Nikkor 24-85: Pleasantly Surprised

[greenmanphoto]

All,

This is a photo from a reception at a local museum, taken with the Nikkor 24-85, set at 24mm and f5.6, shot on the D700. After hearing a fair bit about how poor the corners are on this lens, as well as the edges in general, I'm pleasantly surprised here.

This is SOOC, with the exception of being shot in Raw and converted to JPG, and while I make no claims to being a great, outstanding photo, I'm still pleased with the IQ.



Sam

--

Sam B.
D200, 16-85mm, 35-135mm, Sigma 10-20 f3.5 N8008s, Gitzo 2531, Induro DM-01 ballhead
Certified Texas Master Naturalist
Proud WSSA Member #260!
www.flickr.com/photos/sibeardjr
www.doormouse-editions.com

 

[Clubby]

Not sure what you are seeing here but the edges (look at the guy in the left corner munching away) are pretty soft in my book and the distortion is awful. The 24-85 is a very decent kit-lens, sure, but nothing to write home about really.

 

[greenmanphoto]

Not sure what you are seeing here but the edges (look at the guy in the left corner munching away) are pretty soft in my book and the distortion is awful. The 24-85 is a very decent kit-lens, sure, but nothing to write home about really.

Clubby,

Granted, it's not a stellar lens, and this example could certainly be better. However, after reading all the things I've read about this lens, and its poor performance in the corners and edges, I'm surprised.

One thing to keep in mind regarding the gentleman in the lower left corner is his proximity to me versus the focus point, which is in the center of the image, more or less on the gentleman standing with the black sweater/jacket. At an f5.6 aperture, the DOF would mean the gentleman in the left isn't going to be very sharp anyway.

Again, it's not an outstanding image, I concede. I'm just pleasantly surprised at the edge/corner IQ after all I've read.

Thanks,

Sam

 

[Bob L.]

Your D700 is a 12 megapixel camera. If you use the 24 - 85 on a 36 megapixel camera like a D800 - D810, the 24 - 85 will not look so good especially in the corners and sides. I have a 24 - 85 and compared to the more expensive 24 - 120 VR. (I have both lenses) Both lenses were very similar in the center (F5.6 - F11) but when you look at the sides and edges of the photo, the 24 - 85 (at least my copy) does not look good compared to the 24 - 120 VR. Now maybe I have a bad copy of the 24 - 85 ? I can't say - but - you will never know how good or bad your 24 - 85 lens is until you compare it to another lens. Bob L.

Below is a shot taken on an overcast day with the 24 - 85 VR on my Nikon D810 full frame SOOC. Taken at 35 mm @ F8.0. Check the edges and corners for smearing in the shingles on the roof and the trees in the background.



Same shot below but taken with the 24 - 120 VR. 35 mm @ F 8.0 SOOC. The center is very similar to the 24 - 85 but the corners have more contrasts and higher IQ than the 24 - 85. Check both photos full frame - especially on the sides and corners and you can see the difference ...

 

[greenmanphoto]

Bob,

I'm sure you're correct about the resolution of the camera playing a major role, and I at least THOUGHT about that REALLY hard when I was typing my messages! :-D Seriously, though, I MEANT to say that I'm sure a higher-resolution camera would display a much different result. However, for my D700, it seems fairly decent, particularly since I bought my lens refurbished for something around $330 or so!

At some point, I'll get either a 24-120 or a 24-70 of some sort. I'm seriously considering the Tamron, if I go with the 24-70, as I've been happy with the 70-200 f2.8 I have and I've heard seriously good things about it, and it better fits my budget than the Nikkor. But the 24-120 is also a contender for the reach it provides over the 24-70.

Sam

 

[David Thornburg]

Sam,

Just to chime in as another 24-85 owner (got it with D610 'kit'), I can agree it's a decent lens, and high on the performance/cost scale.

 

[greenmanphoto]

Sam,

Just to chime in as another 24-85 owner (got it with D610 'kit'), I can agree it's a decent lens, and high on the performance/cost scale.

 

[bakhtyar kurdi]

If you are talking about corner sharpness, at 24mm the Nikon 24-70/2.8 never gets as sharp as the (kit lens) 24-85 VR, and that is on 36MP camera, and the distortion is not much better.

You have right not to believe that, but if you don't own the 2.8 zoom, go to a camera store with your tripod and try it before you spend $2000 and don't gain much improvement.

Yes the 24-70 is 2.8, focuses faster, built like a tank, but when it comes to sharpness don't expect miracles.

If you are a pixel peeper and need flat sharpness across the frame (of course stopped down) get the Samyang 14mm 2.8, Samyang 24mm 1.4 and Samyang 35 1.4, that is for wide area coverage.

