Nikon 24-85mm VR or 24-120 VR

[ZestandLeisure]

I am planning to buy Nikon D810 and I am looking to buy a lens for travel/everyday use. I am not able to decide between these 2 lenses-

1. AF-S NIKKOR 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5G ED VR
2. AF-S NIKKOR 24-120mm f/4G ED VR

My primary question is between the two lenses, which is better at taking sharp images. Please let me know your experience

 

[Mach Schnell]

When I faced a similar decision a few years back (D800e), the 24-85 VR was not yet available. So I opted for the 24-120 f/4. The 24-120 is a fine lens. I have no real complaints with it. To demonstrate how much Nikon believes in this lens, they have embued it with the gold ring. The only drawback with the 24-120 is size and weight. It is a fairly substantial lens.

Had the 24-85 been available when I was looking I would have given it serious consideration as it is smaller, lighter, and less expensive. From what I have read about image quality on these two lenses, I doubt you would see much, if any, difference. The 24-120 will likely eke out slightly sharper corners when stopped down. I don't think you'll see any other difference in image quality.

 

[mbernard]

These lenses have similar sharpness but the 24-120 has a better focal range, especially for travelling.

 

[gear1box]

i had both lenses with my d600. The 24-120's sharpness wide open deteriorates above 80mm or so; of course the 24-85 doesn't even go there. OTOH @ f5.6 both lenses seem to perform quite well across the board in practical shooting; the long end of the 24-120 still is a bit softer though.

If money is tight and you don't tend to use the tele end and money's tight the 24-85 is perfectly useable. It is also a bit smaller/lighter.

But the 24-120 is a very practical general purpose/tourist lens. Take a couple of f1.8Gs primes for "perfect" shots and a tele-zoom and you all set.

A bulkier and heavier alternative -- but by all accounts consistent sharpness everywhere -- is the Sigma 24-105. i did not pick it due to the size, bulk, tele end, and a past history with Sigma quality (not that Nikon is perfect). But it is probably the best FF mid-zoom optically at this point.

-- gary ray
Semi-professional in early 1970s; just a putzer since then. interests: historical sites, virginia, motorcycle racing. A nikon user more by habit than choice; still, nikon seems to work well for me.

 

[JanMatthys]

what is the price difference?

I was extremely disappointed with the 24-120 b/c images above 80mm are completely soft wide-open. So you have to either keep the lens at F/5.6 to get acceptable results above 80mm or remember to close it down at F/5.6 . If you forget to close it down, you'll end up with a bunch of soft images but if you keep it closed at F/5.6 then why the premium for a constant F/4 lens?

Either way, if they are priced the same or with-in $50 of each other, get the 24-120, otherwise get the 24-85mm and just walk a few steps or crop to make up for the 120mm.

 

[briantilley]

Please let me know your experience

I own both lenses, and regularly use them on a D810 (and on other bodies). The 24-120mm is my main portrait and general purpose lens and the lighter, smaller 24-85mm gets used for travel etc.

If sharpness is your main concern, I don't see much difference between them in the overlapping focal length range. The 24-120mm isn't quite as sharp at the longer end wide open, but it's still quite acceptable (to me) - and of course the 24-85mm doesn't give you that range at all. I posted a couple of examples at 120mm and f/4 over in this thread.

The 24-85mm does seem to suffer from a little more distortion, but for both lenses this is easily corrected in PS or Lightroom so I don't worry about it.

Focus speed also seems about the same - neither is blazing fast like a 300mm f/2.8, but they are still very good.

 

[SkvLTD]

-85 is still considered a hidden gem, and mine survived a full dip in a pool, so at the very least it is pretty water-proof besides being rated somewhat resistant. Otherwise I do bulk of my work with it to a point where front rubber ring is floppy and loose, but the lens just keeps on going and going.

 

[EJLiu]

Had 24-85VR w/ D800. All my gears were stolen on vacation last July.

Bought Sigma 24-105Art w/ D750.

Don't have any experience with 24-120mm VR

Comparing Nikon 24-85VR and Sigma 24-105Art, the biggest IQ difference is the contrast wide open. IQ w/ Sigma is snappier at all focal length. 24-105A also looks sharper even w/ 24mp on D750 than 24-85VR w/ 36mp on D800. 24-85VR is quite a bit lighter though.

 

[afoton]

I am planning to buy Nikon D810 and I am looking to buy a lens for travel/everyday use. I am not able to decide between these 2 lenses-

1. AF-S NIKKOR 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5G ED VR

When I bought this one, I had just about the same usage in mind. When talking about sharpness, I have no complaint. If field curvature and distortion is a problem or not, is all about the subject's character.

But the ergonomics doesn't fit me at all, and this is the only lens I have, that I don't master to use with mittens. So my intentions in using it as a winter lens, was not workable.

My primary question is between the two lenses, which is better at taking sharp images. Please let me know your experience

If sharpness is all you care about, I have no problem recommending the 24-85mm. I have no experience with the 24-120mm, so I can't say if that one is better or worse.

 

[NikonShoot3r]

I used to own the 24-85MM VR and kept the 24-120 F4 for extended range, nano coat. I have a very sharp copy.

Will most likely keep until if/when Nikon updates it to E FL version.

 

[pictureted]

When I bought a D810, I initially used primes (1.8G - 20, 28, 50, 85), as well as a 70-200/4. When a 24-85 was available as a refurb (almost silly cheap), I picked it up and it's become part of my regular travel kit. Since I already had the 70-200/4, the longer range of the 24-120 didn't matter. My travel kit is now - 20/1.8G, 24-85VR, 70-200/4 and a Voightlander 58/1.4. If a new 24-120 matched the 70-200 in the overlapping range, I'd think about it.

