Irwin
Senior Member
Anybody here have any experiences with these two lenses? Need a mid range zoom for a D700 and was deciding between the two.
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Nikon 24-85 G VR vs non VR
- Thread starter Irwin
- Start date
-
- Tags
- nikon d700
slimandy
Forum Pro
I used both of the old 24-85's and both were good with caveats. I'd only buy them if I was budget limited these days. The modern lens will be a much better choice. Technology has improved significantly and VR is useful and also improved on the original version.
--
http://www.andrewsandersphotography.co.uk
--
http://www.andrewsandersphotography.co.uk
Irwin
Senior Member
Thought about that for a while. I liked the compactness of it. I had one years ago but sold it with the D70. I went ahead and ordered the newer one but don't like the fact it is 72 mm as opposed to 67mm.
slimandy
Forum Pro
Agree about the filter thread but as most of my kit is 77mm neither suit me. That's another reason for me to prefer the 24-120.
--
http://www.andrewsandersphotography.co.uk
--
http://www.andrewsandersphotography.co.uk
Irwin
Senior Member
I hate carrying big lenses That's why I got rid of the 28-70.
Skipper494
Forum Pro
See Ken Rockwell's evaluation. I bought the G VR, but need to do more yet, for an opinion.
slimandy
Forum Pro
Agree again. I had the same lens and sold it a month after buying the 24~120. It gives me the range I want for events and walkaround without the weight. The 28~70 was too heavy on it's own to carry around all day, let alone with another lens for extra reach.
--
http://www.andrewsandersphotography.co.uk
jhinkey
Senior Member
I have the 24-85/3.5-4.5G AFS and have used it a lot on my D700 - it's a great vacation lens. It's plenty sharp for 12MP FX. I've been using it on vacation on my D800 and it definitely cannot stand up to 36MP FX - especially the 85mm end. The VR version is going to be delivered next week and I'll be able to directly compare the two on both the D700 and D800.
John
--
John
--
Travis G VanDenBerg
Senior Member
I received the 24-85mm VR last week. I have been shooting with it professionally for 7 days. I do not think I'm going to keep it.
This lens is made in the China factory. It has a nice build, and quite stiff zoom ring. It has a metal mount and comes with pedal hood, front and rear caps, and a soft pouch.
The 24mm end is REALLY soft at all apertures & the corners are pretty bad. The CA at 24mm is significant. Wide open...no way. I consider the 24mm end most useful for landscape and architecture...this lens can do neither because it can not resolve the detail needed and suffers from distortion.
It's "okay" to better-than-average at the rest of the focal lengths; not one of Nikon's "gems" or great deals.
Except for the VR function (which is really useful)...three stops slower shutter speeds reliably), I would compare the optical quality to the $75 used 28-80mm 3.3-5.6 G lens you can get on eBay (which is a bargain by the way).
This lens is made in the China factory. It has a nice build, and quite stiff zoom ring. It has a metal mount and comes with pedal hood, front and rear caps, and a soft pouch.
The 24mm end is REALLY soft at all apertures & the corners are pretty bad. The CA at 24mm is significant. Wide open...no way. I consider the 24mm end most useful for landscape and architecture...this lens can do neither because it can not resolve the detail needed and suffers from distortion.
It's "okay" to better-than-average at the rest of the focal lengths; not one of Nikon's "gems" or great deals.
Except for the VR function (which is really useful)...three stops slower shutter speeds reliably), I would compare the optical quality to the $75 used 28-80mm 3.3-5.6 G lens you can get on eBay (which is a bargain by the way).
fabgo
Senior Member
You might have a bad copy. The ones I tested were very good at 24mm, even wide open.
