< ! --Digital window verification 001 -->

Nikon AF-S 24-120mm f/3.5-5.6 lens discontinued

The full frame Nikon AF-S 24-120mm f/3.5-5.6G IF-ED VR lens is listed as discontinued on Nikon Japan website (生產終了 means discontinued, end of life). No surprise here, since a new Nikkor 24-120 f/4 ED VR N lens is expected to be released next week. The old 24-120mm lens had multiple negative reviews over the past few years (the lens was announced back in February, 2003). This lens was also part of the D700 kit.

This entry was posted in Nikon Lenses and tagged . Bookmark the permalink. Trackbacks are closed, but you can post a comment.
  • twoomy

    awesome news! thanks for keeping us up to date.

    • twoomy

      wow, I’m first? I forgot to say IT HAS BEGUNZ.

      • http://bit.ly/9NIXQ David Hasselblaff

        I just think it’s a pitty that Nikon has such a weak f/4 lineup. For some people weight, size and price matters a lot, so I guess there would be a market for f/4 zooms with the same optical qualities as the f/2.8 zooms. Personally I’d immediately buy a sharp but leightweight 24-70mm/4 as a travel lens complementing the 70-300 VR.

        • The Invisiblecat

          The 16-35mm f/4 AF-S VR is excellent.

          • twoomy

            Well the 16-35 was the first piece of the puzzle. If they can pull off a 24-120 f/4 that doesn’t suck the way the old 24-120 3.5-5.6 did, they will be in excellent shape for releasing a new FX camera that will be accepted by the masses. I’m still skeptical that a D700/D900 whatever will be announced this year, but having an all-purpose general zoom like the 24-120 is definitely the prerequisite. This will be the “kit lens” for the next d700ish camera.

        • Worminator

          The point has been demonstrated: Going from f/2.8 to f/4 doesn’t save you a tremendous amount, it’s only when you move to variable aperture that the design become significant lighter and smaller.

          So an f/4 design is a bit tricky to place in a lineup. The f/2.8 version has to be really expensive, or the extra little bit of zoom range you can squeeze out of the f/4 lens has to be seen as really useful, for the lens to be a successful seller. Otherwise people just say to heck with this and buy the f/2.8 version instead.

          Because lets face it f/2.8 and f/4 is a huge difference in practical utility. f/2 is a small luxury, f/1.4 or f/1.2 is rarely useful, but f/2.8 is a bread-and-butter setting for many people.

        • PHB

          If size and price matter a lot to you then buy a DX body and have done with it. You will find the lenses are smaller and lighter.

          Better still, you can buy f/2.8 FX lenses and they work fine on the DX format where you will find the performance of the teles essentially identical to the performance you should expect from an f/4 on FX.

          Sure a range of f/4 lenses is nice to have, but they won’t make a lot of sense until there is a cheaper FX body to match. Although it must be said that their first offering is stunning on the DX frame.

          The reason I would consider these lenses is that Nikon seems to be bringing out a rather attractive range of fast primes. And for more or less the same money as the old magic three f/2.8 you may be able to set yourself up with a couple of the f/4 zooms and a 35 f/1.4, 50 f/1.4 and 85 f/1.4. Which is arguably a better choice for many people. It also means that each lens is smaller and lighter which is probably important for some.

  • The Invisiblekid

    I can’t believe there is people who bought that with a D700.

    • Victor Hassleblood

      That was a kit full of sh##!

    • Worminator

      A lot of people who’s job it is to take photos (media types who are not professional photographers) bought the D700 kit, out of a combination of ignorance, convenience, and budget. Realistically what lens are you going to get instead? The 24-70 f/2.8 adds a lot to the bill. Not to mention it’s huge.

  • DaWolf

    So, does this mean there’s hope for a D700 replacement too before end of the year?
    C’mon Nikon, you are killin’ me :)

    • DaWolf

      …ehm, actually my comment was for the other post, about D700 being not in stock at BB. :)

  • http://www.rafaljacniak.pl Roger

    may eventually be meaningful universal lens

  • SBGrad

    Now, if Nikon will only discontinue the 80-400mm.

    • Fred

      Bout freaking time they discontinue this lens, can’t wait till the 80-400 gets a refresh too.

