Reading mode: Light Dark

Nikon 24-70 f/2.8 or Nikon 24-85 f/3.5-4.5 VR ?

Go to last post
L

LDHflyguy

Member
Messages
32
Solutions
3
Reaction score
4
Location
IL, US
It's time for me to upgrade from my D80 to a D600. I don't own any Fx lenses. I'm definitely an amature. I'm going to start with either the 24-70 f/2.8 or the 24-85 f/3.5-4.5 VR. The 24-70 will cost me about $1290 more than the 24-85, so, I'm trying to make a prudent decision. Assuming that I take all sorts of pictures, both indoors and out, like to crop, and I print up to 17x22, please answer the following question:

What will the 24-70 allow me to do that the 24-85 won't?

 
The 24-70 will shoot sharp images at f2.8 and the 24-85 will need to be stopped down a little to get the same results. If you care about size, weight and cost get the 24-85. If you want the best zoom lens in that focal length range, and don't mind the extra cost or weight get the 24-70 f2.8. If VR is important to you get the 24-85, not much else to say. I would go to your local camera store and shoot few frames with each lens using your camera and card to get the feel of each lens. Then go home and compare the results on your computer, the rest should be easy.
 
The 24~70 has a wider aperture and is good wide open too so it is a better choice in poor light or if you want shallow DoF. The 24~85 has VR but that doesn't help with anything that moves, e.g. people. The 24~70 is pretty good close-up too. The downsides are the extra cost and weight, but you get what you pay for.

Personally I use the 24~120 f4 for walkabout and events and that;s the only zoom I have in this range but I also own some fast primes when I want a wide aperture (and less distortion). If I never owned the primes I would own the 24~70 instead, but ideally I would also want something longer for portrait.
 
Red G8R said:
Red G8R wrote:

There is an excellent comparo between Tamron vs Nikon 24-70mm f2.8 by Camera Labs. But they also threw in the 24-85 vr for fun.

http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Nikon_vs_Tamron_24-70mm_comparison/
Click to expand...
That is a very good comparison that shows both near and far performance of the 3 lenses. Usually all reviews show resolution tests based on charts, but the real world if much different.

The Nikkor 24-70 is bad with near distance charts (also based on my own experience), but takes the lead on real world photography. Many people swear by the Tamron but they clearly base their comparisons on charts. The real world is very different, though, and after all the Nikkor 24-70 is the best of the bunch even in the FX corners.

Thus, those who say that the Nikkor 24-70 is very bad in the corners should see the big picture. Yes, it's not prime-good but it's the best zoom.
 
I owned the 24-70 2.8 and always found it a very good zoom. I considered so good that it was like carrying a box full of primes. The only penalty was the size/weight and that 2.8 is not the same level of DOF control as you get with a 1.8 or 1.4 prime.

Most of the time I did not shoot the 24-70 wide open, though it's quite sharp at 2.8. I'd usually stop down when shooting at events and if I found myself working the long end too much I'd pull out the 70-200 VRII. I began to question the 24-70's weight vs. how I shoot.

I sold the 24-70 and tested the 24-120 F4. I did not like it. It was still large/heavy and it was mediocre at 80 to 120mm. I feel it's a consumer optic in fancy wrappings. I then tried the 24-85vr and found what I was looking for. It gave 95% of the IQ of the 24-70, yet it's small and very easy to carry. I prefer using it along with a couple of primes over the 24-70. The 24-85vr is a unsung gem of a small zoom. Against my old 24-70 2.8 it is FAR easier to work with, very sharp, offers an additional 15mm of reach that saves me lens swaps, focuses a bit closer. Oh, and it has VR, which opens up another area of shooting still subjects at insanely low shutter speeds. Still, in the end both lenses are different tools and you have to decide which would suit you best.