For 50mm and up there too many good choices.

 

[nealix]

If you are talking about corner sharpness, at 24mm the Nikon 24-70/2.8 never gets as sharp as the (kit lens) 24-85 VR, and that is on 36MP camera, and the distortion is not much better.

You have right not to believe that, but if you don't own the 2.8 zoom, go to a camera store with your tripod and try it before you spend $2000 and don't gain much improvement.

Yes the 24-70 is 2.8, focuses faster, built like a tank, but when it comes to sharpness don't expect miracles.

Interesting. Did you try more than one copy of the 24-70 F2.8?

It happens to be an amazingly sharp lens and worth the money. Perhaps you tested a bad copy or needed some AF Fine Tune and did not apply it?

I shoot landscape with the 24-70 F2.8 on my D750 camera. I then print large, approx 22 to 36 inches wide. The prints are so sharp that on panoramas of a pier at the beach, you can see each handrail and each wire on a light tower.

I have both lenses. Don't "dis" the 24-70. It's an amazing lens.

No argument on the primes below, they are known good choices.

Cheers,

Neal

If you are a pixel peeper and need flat sharpness across the frame (of course stopped down) get the Samyang 14mm 2.8, Samyang 24mm 1.4 and Samyang 35 1.4, that is for wide area coverage.

For 50mm and up there too many good choices.

 

[Tim Tucker]

The Nikon 24-85 kit lens is an excellent lens for the money giving great centre sharpness. So the corners are a little fuzzy but you would have to spend considerably more money to get a zoom with sharper corners.

If examining corners at 100% is your thing then you will always find fault.


Nikkor 24-85/3.5-4.5G VR and Loch Linnie

So why did I sell mine? I prefer my MF primes, I found the rendering of the 24-85 a little harsh (too much micro-contrast?) and the distortion a little annoying.

--
http://timtuckerphoto.smugmug.com/

 

[Clubby]

If you are talking about corner sharpness, at 24mm the Nikon 24-70/2.8 never gets as sharp as the (kit lens) 24-85 VR, and that is on 36MP camera, and the distortion is not much better.

You have right not to believe that, but if you don't own the 2.8 zoom, go to a camera store with your tripod and try it before you spend $2000 and don't gain much improvement.

Yes the 24-70 is 2.8, focuses faster, built like a tank, but when it comes to sharpness don't expect miracles.

If you are a pixel peeper and need flat sharpness across the frame (of course stopped down) get the Samyang 14mm 2.8, Samyang 24mm 1.4 and Samyang 35 1.4, that is for wide area coverage.

For 50mm and up there too many good choices.

The 24-70 2.8 is only a little softer in the far corners at 24mm when you shoot wide open. Stop down a tad (and I dont mean f/8, I mean anything smaller than f/2.8) and it is sharp from corner to corner, much sharper than the 24-85 and that goes for all focal lenghts. And it is not just about sharpness or being "build like a tank", it's about overall rendition, colors, microcontrast etc. I know that it is kind of a sport to convince oneself to not having to shell out that kind of money but the sad truth of the matter is, that you can't replace the Nikon 24-70 2.8 with Samyangs as much as I too would like it. If OP wanted primes he would have bought them, because good (!) primes will always be better than zooms, but if you want a normal-zoom there is no way around the 24-70 2.8 if you want top quality and near-prime performance. Trust me i've been there. I spend hundreds of euros avoiding the 24-70 2.8 because I couldn't bring myself to dish out that kind of money, because I am not a Pro and everybody said, that I "don't need it". In the end I threw money out of the window not buying the real thing in the first place.

 

[Demoguy]

Sam

I picked up the Nikon 24-85mm refurbished from Adorama on special for $296.00. For that kind of money I was not expecting much. I am pleasantly surprised at the image quality I get from this lens on my D750. Price -performance ratio cant be beat and for more critical images I have a set of low cost primes that are better than I am. It is a nice size for a walk around lens and would be the mid range zoom for the redneck trinity 18-35mm. 24-85mm and 70-300mm .

Joe

 

[RomanP]

I shoot with 24-85 attached to my D600 and I love it. Who cares that the corners are a little fuzzy? Since when is composition and quality of the photo established by how sharp the corners are? If I was shooting group shots or architecture then perhaps I'd pay more attention to corners but for everyday photography it's a moot point. Here are some landscape albums shot with the Nikon 24-85mm: Album 1 Album 2

Ken Rockwell has a great article about sharpness . At first I didn't believe him, but there is "sky is falling!" syndrome when talking about these minor sharpness details among lenses. As Ken puts it, any modern lens should be able to take sharp photos. If not, then it's the fault of the photographer.

But I was curious about the 24-70 f2.8. So I rented the beast to shoot an engagement party for my friends. I took about 1000 shots and generated some good ones. However, colors and sharpness were on par with my 24-85mm. The only exception was the quality of Bokeh @70mm / f2.8. It took great portraits. Was it worth its $1800 price tag? No way. The only reason I'd go for the 24-70 is to get the great Bokeh effect of f2.8. It's the only justifiable reason.

 

[Jose Rocha]

Was it worth its $1800 price tag? No way. The only reason I'd go for the 24-70 is to get the great Bokeh effect of f2.8. It's the only justifiable reason.

Didn't you notice any difference in AF speed, build quality, distortion, sharpness wide open, sharpness in the corners, ...?

The "only justifiable reason", you say? Pfffff... You should hang out with the 24-70 more often! There are several reasons for the difference in price tag between the two lenses.

 

[RomanP]

Was it worth its $1800 price tag? No way. The only reason I'd go for the 24-70 is to get the great Bokeh effect of f2.8. It's the only justifiable reason.

Didn't you notice any difference in AF speed, build quality, distortion, sharpness wide open, sharpness in the corners, ...?

The "only justifiable reason", you say? Pfffff... You should hang out with the 24-70 more often! There are several reasons for the difference in price tag between the two lenses.

--
http://500px.com/joserocha81

24-85 vs 24-70

Build quality:

When was the last time your dropped your lens or camera? Why is everyone going on about build quality as if lenses break apart or crack on a regular basis? Unless you're deployed as a photojournalist in harsh conditions, there is no need to talk about build quality.. the Nikon 24-85 has plenty of build quality and I have used it in the mountains for 2 years.

AF speed:
The 24-85 is plenty fast and it has a USM motor. I couldn't really tell the difference when using the 24-70 f2.8.

Distortion:
I can't remember how much the f2.8 distorts @24mm, but most medium zooms today distort a lot at that focal length. Lightroom 5 corrects them all. Barrel, pin, vertical straightening...it's amazing.

Sharpness at corners:
I took a look at your 500px album. Great photos. But I noticed most of your 24-70mm photos are shot at f4 or above, especially the architecture. Your architecture photography could be easily recreated with the 24-85...most of that is shot at f5.6 and above, as it should be. Please, show me a f2.8 example where the corner sharpness has been critical in the composition of the photo (as in, oh no the photo is ruined if these corners aren't sharp).

Sharpness wide open:
Great example here:
https://500px.com/photo/33001571/old-tech-tablet-by-josé-rocha?from=user
The subject is in focus and the background has an excellent Bokeh....your subject is well isolated. This could be done with the 24-85 @85 f/4.5 with the same sharpness. But the photo wouldn't look as good because of poorer Bokeh.

My conclusion is that unless you shoot primarily at f2.8, and you need the Bokeh effect, the 24-85 will do 90% of the work.

 

[ADMint]

The forums are full of images of what the 24-85 is about so I not going to post images here, but I have posted images I've shot with it and feel it's an outstanding lens. It's my everyday lens on my D800E.

And yes, I too decided to skip the 24-70 in favor of keeping my 24-85 while saving $1300 dollars.

In the end you have to ask yourself is there a 1300 dollar performance difference between the two?

If you’re a pro selling your work to ad agencies or something of that nature, and don’t mind the weight… than maybe.

But for the 90 percent of us who aren’t pro’s in that sense, I don’t see a 1300 dollar difference.

My two cents.

--
New to this forum, not to forums!

 

[greenmanphoto]

All,

While I appreciate the comments on the 24-85, as well as the 24-70, I must say that I don't currently have plans on purchasing a 24-70. Having said that, if I DID purchase one, at this point, I'd have to say it would be the Tamron and not the Nikkor. I have two other Tamron lenses, including the 70-200 f2.8, and I've been pretty happy with them. I've heard good things about the Tamron 24-70, as well, and have read some good reviews of it. For the price difference between it and the Nikkor, and for my experiences and needs, it would serve me quite well, I'm sure.

