On old Nikkor 24-120 3.5-5.6 VR/D810 combo.

[longzoom]

2017-02-10 005-1 by 2017-02-10 005-1-3 by longzoom, on Flickr/photos/longzoom/]longzoom[/url], on Flickr2017-02-10 005-1-2 by 2017-02-10 014-1 by longzoom, on Flickr2017-02-10 014-1-2 by longzoom, on Flickr2017-02-11 016-1 by longzoom, on Flickr2017-02-11 016-1-2 by longzoom, on Flickr2017-02-11 008-2-1 by longzoom, on Flickr2017-02-11 008-2-1-2 by longzoom, on Flickr2017-02-11 008-2-1-3 by longzoom, on Flickrlongzoom, on Flickr.           I've never read any good word about this lens. Comments were terrible. Yes, it was pure amateurish one. But was it really as bad as almost everyone said? Upper sample at 120mm, 2 crops, in highlights and shadow area. Couple more, at 24mm, with crops. Judge for yourself, please. LZ

[longzoom]

2017-01-15 002-1-2 by 2017-01-15 002-1 by longzoom, on Flickroom/]longzoom[/url], on Flickr2017-01-15 002-1-3 by longzoom, on Flickr.   Just to compare - it is best, in the past, Nikkor 20mm 2.8D, at F4.0, with 2 crops.  Of course, prime is better, out of questions. But both are comparable, even amateurish one at F8.0-11.0! So most of those testers were, ah, softly say, not precise. This old zoom is not "monster" even today, fully acceptable one. Just do not forget to perform accurate FT for your combo. THX!  LZ

[Bjørn Rørslett]

The problem with the first 24-120 was its uneven performance.  In particular the wider settings often produced footage that was sharp only on one side, if at all.

I tested a few samples in its time and none were acceptable.

[benveniste]

The problem with the first 24-120 was its uneven performance.  In particular the wider settings often produced footage that was sharp only on one side, if at all.

I tested a few samples in its time and none were acceptable.

Was that with the first version (non-ED, non-VR) or the second?  I owned both, and while neither was the sharpest lens in my arsenal by any means, I printed 12x18" "keepers" from both of them.

[longzoom]

The problem with the first 24-120 was its uneven performance.  In particular the wider settings often produced footage that was sharp only on one side, if at all.

I tested a few samples in its time and none were acceptable.

   What I posted here is a first "VR" version. Actually, it is third in the row of 24-120 Nikkors, and first in "VR" row.  THX!  LZ

[Akira]

I think the lenses suffers much more from the sample variation than the optical design.

Personally I've never met a sample of AF-D20/2.8 or Ais20/2.8 that performs as good as your sample shown here.

[richardHaw]

trippy slanted buildings! 

[longzoom]

I think the lenses suffers much more from the sample variation than the optical design.

Personally I've never met a sample of AF-D20/2.8 or Ais20/2.8 that performs as good as your sample shown here.

   The story of this copy is like this: I got it with oily aperture, blades were slightly deformed by force, and it was terribly optically out of alignment. Nobody never opened it, so, I was first. It took me 8 hours to fix it and perform FT on my combo as it must be. So you are correct, absolutely - sample variation is a very sad reality of life. THX!  LZ

[longzoom]

trippy slanted buildings! 

  Yeah, true! I didn't want to improve any distortions, and, while it is possible with LR6, I left samples as they were, originally. THX!  LZ

[longzoom]

2017-02-20 001-1 by 2017-02-20 005-1 by 2017-02-20 020-1 by longzoom2017-02-20 020-1-3 by 2017-02-20 020-1-4 by longzoom, on Flickr2017-02-20 020-1-5 by longzoom, on Flickrlongzoom, on Flickr, on Flickrongzoom/]longzoom[/url], on Flickrzoom/]longzoom[/url], on Flickr.   The same 24-120 35-5.6 VR1 lens, after some adjusting of the front element and careful Fine Tuning to the D810 body.  The last image with 3 crops. THX!   LZ

[longzoom]

2017-04-06 005-1 by 2017-04-06 005-1-2 by longzoom, on Flickrm/]longzoom[/url], on Flickr.     This old 24-120 f/3.5-5.6 VR lens at most critical 120mm, a little bit  modified in LR, crop. Not bad for that ancient technology, I believe! THX!  LZ

[Wannabebetter]

The problem with the first 24-120 was its uneven performance.  In particular the wider settings often produced footage that was sharp only on one side, if at all.

I tested a few samples in its time and none were acceptable.

I revisited your assessment only yesterday after a sudden, acute paralysis of my right index finger prevented me from selecting the "buy now" option on eBay®. I seemed to recall, if subconsciously, your negative view (pun intended) of this lens prompting me to reference your lens page. My fears confirmed, full function restored to my digit, I hastily dropped the option from my watch list. And so averted disaster... (I really must learn to curb my enthusiasm for ALL things shiny and glassy with "Nikkor" written on it. I know I'm not going to buy junk -- I know better, that is who to ask -- only I can't help but look at them.)

And longzoom: nice pix, of the 11209! Whatever the lens.

[longzoom]

"nice pix, of the 11209! Whatever the lens."    I am not sure which one you mean, but thank you, anyway!   LZ

[longzoom]

2017-06-30 006-1 by 2017-06-30 006-1-2 by longzoom, on Flickros/longzoom/]longzoom[/url], on Flickr. As for me, this old monster(lens, I mean, hah!), is not that bad! Needs some more sharpening and contrast, of course, so more time spending with LR does pay! Image/crop to your judgment. THX!  LZ

[David H. Hartman]

LZ,

A problem for most of us is we can test but not correct a lens if it needs internal adjustment.

DHH