Thoughts on 24-85mm f3.5-4.5 AF-S G ED VR lens on FX

Have just sold some old m4/3 gear and have decided on the D750 with the 70-200f/2.8 VRII. Was just wandering if the 24-85mm f3.5-4.5 AF-S G ED VR lens would work well in this camera as I may just be able to stretch my budget to include this lens.
Thoughts please?

Might this help?

http://www.dpreview.com/search/forums?query=24-85mm+f3.5-4.5&forum=1030

Thearle said:

Have just sold some old m4/3 gear and have decided on the D750 with the 70-200f/2.8 VRII. Was just wandering if the 24-85mm f3.5-4.5 AF-S G ED VR lens would work well in this camera as I may just be able to stretch my budget to include this lens.
Thoughts please?

Click to expand...

You may get many thoughts on this lens. It is a very competent kit lens, and if you like having a normal-range zoom, this lens is about as good as anything--short of the new 24-70 VR professional zoom--available. It is very sharp in the center throughout its range, has weak edges and corners, and is best at the short end of the zoom. It is very good at 85mm, but the primes are noticeably better as are good zooms such as all of the 70-200 zooms (including the Tamron). It has horrible bokeh, significant CA and distortion. It is very lightweight and compact, and will hold up about as well as any non-professional-grade zoom. Therefore, if you like having a zoom in this range, I recommend it, especially around the $300 level.

I have one and rarely use it because I'm just not a fan of zooms in this range. If I were, I definitely would pick this zoom over the 24-120mm even at its new $500-$600 price. The 24-120mm may be marginally better, and is better built with longer range. However, unless you need the longer range--and with the 70-200, you don't--or the better build quality, I'd save the $300 for other goodies.

Great walk around lens.

It is suprisingly sharp.

I own a number of Nikon lenses including the 70-200 F2.8.

The 24-85 is on my camera most of the time.

Richard

Richard D Jacobs said:

Great walk around lens.

It is suprisingly sharp.

I own a number of Nikon lenses including the 70-200 F2.8.

The 24-85 is on my camera most of the time.

Richard

Click to expand...

Having a real battle at the moment. It's pretty much out of my budget, but I keep going to the 24-70/f2.8. I know the 24-85 can't match it but if it comes relatively close I'd be happy.

Thearle said:

Thearle said:

Great walk around lens.

It is suprisingly sharp.

I own a number of Nikon lenses including the 70-200 F2.8.

The 24-85 is on my camera most of the time.

Richard

Click to expand...

Having a real battle at the moment. It's pretty much out of my budget, but I keep going to the 24-70/f2.8. I know the 24-85 can't match it but if it comes relatively close I'd be happy.

Click to expand...

I am not so sure the 24-85VR is "relatively close" to the 24-70/2.8G, but there are times one is likely to want a compact walking-about lens. I bought a quite nice pre-owned 28-105D, which met that need, until my wife decided it belonged permanently on one of her cameras.

I then considered a 24-85mm, either the VR or pre-VR, or another 28-105D, but found a well-preserved pre-owned 24-70/2.8G, which strained my May/June budget quite severely, to the degree I thought about selling it, but I shoot enough at night and in low light to really appreciate being able to shoot at or near f/2.8 when necessary, so the 24-70/2.8G was finally deemed "worth it," during a summer family road trip, and then at my son's wedding.

The 24-70/2.8G is certainly not a small or light lens, but during shooting, when in-hand, the combination of a D700 and this lens feels relatively weightless, being well-balanced. One does, however, notice the size and weight when the camera and 24-70/2.8G are hanging by the strap or sling. The length, however, especially as I am a believer in keeping the hood in place, always makes itself known. I am, therefore, without a really good lightweight/compact mid-range zoom. I do have one of the tiny film-era 28-80/3.3-5.6G kit lenses, but it distorts really badly at any focal length other than near 50mm, making it different from most mid-range zooms that have a sweet spot at a somewhat wider angle.

Thearle said:

Thearle said:

Great walk around lens.

It is suprisingly sharp.

I own a number of Nikon lenses including the 70-200 F2.8.

The 24-85 is on my camera most of the time.

Richard

Click to expand...