The Tamron 24-70 VC is a superior lens to the Nikon 24-70 2.8. I recently tried the Tamron and found it optically identical to the Nikon for all practical purposes. If you pixel peep the Tamron is better (center sharpness at longer FL) in some areas and the Nikon (corners) wins in others. For actual shooting they are the same. But the VC of the Tamron put's it miles ahead for other types of shooting and also makes it a much better lens for video. Nikon's 24-70 is getting pretty old (6 years?) and naturally they will have a better version with VR in a year or two. If I decided I wanted another "pro" midrange" zoom I'd buy the Tamron over the Nikon even if they were the same price. The Tamron is 400 cheaper I think.

Choosing these lenses has VERY little to do with what I or anyone else tells you and much more to do with HOW and WHAT you shoot.




Cheers,




Robert
 
Have fun with this:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/...meraComp=614&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

The 24-70 is the better lens for sure, but is a great ingot to carry around, a load I'm not willing to carry around town or god forbid on the trail. The corners never get sharp on the 24-85VR, even at f8, so you'd be well advised to overframe by 5mm and crop whenever possible, whch is my m.o. with my 24-85VR. The center and borders are excellent, so overframing is key. You'll still have 20MP or so to play with. The VR is great, you can handhold right down to 1/20th. The Tamron is pretty good, too, but for $1300 I want sharp corners at 24mm f8, but I don't get them with that lens.

It probably won't be long before you start piling up prime lenses for your D600, because they aren't very expensive for the most part, and they are sweet as sugar :^)
 
Wow Everybody!

I am very appreciative of the sincerity of all the responses. I'm also very surprised and happy with the variety of approaches used / views expressed to help me with my decision.

So Thank You all!

From what I have gathered, all 3 lenses have mostly very good characteristics. There is no single perfect lens for me among the 3, even for $1800. I think I will be going with the 24-85 and put the money I save toward purchasing a high quality wide angle prime of f/2.8 or better for smaller/inside spaces. When more $$ comes along I'll be looking through these forums for a high quality long zoom.

I'll keep checking here for more ideas and suggestions. :-)
 
LDHflyguy said:
LDHflyguy wrote:

It's time for me to upgrade from my D80 to a D600. I don't own any Fx lenses. I'm definitely an amature. I'm going to start with either the 24-70 f/2.8 or the 24-85 f/3.5-4.5 VR. The 24-70 will cost me about $1290 more than the 24-85, so, I'm trying to make a prudent decision. Assuming that I take all sorts of pictures, both indoors and out, like to crop, and I print up to 17x22, please answer the following question:

What will the 24-70 allow me to do that the 24-85 won't?

Click to expand...
Photozone just evaluated the new 24-85 lens and did not find it to be stunningly good. The 24-70 f2.8 lens is a very, very good lens. Really, no comparison between the two. You get what you pay for.
 

mbecke said:
mbecke wrote:
mbecke said:
LDHflyguy wrote:

It's time for me to upgrade from my D80 to a D600. I don't own any Fx lenses. I'm definitely an amature. I'm going to start with either the 24-70 f/2.8 or the 24-85 f/3.5-4.5 VR. The 24-70 will cost me about $1290 more than the 24-85, so, I'm trying to make a prudent decision. Assuming that I take all sorts of pictures, both indoors and out, like to crop, and I print up to 17x22, please answer the following question:

What will the 24-70 allow me to do that the 24-85 won't?

Click to expand...
Photozone just evaluated the new 24-85 lens and did not find it to be stunningly good. The 24-70 f2.8 lens is a very, very good lens. Really, no comparison between the two. You get what you pay for.
Click to expand...






And other sites, including the link posted earlier show that it performs very well. I find it superior to the 24-120 F4 and it replaced my 24-70 2.8 after I "pixel peeped" it to death along with the 28-300 and Tamron 24-70 2.8 VC, which would be my top pick for pro midrange zoom over the Nikon.

ANY of these lenses produce great images, period. Differences in DOF control along with size/weight are far bigger differences than nonsensical pixel peeping sharpness tests we all enjoy so much. In the world of actual photography choose the lens you'll use the most rather than the one that led in a brick-wall test.