    • TT

      I hear that!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
      Been waiting for an 80-400mm replacement for a looooooooong time. Will go to Canon if I don’t see a replacement by then end of 2010. Don’t want to but will…

    • http://cdsharper.zenfolio.com CdSharp

      I’m ready to buy a replacement 80-400mm or 300mm F4. I just want nikon to get their new lens line together soon!

  • The Invisiblekid

    Here we are !!!!!!!
    One week before photokina (as I already said last month) Nikon will release the D700xs !!!!
    I hope the info is reliable (customer from South Korea), I’m so exited !
    D700 + 24mp (new sensor, not the one from the D3x) + HD video 30fps !!!!
    OMG !
    I’ll have to sell hundreds of my TC ! (right peter ?)

    • http://www.pbase.com/jctangney John Tangney

      Actually, we are still over a month away from Photokina (Sep 21-26). We are a week away from what should be a Nikon announcement on Aug 19th, but that is very likely not their “big” announcements for Photokina, though I would be happy to see some big announcements at that time!

    • S

      The invisible kid, this is what I’ve also been told by what I’d certainly deem a reliable source. She doesn’t give me too many details for obvious reasons but I have been told to expect a FF DSLR at the end of 2010 which has good noise control and has more megapixels than a D3/ D700. She also mentioned that it will have top notch video recording capability. I was told this half a year ago. I am just waiting now for Photokina because I feel if they do release it at the end of the year as my friend would expect Nikon to do…it would be at an event like Photokina. Either way I am very excited and personally I think they will call it a D900….but you never know with naming conventions…it might be a D700X/XS? We shall wait and see:)

  • D40-owner

    About $%&$% time!!
    This crap 24-120 lens has been preventing me from taking decent photos with my D40 + 18-55 for years!!

  • http://www.flickr.com/photos/noel82 Luca

    Finally an update…really curious about the price of the new model…hope in Europe will be less than 1.000 €…otherwise I’ll go completing the range with fixed lenses…

  • shivaswrath

    yeah!! can’t wait. . .

  • http://eatonphotography.vze.com shade1012

    Interesting.

  • Alfredo Fernandez

    WAITINNNGGG FOR A 300mm f4 AFS VR II
    :D:DD:D:D:

    • The Invisiblecat

      LOL !
      If the 300 AF-S VRII f/4 comes before 2011 I buy you a beer (seriously).
      :o
      A 200mm f/2.8 AF-S VR will be nice to !

      • Alfredo Fernandez

        i will buy you 2…!

        • The invisible man

          Ok,
          I they make it with a DESCENT tripod mount, I’ll buy you a full case !

    • Dweeb

      Damn straight. Give me a week’s notice to sell my non-VR one. A ten year old design BTW.

  • Fred

    I just started to have a bad feeling about the successor of this lens.
    It will be the same lens, maybe improved coatings, but just VR2 and zoom lock . *gasp*

  • Thomas

    great news ! This is Nikons worst an fucking bad lens.

    • Dweeb

      I saved someone the embarrassment of buying one. I told them to just look at the web talk. What a POS – too much range. And what’s with Nikon promoting/selling it with a D700? Idiots.

    • Anonymous

      Stop bashing my lens ! I makes me feel bad !

  • Nikon Canon

    R.I.P. – —crappy glass

  • Lolly

    Why did Nikon wait so long to do an update to the 24-120 … who knows … anyway, good riddance and hello f/4.

  • http://www.truphotos.com gnohz

    Nearly couldn’t believe my eyes when I saw that it was the kit lens for the D700! :D

  • Simon

    I think the worst Nikon lense is 43-86mm/f3.5 zoom made in 1960’s…. -(:

    • The Invisiblemouse

      That’s true !
      Where did you get the info from ???

      • Simon

        I used to own one of them!

    • http://www.truphotos.com gnohz

      Curious to find out, how bad was it?

      • Jabs

        @gnohz.
        Yeah, that lens was horrible. If you have nothing good to say, then be quiet – so I plead Da Fifth (Fifth Amendment joke from America).
        The lens was really bad and really ‘un-Nikonlike’!

