objectionable light fall off to the corners at f/3.5, less at f/5.6, practically gone at f/8 and completely gone at f/11.
Tested at all apertures at 28mm, the 28-105 shows light fall off to the corners at f/3.5, a lot less at f/5.6 and is gone by f/8.
The 24-120 at 120mm yields quite a bit of distortion and a city skyscraper situated on the edge of the frame gets a distinct banana shape.
The 24-120 was not supplied with a lens hood but I took care to hold some black cardboard to act like a sun shield. The direction of the shots meant both lenses would not have had sun falling on any part of the front element or surround if I didn't have a lens hood, so lack of hood was not really an issue.
Other observations...
The 24-120 is heavier and "chunkier" than the 28-105 but still is nicely
balanced and convenient to use.
The 24-120 uses 72mm filters as opposed to 62mm filters on the 28-105.
The 24-120 zoom ring operates in an opposite direction to other Nikon
zooms I have tried. No big deal, just odd.
The 28-105 focusses close enough to get 1/2 life size on film, the
24-120 can only focus close enough to get a bit better than 1/5 life size.
Both zooms are hard to focus manually particularly at the maximum focal
length in dimmer light, but the auto focus works well with both lenses
in conditions so dim the view screen is nearly impossible to see.
In other comparison tests I thought the 28-105 was fairly bad wide
open compared to prime lenses at the same aperture, but the 24-120 is even
worse.
Other reports have had the story that the 24-120's strength is at the
24mm end but I found the performance lacking at all focal lengths except
the comparison at 50mm was oddly close.
Summary....
The 24-120 may be OK for a handy to carry tourist lens as long as you
only looked at 4"x6" prints. Critical slide use or print enlargements are
bound to disappoint.
The 28-105 gives a better performance than the 24-120 but even then
it would be wise to stick around f/8 to f/11 to try and get decent performance
out of it. If really serious about results you should be using prime lenses,
after all I am the "prime lens preacher"!
More later........ regards, Guy