18-55 and 24-85....too redundant?

Hey, I have a 18-55 kit

and 50mm 1.8 and an 85 mm 1.8 mf

but I really would like an autofocus zoom up in the 80 range

I was thinking about getting the 24-85...as I have read nice things about that lense...

budget constraints are an issue

would this coverage be too redundant to make sense? would I be better off with something like a 70-300?

just looking for some opinions. cheap, good glass is good.

Already having a 85mm, I think that you would probably be disapointed by the 24-85. It's a great lens but you should save your money to invest in a bigger lens.

Try Nikon 24-85 and Tamron 28-75 and choose one.
--
Lets Keep Art of Phtography civilized.

KP

zarquonfrood said:

Hey, I have a 18-55 kit
and 50mm 1.8 and an 85 mm 1.8 mf
but I really would like an autofocus zoom up in the 80 range
I was thinking about getting the 24-85...as I have read nice things
about that lense...
budget constraints are an issue
would this coverage be too redundant to make sense? would I be
better off with something like a 70-300?
just looking for some opinions. cheap, good glass is good.

Click to expand...

Hi….

If you are interested in the 24-85, it’s worth having a look at this review by Thom Hogan,
http://bythom.com/2485lens.htm

IMHO, I think you would be better off by getting Nikon 28-200G as this is a very sharp lens even up to 200 wide open. This will give you the range of 28-85 and then the extra to 200mm. Personally I don’t think you will lose any IQ with the 28-200 over the 24-85. You can pick up a good used 28-200 for about the same price as the 24-85.
Here is a sample photo…
Nikon D50, Nikon 28-200 f/3.5-5.6G - 200mm @ 1/500sec, f/5.6 ISO500



Good luck on your decision, BTW, I do have the 24-85f/3.5-4.5 and it’s a great lens as well...

If you are still interested in the 24-85, I was talking to a guy in Florida that I got to know from the “Nikonians forum”, and he has one for sale for about $160. His reason for sale is that he just got the 18-200VR.
Just let me know and I will give you his contact email….
--

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
C.Ya.....
Wally..........
Adelaide,AUSTRALIA



=camera gear in profile=

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

You should check out the Nikon 28/105..B&H has these new at a really good price, and the lens is sharp, by all accounts, and has an excellent macro feature. Should fit in with what you've already got.
--
BigAppa

I own both the Nikon 18-55 and a Nikon 70-700. Speaking from a focal length point of view only, I find that I really would like more reach on the 18-55. It seems like I'm always at the long end of it. If I put the 70-300 on indoors I find that it just isn't wide enough for 75% of my shots. I am asking for a 24-85 for Christmas but I don't have any actual experience with it.

I love the 85mm, but its mf and I need an autofocus for moving shots...

I strongly agree - I have the 28-105 D, and compared to my 18-70 the 28-105 is slightly sharper, has less distortion, and is a very useful macro lens (up to 1:2 macro ratio). Against my wife's 28-200 G the 28-105 does even better - the 28-200 G is decidedly soft at wider apertures between 28 and 100mm, only gets really sharp towards the long end.

It has no AF-S, but still focuses pretty fast. These days, you can pick one up used in like new condition for well under $200 - a bargain!

Cheers

Mike

BigAppa said:

You should check out the Nikon 28/105..B&H has these new at a
really good price, and the lens is sharp, by all accounts, and has
an excellent macro feature. Should fit in with what you've already
got.
--
BigAppa

Click to expand...

ken rockwell argues that the 24-85 is vastly superior to the 28-105....

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/2485afs.htm

not that his word is gospel, but I tend to trust his reviews to some extent....

just one mans opinion though..

zarquonfrood said:

ken rockwell argues that the 24-85 is vastly superior to the
28-105....

Click to expand...

Ken Rockwell also "reviews" gear that he has used only once

If you look carefully, his review of the 28-105 is based on a single sample that he clamed had focus errors on hs F100. I recall that somewhere else he states that his F100 was misaligned at the time... Clearly, he didn't bother to retest the 28-105

zarquonfrood said:

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/2485afs.htm

not that his word is gospel, but I tend to trust his reviews to
some extent....

Click to expand...

Take a look on this forum and see how many folks are recommending the 28-105. You will be hard pressed to find anyone complaining about that lens. Also, read the well respected review by Bjoern Roerslett:

http://www.naturfotograf.com/lens_zoom_02.html#AF28-105IF

Or the one at Nikonians:

http://www.nikonians.org/html/resources/nikon_articles/nikkor/af/28-105/28-105_1.html

zarquonfrood said:

just one mans opinion though..

Click to expand...

Indeed - Ken is always an entertaining read, but take his opinion with a big grain of salt!

Cheers

Mike

PS I'm not saying the 24-85 is a bad lens. Far from it. But it is definitely not "vastly superior" to the 28-105; if anything, the 28-105 would be a tad sharper.