--
Fabian
G
gatorowl
Guest
+1 NT
Travis G VanDenBerg
Senior Member
Nope...it's not a bad copy. It's just that aour definitions of what is acceptable are different. I think it's a decent lens, but not one of Nikon's stellar performers. It should be priced similar to the DX 18-105mm VR or the 18-70mm DX because it's about the same optical quality. I would think the lens would be a good deal at $399...but not $599. Just my opinion.
westcoasthd
Leading Member
I received a used, but mint 24-85mm AFS lens today. I did a very quick test just to make sure it worked. I will take some better photos hopefully on Saturday to see how it compares to the 24-120 I used to own. I had tried the new 24-85 VR model indoors (in store - low light), and focus was very slow, the zoom ring was stiff, however, no de-centering was noted. I just didn't get a good feeling about the $600 dollar lens, it seemed too hit and miss to find a nice copy.
Then I came across the non VR version and thought, well for half the price it might be worth trying. I hoped to find one without some of the negatives of the newer model. Basically this is the type of all around mid range zoom lens that I was looking for in terms of size, weight and price. I think that with minor adjustments in PS, will yield some nice photos. I like traveling lighter, and the 24-120, was just big enough that I typically left it at home most of the time.
Then I came across the non VR version and thought, well for half the price it might be worth trying. I hoped to find one without some of the negatives of the newer model. Basically this is the type of all around mid range zoom lens that I was looking for in terms of size, weight and price. I think that with minor adjustments in PS, will yield some nice photos. I like traveling lighter, and the 24-120, was just big enough that I typically left it at home most of the time.
zzzzzzzzzzz
Senior Member
My copy does not have these issues.
Ivar Dahl Larsen
Forum Enthusiast
I have no problem to accept this new lens of mine; the 24 - 85mm/f3,5 - 4,5 G ED VR and as a comparison to 24 - 120/f4 which I sold shortly after I purchased it, it is better. Now I do not exclude the fact that certain samples of the lens may vary in quality. It should not be like that, but....I did a very unsientific test just to see if it can hold up to my standards as mainly a streetshooter. And I feel it did. Now, there is no way any monitor can show how good it is at sizes shown here, but all the same, here are some samples I placed the focus on the middle of the planks / boards and it is done on full opening at 24mm, 34mm, 50mm, 70mm and 85mm. It may be a little soft at the edges on 85mm, but what the heck, that is what it is supposed to be by me, shooting portraits and such. Have a go at it, I recommend it according to my standards and if anyone question my standards, fine but see my gallery and judge for yourselves. Have a nice summer.
--
idl
--
idl
Ivar Dahl Larsen
Forum Enthusiast
Sorry about the pig picture, it somehow snucked in there and it's not shot by the referred lens.
--
idl
--
idl
G
gatorowl
Guest
Travis, I'd like to give you the benefit of the doubt, but it's hard not to believe you are just stubbornly refusing to admit that you are wrong.
How many copies of the 24-85 VR have you used? To claim so emphatically that your copy isn't bad, you must have tested at least a half dozen from at least 2-3 different production runs.
My copy is as sharp as--in some parts of the frame, sharper than--my 14-24mm at 24mm in parts of the frame. This is at all overlapping apertures. I don't know if my 14-24 is bad, but the sharpness at 24mm is comparable to what I have observed in other photographs. Yes, my 24-85mm exhibits edge softness, distortion and CA, but sharpness is not one of its faults.
Phil Flash
Senior Member
I find it plenty sharp and contrasty on a D700.
I'm not at all tempted by the VR version.
I'd consider the 24-70, but that's a big heavy monster and not at all a walkaround lens, which is what I want in a mid-range zoom.
I'd carry my 17-35 2.8, my Voigtlander 40mm F2, and maybe an old 135 2.8 AIS before I'd carry that big 24-70.
--
Phil Flash
SF, CA USA
It's not the camera. It's you.
Stuff I own in my profile.
I'm not at all tempted by the VR version.
I'd consider the 24-70, but that's a big heavy monster and not at all a walkaround lens, which is what I want in a mid-range zoom.
I'd carry my 17-35 2.8, my Voigtlander 40mm F2, and maybe an old 135 2.8 AIS before I'd carry that big 24-70.
--
Phil Flash
SF, CA USA
It's not the camera. It's you.
Stuff I own in my profile.
jhinkey
Senior Member
I'll find out here in a week or so when my second copy from B&H arrives. Hopefully it will be optically better than the last and expose properly too.
--
--
Similar threads
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum