Nikkor 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5 VR vs Nikkor 24-120 f/4.0 VR

[tbeam]

Hi all,

I recently upgraded from a D300 to a D800 and now I would like to buy a walkaround zoom lens for my new FX body.

I am currently considering two zoom lenses: Nikkor 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5 VR and the Nikkor 24-120 f/4.0 VR. I cannot afford the 24-70 f/2.8.

Based on your own experience, would you be able to advise on the two lenses mentioned above? Please forget about the price, the size and the different reach at the telephoto end.

What I’m really trying to find out is:

1) Which one of the two generally provides the better quality images?

2) How do they compare to the 16-85mm DX? (this is a lens I’m familiar with, as I was using with my D300)

Many thanks in advance for your help!

 

[breivogel]

I was in the same position. On my D300, the 16-85 was my walk-around lens. Good (but not great, especially at 16mm).

On my D800, I got the 24-85 initially. Then wondered if the 24-120 would be better, given the higher price. Bought (and returned) the 24-120 after some tests. Slightly better in the corners than the 24-85, but not really great. Between 85 and 120, I think you are better cropping the 24-85 lens. Also the 24-120 is heavier and larger. A bit better build, but not worth 2X the price.

Comparing images between the D300 and D800 (re-sized to D300 res), the 24-85 is better overall (especially on the wide end), though perhaps a bit more distortion than the 16-8.

For better wide end (24mm and less) the new 18-35G is a really good choice to complement the 24-85, give you a really lightweight kit.

 

[Les Freed]

breivogel wrote:

For better wide end (24mm and less) the new 18-35G is a really good choice to complement the 24-85, give you a really lightweight kit.

I agree 100%. I had the 24-120, but sold it and got the 24-85. I never was happy with that lens, either, so I bought the 24-85 VR. It is much sharper at the wide end, and I don't really miss the extra speed (and the VR more than makes up for it.)

I recently got the 18-35 AF-S, and I have been very impressed with it. My lightweight pick-up-and-go bag now contains just the D600, the 24-85 VR and the 18-35 AF-S. If I think I might need it, I'll add the 85 1.8D or the 50 1.D to the bag.

 

[inasir1971]

I've had a 24-120/4 VR and that was awful anywhere outside the center. There appears to be significant sample variation and I've seen several other members of the forum post with images showing decentering etc.

I recently bought a used 24-85 VR (almost new, $400) and it is much better than the sample of the 24-120/4 VR which I had. The additional 85-120 is the 24-120 is the weakest part of the lens and IMO not particularly useful.

My feeling is that they are close and any differences between are going to come down to individual sample variation.

 

[Chad Gladstone]

Had all three, kept the 24-85 and the 24-70. The 24-120 is overpriced and not remarkably better than the 24-85 and the latter is substantially more compact for a travel zoom. I still prefer the 28,50,85g primes to any other Nikon's in the range (on the 800).

There are plenty of cheap 24-85's on the market that were offered as "kit" lenses with the D600 recently, so you can probably pick one up for substantially less than the MAP if this is a consideration. I got mine to attempt video (vr implementation seems useful) but have not tried it for that application yet - those primes are just too good to take off the camera.

 

[Photographer124]

Had 24-85 ; sold it and bought 24-120 F4.

They have pretty much same image quality... but 24-120 has weather sealing, and I like having 120mm ... Constant F4 is also a bonus if you shoot M mode...

It also seems to have slightly more contrast in some situations than the 24-85... Nothing to write home though.

Good luck.