 

[ZestandLeisure]

In general D810 is $2500, 24-85mm VR is $500 and 24-120 VR is $1100; but if I buy camera & 24-120 VR combo, the special price they are offering now is $3200. But what I read from all the forums & blogs that 24-85mm VR takes sharp images. But after reading all your comments here I am planning to buy the combo offer (D810 & 24-120 VR).

 

[KR Photo]

I own the 24-85 and like it quite a bit. When I was looking for a zoom I also considered the 24-120, and I read a lot of reviews that said the two lenses deliver pretty indistinguishable IQ. So in the end I went with the smaller and lighter package.

For me, I really do value smaller and lighter when possible. It's not that I can't carry heavier lenses, but I feel like big lenses can make you a whole lot more conspicuous in many situations, and that's just not something I'm interested in. This is why, for example, I own the Nikon 35mm instead of the Sigma 35mm, even though I had the Sigma 30mm on DX and loved it.

 

[NearerNirvana]

Please let me know your experience

I too faced this dilemma recently so will give you my findings and opinion which is heavily based on my budget and needs (not necessarily yours) and a few test shoots, rather than a lot of user experience:

I tried a few samples of the 24-120 f/4 and the experience left me rather underwhelmed. That's not to say it was worse than the 24-85 VR. It just wasn't really any better. Certainly not over twice the price better.

I would far rather the 24-85vr plus the money for extra travel budget.

Or, as a travel photographer I find a fast prime indispensable. You could team the 24-85 up with a 50mm 1.4 for about the same money and weight.

Plus, with the D810 you have plenty pixels to spare to digitally zoom upto 120mm

Rgds, NN

--

My Travel Photos

 

[madecov]

I had both lenses, let the 24-85 go when I sold my D610.

I think the 24-120 has just slightly nicer contrast. Both were equally as sharp as far as I can tell.

 

[Nexu1]

Photography gear (in general) follows the principle of diminishing returns.

The 24-120 is a better lens all around. But it comes in a bigger, heavier, more expensive package. Only you can decide if the IQ improvements are "worth it".

I use the 24-120 and have been quite happy with it (although I tend to shoot my 35 & 85 primes more).

 

[saaber1]

FYI here are some info/examples from another thread also asking about the 24-120 f/4 VR.

Nikkor 24-120 f4...

...The lens is surpisingly sharp and extremely versatile. outdoor pets, kids, etc would not be a problem at all with the d750. I have used it for kids a lot. I find it does very well with landscapes also....

Ben Kanarek recently used this lens for the cover shot of Elle magazine (search for his post on dpreveiw).

I have tested the 24-120 F4 against the Zeiss 21 2.8, Zeiss 2/25, Sigma art 20mm, Nikon 28mm 2.8 AI-S, Nikon 28mm 1.8g, Nikon 24-70 2.8 (non VR), and I couldn't find a big enough difference in IQ to justify purchasing any of those for landscape use. It's a real bargain when purchased in the d750 kit.

Some shots for examples:

View attachment 760102

View attachment 760103

View attachment 760104

View attachment 760105

View attachment 760106

View attachment 760107

View attachment 760108

View attachment 760109

 

[JanMatthys]

I had both lenses, let the 24-85 go when I sold my D610.

I think the 24-120 has just slightly nicer contrast. Both were equally as sharp as far as I can tell.

--
Police Officer (Retired)

The out of focus areas are slightly better with the 24-120, the greens are a little softer (which I like) and the sharpness sweet-spot is around 50ish mm where it is tack sharp, however going past 80mm the lens falls off the cliff, has to be closed down to at least 5.6, preferably F/8 for decent results,

 

[JRT64]

I am planning to buy Nikon D810 and I am looking to buy a lens for travel/everyday use. I am not able to decide between these 2 lenses-

1. AF-S NIKKOR 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5G ED VR
2. AF-S NIKKOR 24-120mm f/4G ED VR

My primary question is between the two lenses, which is better at taking sharp images. Please let me know your experience

I have both lenses and use them on a D750. The image quality is very close between the two and will require pixel-peeking to notice. The main advantage of the 24-120 is the constant f/4 maximum apertures and the 85-120mm range. The disadvantage of the 24-120 is its size, weight, and cost.

I do think the 24-120/4 renders richer colors.

 

[John M Roberts]

When I bought a D810, I initially used primes (1.8G - 20, 28, 50, 85), as well as a 70-200/4. When a 24-85 was available as a refurb (almost silly cheap), I picked it up and it's become part of my regular travel kit. Since I already had the 70-200/4, the longer range of the 24-120 didn't matter. My travel kit is now - 20/1.8G, 24-85VR, 70-200/4 and a Voightlander 58/1.4. If a new 24-120 matched the 70-200 in the overlapping range, I'd think about it.

I mostly use the 24-120 along with the 20 1.8 for much of my hiking ventures. I'm surprised how well the tele has held up to my 24-70 2.8. I also have the both the 2.8 and 4 70-200 and for more reach of your tele along with the 24-85 is a good idea but I prefer less weight and lens changing. I researched quite a bit between these two lenses the OP is pondering and the bulk stated the 24-120 was better overall in the overlapping range. I wish they would make a 24-70 4 though. Canon does. If they did then I'm sure I'd switch over to using my 70-200 more and deal with an added lens.

--