Having a real battle at the moment. It's pretty much out of my budget, but I keep going to the 24-70/f2.8. I know the 24-85 can't match it but if it comes relatively close I'd be happy.

Click to expand...

The current 24-70 is on its way out--for good reason! Its corner performance is poor, which, to be fair, is a step or two above abysmal--a distinction lesser zooms (we all know their names) have rightly earned.

At landscape apertures, the differences are obviously smaller.

It's a good walk around lens but the part that never gets mentioned is what happens when you put it on a DX body. The soft corners and vignetting disappear and the CA is less so you wind up with a very sharp lens with a bit of an odd focal length that can be had cheaply if you really hunt. I carry mine whin I'm outdoors and use the Tamron 17-50 indoors and in town. Nice pair and I have less than four fifty in the pair.

Steve

buybuybuy said:

Thearle said:

buybuybuy said:

Great walk around lens.

It is suprisingly sharp.

I own a number of Nikon lenses including the 70-200 F2.8.

The 24-85 is on my camera most of the time.

Richard

Click to expand...

Having a real battle at the moment. It's pretty much out of my budget, but I keep going to the 24-70/f2.8. I know the 24-85 can't match it but if it comes relatively close I'd be happy.

Click to expand...

The current 24-70 is on its way out--for good reason! Its corner performance is poor, which, to be fair, is a step or two above abysmal--a distinction lesser zooms (we all know their names) have rightly earned.

At landscape apertures, the differences are obviously smaller.

Click to expand...

Any idea how the Tamron 28-70/f2.8VC compares to the Nikon equivalent?

Thearle said:

Thearle said:

Thearle said:

Thearle said:

Great walk around lens.

It is suprisingly sharp.

I own a number of Nikon lenses including the 70-200 F2.8.

The 24-85 is on my camera most of the time.

Richard

Click to expand...

Having a real battle at the moment. It's pretty much out of my budget, but I keep going to the 24-70/f2.8. I know the 24-85 can't match it but if it comes relatively close I'd be happy.

Click to expand...

The current 24-70 is on its way out--for good reason! Its corner performance is poor, which, to be fair, is a step or two above abysmal--a distinction lesser zooms (we all know their names) have rightly earned.

At landscape apertures, the differences are obviously smaller.

Click to expand...

Any idea how the Tamron 28-70/f2.8VC compares to the Nikon equivalent?

Click to expand...

Some say it's sharper, some say it isn't--perhaps due the copy variation that many report?

I use one frequently on my D810. It makes a great "walk-around" lens, particularly when the light is good. I debated whether I'd get a "mid-zoom" when I moved to FX. The 24-70/2.8 was too large and expensive. The 24-120 was also a bit large and expensive, plus I usually carry a 70-200/4, so it's longer range wasn't of great value. When I got a deal on a refurb 24-85, I leapt on it. I tend to use it at f5.6 - f8 and it's very good. It won't replace faster primes, but that's really not the point - convenience and useful range are.

It's a fine lens if you are not after edge to edge sharpness (e.g. for landscapes). The 24-120 has slightly better overall performance but is pretty similar in the center of the frame. Both lenses suffer from a great deal of sample variation so best to buy from a retailer that will let you exchange it if you're not happy. It had two 24-120s that were decentered/tilted and one 24-85 with the same issues. All were sent back.

Really happy with mine. It's relatively small and light for an FX lens, and it performs well. I otherwise shoot only primes and am nevertheless pleased with the performance of the 24-85.

Sold mine to finance a 24-70 2.8G, and I kind of miss it. Not going to say the 2.8 is disappointing, but I don't think it lives up to the cost/hype.

For the going price, about $300 I can easily say it's and awesome lens, you won't regret it. VR works well, colors are pretty good. Sharpness decent if you stop down a little. At $600 I think it's a harder sell.

Got mine in a kit with the D600 for $2k so it was basically free at the time.

The linked photos were made with this lens

https://500px.com/photo/51299630/black-balsam-bald-trail-by-mel-myers

https://500px.com/photo/89287663/still-by-mel-myers

https://500px.com/photo/85273159/my-sti-by-mel-myers

https://500px.com/photo/67940781/harbor-town-sunset-by-mel-myers

https://500px.com/photo/62911511/glassware-4-by-mel-myers

To give you an idea, I put up some shots on Flickr taken with the D800e and the 24-85VR, which I still own and use for family weddings, etc. They are full size and can be downloaded freely for pixel peeping purposes.