      • Anonymous

        @gnohz.
        Here is a modern take on this lens. I have put it on my camera (F3HP, then) a while back to test shoot plus get a feel of it in a store and nothing good to say, then or now – LOL! They also made several and I think that it was about in 1980’s that I tried one in NYC.

        Look here –

        http://www.momentcorp.com/review/nikon_zoom-nikkor_43-86mm_f3.5.html

        I got the 28-50 F3.5 Zoom first and then 35-70 F2.8 instead in later years and before that got the 80-200 F4.5 second version with 52mm filters (not the 62mm F4.0 one – lol) and then the remarkable Series E (economy Nikons) 75-150 F3.5 Zoom – excellent optics, zoom creep, cheap build, but really, really great optical performance. You just had to not use it hard or point it up in the air or point it down a lot – lol!
        Zoom from all manufacturers then had a horrible reputation back in the film days and that lens was a ‘standout’ (43-86mm) for why not to get a zoom.

      • Jabs

        @gnohz.
        Here is a modern take on this lens. I have put it on my camera (F3HP, then) a while back to test shoot plus get a feel of it in a store and nothing good to say, then or now – LOL! They also made several and I think that it was about in 1980’s that I tried one in NYC.

        Look here –

        http://www.momentcorp.com/review/nikon_zoom-nikkor_43-86mm_f3.5.html

        I got the 28-50 F3.5 Zoom first and then 35-70 F2.8 instead in later years and before that got the 80-200 F4.5 second version with 52mm filters (not the 62mm F4.0 one – lol) and then the remarkable Series E (economy Nikons) 75-150 F3.5 Zoom – excellent optics, zoom creep, cheap build, but really, really great optical performance. You just had to not use it hard or point it up in the air or point it down a lot – lol!
        Zoom from all manufacturers then had a horrible reputation back in the film days and that lens was a ‘standout’ (43-86mm) for why not to get a zoom.

        SORRY – forgot to post my name!

        • Famous photographer

          Who care about your name ?

          Just kidding, we all love you Jabs !
          (not like the annoying french-invisible-whatever-man.)

  • http://wangbo1118.spaces.live.com Bob

    it obviously shows new 24-120 vrII will come very soon — which is i wanted

    hope cheaper FX body will appear..

    • The invisible man

      The D700 should be $1995 in 2 weeks (8/30), at that price it will not last more than few days, prepare your pen and checkbook !

      The new D700xs (?) will be at least $2990.

      I also hope for a cheap FX but I don’t see it comming before next spring.
      $1495 would be a nice price, having the choice between D300s and D600 (?) depending on what format you prefer.

  • Eric Pepin

    i would buy that for my DX camera if its optically razor sharp and handles nice and smooth. I dont use wide often and starting at a equiv of 35ish and going to 180 ish would be great.

  • John

    Wouldn’t it be great if they came out with a replacement 24-120mm f/4?

    Wouldn’t it suck if the replacement was a 24-120mm f/3.5-5.6 instead?

    I just know Nikon is going to break my heart on this one.

  • ich bins

    Finally Nikon discovered the f/4 line. This morning when shopping for the evening (wedding soup of the day, then salmon Oncorhynchus keta, taken out at Bristol Bay, Alaska, with fresh potatoes from the Pfalz, with beans bound by ham from Serrano and white mushrooms, dessert ice cream and a top Riesling wine from Baden, ehm, ehm …) I read a test of the new wide-angle f/4 VR 16 – ??, very good lens indeed. If the 24-120/4 has a good optical quality too then it could become a killer lens. Nikon was clever not to extend the range to 135 mm. Most people – me included – have an additional portrait lens as 1,8/85 or macro 2,8/50 and 2,8/105. I do not see the necessity of high- opened lenses (for me) as 1,4/35 or 1,4/85, as the optical quality of lower opened lenses here is better; exception is Canon`s 1,2/85. And such a lens only is reasonalble at its fully opened f-stop.

  • hah

    f/4 zoom line being listed as one of the main reasons people do not switch to nikon, they are very wise to follow this f/4 trend. Now all they need is a 70-200 f/4 and the f/4 zoom trinity will be complete.

  • Back to top