IMHO, there are reasons to purchase a 24-70, or a 24-120 or the Sigma 24-105, over the 24-85. Among these reasons, I include the idea of a fixed aperture versus a variable one, which is a big reason I bought the Sigma 17-50 f2.8 over my Nikkor 16-85. Another reason is that, generally speaking, lenses perform better stopped down a stop or two compared to wide open, and if you're already at f4 or f5.6, then stopping down puts you up to f8 or so, and that doesn't always work well, for a variety of reasons. Starting with an f2.8 lens and stopping down one or two stops puts you in a more reasonable aperture for most activities that *I* would be using the lens for, including sports and as a general-purpose lens on the D700. In that respect, an f2.8 lens, or even an f4 lens, makes considerable sense over a variable aperture lens like the 24-85. I do like the longer reach of the 24-85 over the 24-70, as well as the longer reach of the Sigma 24-105 and the Nikkor 24-120, which are reasons to consider them, along with the fixed aperture.

I bought the 24-85 to serve as a holdover until I was able to purchase either a 24-120, 24-70, or a 24-105. I have found it to, so far, to be a better-than-expected lens, which was the impetus for starting this thread.

Thanks all for the comments!

Sam

 

[RomanP]

Sam, I just recently wrote a review comparing the Nikon 24-85 to the Sigma 24-105. I really don't believe the 24-85 can be beat, for the price.

Loading…

www.dpreview.com

 

[greenmanphoto]

Roman,

Thanks! I'll check it out. My main reason, besides the advantage of a fixed max aperture, is the extra reach. I'll use this lens a lot for shooting adventure and bike races, so having a bit longer reach would be nice!

Thanks again,

Sam

 

[Jose Rocha]

Build quality:

When was the last time your dropped your lens or camera? Why is everyone going on about build quality as if lenses break apart or crack on a regular basis? Unless you're deployed as a photojournalist in harsh conditions, there is no need to talk about build quality.. the Nikon 24-85 has plenty of build quality and I have used it in the mountains for 2 years.

Build quality is not only equal to drop resistance or whatever... Build quality is something you feel with your hands while using it. Things like the way the zoom ring feels, the hood sturdiness, the environment sealing, the coldness of the metal on your hands, etc. All these things add to the final price.

AF speed:
The 24-85 is plenty fast and it has a USM motor. I couldn't really tell the difference when using the 24-70 f2.8.

Then I guess you didn't use the 24-70 at all! The 24-70 is the fastest focusing standard zoom lens available for Nikon, full stop. If you ever used a 70-200 VR II you know the 24-70 is only a hair slower (I have it as well). And there's a huge difference in speed and precision between the 24-70 and the 24-85 in low light. There's a reason why event shooters or photojournalists can't live with a 24-85, they can't afford having a lens that hunts indoors.

Distortion:
I can't remember how much the f2.8 distorts @24mm, but most medium zooms today distort a lot at that focal length. Lightroom 5 corrects them all. Barrel, pin, vertical straightening...it's amazing.

The 24-70 has a lot of distortion at 24mm but it's well corrected everywhere else. The 24-85 is a feast of distortion at almost all focal lengths. You may say that LR corrects it but you know that doing changes to like that to an image will degrade IQ at some amount. Distortion correction needs special/more glass, and that quantity/quality of glass adds to the final price of the 24-70.

Sharpness at corners:
I took a look at your 500px album. Great photos. But I noticed most of your 24-70mm photos are shot at f4 or above, especially the architecture. Your architecture photography could be easily recreated with the 24-85...most of that is shot at f5.6 and above, as it should be. Please, show me a f2.8 example where the corner sharpness has been critical in the composition of the photo (as in, oh no the photo is ruined if these corners aren't sharp).

My album is basically about leisure photos, and it's more than 1 year outdated. Before the 24-70 I had a 28-105 that did basically the same thing, only with worse rendering for my taste. I could live well with the 28-105 or the 24-85 if I only did this kind of photos, you're right! But that's not the reason why I bought the 24-70, and the justification is not shown in that 500px album. Stuff like portraits or other serious work like event shoots are not there for personal reasons.

Sharpness wide open:
Great example here:
https://500px.com/photo/33001571/old-tech-tablet-by-josé-rocha?from=user
The subject is in focus and the background has an excellent Bokeh....your subject is well isolated. This could be done with the 24-85 @85 f/4.5 with the same sharpness. But the photo wouldn't look as good because of poorer Bokeh.

My conclusion is that unless you shoot primarily at f2.8, and you need the Bokeh effect, the 24-85 will do 90% of the work.

You didn't talk neither about CAs nor the fact that the 24-70 is a constant f/2.8 lens. The 24-85 has tons of CA, you know? The fact that your camera or LR corrects it automatically don't mean that both lenses are equal in those departments.

Bottom line is, your comparison is just based on your needs and doesn't tell anything about the real quality of both lenses. People like me who needs a fast standard zoom for events or portraits will have a good justification buying the versatile 24-70 or a collection of good primes. Others don't and shouldn't spend that amount of money.