If corner sharpness is important to a particular shot, I might suggest overframing by 5mm or so and cropping in post. Center to mid, it's about as sharp as it gets, although there isn't any nano coated romance to it. Contrary to the opinion of some, bokeh is good.




24-85VR

Recommendation: Buy!

If you don't need the 2.8, the 24-85 is a fine lens.

Thearle said:

Have just sold some old m4/3 gear and have decided on the D750 with the 70-200f/2.8 VRII. Was just wandering if the 24-85mm f3.5-4.5 AF-S G ED VR lens would work well in this camera as I may just be able to stretch my budget to include this lens.
Thoughts please?

Click to expand...

i have had this lens for 2.5 years now, my 2 c:

1, it lacks the wow factor, it is reliably, like a toyota corolla, but does not do particularly well for anything, while it is usefully sharp once stopped down, its colour and micro-contrast is slightly lacking.

2, having said the above, with the going price it really is a bargain. to get similar level of performance on APS-C you will need first party 17-55, like N17-55, C17-55IS, etc. in comparison this 24-85 is about 1/2 the price.

3, if you were a pro, you take efficiency over absolute performance, you would use 24-70 over primes. That is why 24-70 is so popular with pros. But hobbyists have not time constraints or delivery pressure. if you got time, do it right and use primes; other times use a light weight zoom, 24-85 fits that bill perfectly. What I am saying here is if you are not a pro, a few primes plus 24-85 is much better than 24-70

4, One thing I use 24-85 over 85 prime is when I have to focus up close. I generally stop down to F8-11 to get sufficient DOF, at this aperture 85 prims offers little IQ advantage over the zoom, but the zoom has VR and can focus much closer. 24-85's MFD is closer than 24-70 while having larger magnification.

ultimitsu said:

Thearle said:

Have just sold some old m4/3 gear and have decided on the D750 with the 70-200f/2.8 VRII. Was just wandering if the 24-85mm f3.5-4.5 AF-S G ED VR lens would work well in this camera as I may just be able to stretch my budget to include this lens.
Thoughts please?

Click to expand...

i have had this lens for 2.5 years now, my 2 c:

1, it lacks the wow factor, it is reliably, like a toyota corolla, but does not do particularly well for anything, while it is usefully sharp once stopped down, its colour and micro-contrast is slightly lacking

Click to expand...

I agree. I used to think more highly of it but the more I used it the less happy I was. Images do lack a "wow factor" like you say. The color is flat and the contrast lacking. The sharpness in the corners isn't great and it doesn't do out of focus areas well. I'd recommend looking into a couple other lenses. The first is a grey market 24-120/4. Those can be had for less than $600 And have better range and color. The other is the Tamron 28-75 2.8. You can get those really cheaply used and I picked one up recently after renting it and the Tamron 24-70 and finding that IQ wise there wasn't much difference (in fact when I showed identical test images to others they consistently picked the results from the 28-75). It gives me sharper results with better colors and depth of field control than the 24-85 for the same or less money. The build is similar and it is very light for a faster lens. Roger at Lensrental's speaks really highly of the lens and I like it a lot.

Well, things have taken a bit of a change LOL. My new D750 and 70-200 VRII arrived yesterday. Which I have been more than happy with. Today I was greeted with a bag from the wife containing a Tamron 24-70f/2.8 VC. It's my birthday next week so she decided on an early present after speaking to my daughter after was discussing all this with her. So looks like the 24-85 is a no go now. Will look forward to trying the Tamron out.

Thearle said:

Well, things have taken a bit of a change LOL. My new D750 and 70-200 VRII arrived yesterday. Which I have been more than happy with. Today I was greeted with a bag from the wife containing a Tamron 24-70f/2.8 VC. It's my birthday next week so she decided on an early present after speaking to my daughter after was discussing all this with her. So looks like the 24-85 is a no go now. Will look forward to trying the Tamron out.

Click to expand...

The D750 is outstanding and been shooting with mine since last November. Hopefully we wont see any threads from you stating, " My DSLR gear is too heavy, going back to Mirrorless etc"