Cheers,




Robert
 
I have owned both of these lenses and here is what i thought of them:

Nikon 24-70 f/2.8
+ Very sharp, even wide open at all focal lengths
+ Great contrast
+ Great colours
+ Very smooth bokeh - no other zoom lens in this range comes close!
+ Very sturdy build gives reassurance when in use

- Price
- Size
- Weight
- Certainly not what i would call a walkaround lens

Nikon 24-85 f/3.5 - f/4.5
+ Large enough to fit comfortably in your hands yet small enough to carry around all day
+ VR is very useful (though my copy is faulty and will be returned)
+ Light - as far as zooms go.
+ Fairly sharp wide open at all focal lengths
+ Great value for money

- For its price, nothing!
- Compared to above lens, lacking in contrast, colours and sharpness. Bokeh not as good either.

While i'm at it, i might as well give my opinions on the Nikon 24-120 f/4 which i also owned too.


Nikon 24-120 f/4
+ Good colours
+ Good contrast
+ Surprisingly sharp wide open
+ VR was great
+ Just about small and light enough to be a walkaround lens

- Only sharp up to ~60mm, it'd start to get softer after that
- Price doesn't represent good value for money. It's two-thirds the price of the 24-70 yet no where near as good.

My conclusion
The 24-70 is without question the daddy - though i wouldn't take it out with the intention of carrying it all day.

The 24-120 - a mixed bag yet too expensive - so not representing good value for money. It's two-thirds the price of the 24-70, but not two-thirds the performance!

The 24-85 - surprisingly a great lens in a small package representing great value for money. It's just over a third the price of the 24-70, yet a lot better than one-third the performance. It has completely voided the existence of the 24-120 f/4.

For what's it worth, i'll probably be going back to the Nikon 24-70. There's just something about the combination of colours, contrast, sharpness and bokeh. The Tamron 24-70 too is on my list (again looks like great value for money) however there are problems with a 'sticking' aperture with that lens.

Hope that helps.
 
MS82 said:
Manny82 wrote:

I have owned both of these lenses and here is what i thought of them:

My conclusion
The 24-70 is without question the daddy - though i wouldn't take it out with the intention of carrying it all day.
The 24-120 - a mixed bag yet too expensive - so not representing good value for money. It's two-thirds the price of the 24-70, but not two-thirds the performance!
The 24-85 - surprisingly a great lens in a small package representing great value for money. It's just over a third the price of the 24-70, yet a lot better than one-third the performance. It has completely voided the existence of the 24-120 f/4.

For what's it worth, i'll probably be going back to the Nikon 24-70. There's just something about the combination of colours, contrast, sharpness and bokeh. The Tamron 24-70 too is on my list (again looks like great value for money) however there are problems with a 'sticking' aperture with that lens.

Hope that helps.
Click to expand...






Boy! We really agree on this. I sure wanted to like the 24-120 F4 because that extra reach would have been great. But in the end it was just a so-so lens at a VERY high price. The price is not THAT far off from getting a new or used Nikon 24-70 and you could also get a new Tamron 24-70 VC which is FAR better.

The 24-85 vr is quite frankly an amazing lens. Years ago they bundled the D70 with a very good kit lens in the 18-70 dx. It was a great way to get a taste of good optical performance in a zoom that Nikon hoped would send everyone back for more. And it worked! But the 24-85vr is a MUCH better lens designed to work very well with the D600. It really gives up very little to my "old" 24-70 2.8 beyond the DOF control, which is important for some folks of course. The size and weight of the 24-85vr is key here; it's VERY small. Anyone remember the little 28-200g gem Nikon used to make? It's that kind of good, but even better and it has VR and AF-S. I'm very happy with the quality of this lens and that has nothing at all to do with it's mid-level price.

Now I'm starting to think about the Tamron 24-70 VC. Tried one and really liked it....'




Robert
 
Shotcents said:
Shotcents wrote:
Shotcents said:
Manny82 wrote:

. Anyone remember the little 28-200g gem Nikon used to make? It's that kind of good, but even better and it has VR and AF-S. I'm very happy with the quality of this lens and that has nothing at all to do with it's mid-level price.
Click to expand...
Now I'm starting to think about the Tamron 24-70 VC. Tried one and really liked it....'

Robert
Click to expand...
I have the 28-200G lens also the older 24-85mm non VR lens, these are great little lenses they both work well on my D600 and D700. Both produce great sharp photos, a lot of people avoid buying older lenses because they haven't got VR but gee if you can't hold either one of these lenses steady enough then you have a technique problem with your shooting.
 
rpps said:
rpps wrote:
rpps said:
Shotcents wrote:
rpps said:
Manny82 wrote:

. Anyone remember the little 28-200g gem Nikon used to make? It's that kind of good, but even better and it has VR and AF-S. I'm very happy with the quality of this lens and that has nothing at all to do with it's mid-level price.
Click to expand...
Now I'm starting to think about the Tamron 24-70 VC. Tried one and really liked it....'

Robert
Click to expand...
I have the 28-200G lens also the older 24-85mm non VR lens, these are great little lenses they both work well on my D600 and D700. Both produce great sharp photos, a lot of people avoid buying older lenses because they haven't got VR but gee if you can't hold either one of these lenses steady enough then you have a technique problem with your shooting.
Click to expand...






Agreed. The older 24-85 is a very good lens. The 28-200G is impressive, quite sharp even at 200mm and small enough to carry anywhere. Optically it's FAR better than the new 24-120 F4, which is why I'm so critical of that lens for the price people are paying...crazy.




Robert
 
LDHflyguy said:
LDHflyguy wrote:

So I have another amateurish question regarding the f/2.8 and f/3.5-4.5 with VR lenses.

Doesn't the the VR of the 3.5-4.5 make it comparable to the f/2.8 in regard to low light photography of non-moving subjects/backgrounds?
Click to expand...






Yes in the sense of getting a shot of a static subject, no in that f2.8 is going to give you bokeh (and thus subject isolation) that, everything else being equal, f3.5 to f4.5 can't match.

Look, I'm not going to beat around the bush here; you get what you pay for. The Nikon 24-70 f2.8 is Nikon's best midrange zoom lens. Others have talked about color, sharpness, bokeh, but also add build quality, CA control, and lightning fast focusing.

You'll have that lens for years and if you decide to sell you'll get at least 80% of what you paid; pro glass holds its value much better than consumer lens and camera bodies.
 
JakeB said:
build quality, CA control, and lightning fast focusing.

You'll have that lens for years and if you decide to sell you'll get at least 80% of what you paid; pro glass holds its value much better than consumer lens and camera bodies.
Click to expand...
No. As one who has sold a bunch of cheap and expensive lenses, the 24-85VR will fetch just as high a percentage of its original purchase price as any of the fancier stuff. For instance, I just sold my 40G Micro for $40 less than I paid for it.

The question is now and forever with the 24-70: do you want to lug around this great big, heavy lens for a slight increase in dof and corner sharpness, yes or no?
 
Solution
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

F
  • Question Question
[D850] Looking for a lightweight midrange travel zoom?
Replies
15
Views
8K
FX_travel
F
W
Nikon Z 24-70mm f/2.8 S II - form factors considerations
Replies
7
Views
80K
Rodenmg
Rodenmg
G
  • Question Question
Used SP 24-70mm F/2.8 Di VC USD G2 or Nikkor 70-200mm f4 for Nikon D850
Replies
10
Views
6K
GeorgeMac
G
B
  • Question Question
24-70/2.8 G IF-ED (no VR) vs Z 24-120mm f/4 S
Replies
16
Views
4K
buildingsights
B
G
  • Question Question
Nikon 80-200mm f/4.5 5.6 D AF (Not 2.8) or Nikon 70-210mm f/4-5.6 D AF on a DF
Replies
7
Views
7K
David Lal
D

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top