Nikon 24-85mm f/2.8-4D IF
Posted 13 March 2010 - 08:10
Please follow the guidelines for these threads (found in the stickies) and note that any posts not conforming with those guidelines may be removed without notice.
Please help me finance Fotozones by disabling your ad blocker for this site.
You can also support Fotozones by buying your gear from our affiliate advertisers using these links:
Posted 13 March 2010 - 13:00
Later on I had a similar experience when I took some indoor photos with the new 24-70 and my old Sigma 12-24. This resulted in purchasing the excellent 14-24/2.8G. I still have the Sigma though. The additional 2 mm on the wide end makes a difference in some situations (when using a DX sensor). I have not used the Sigma with my D3 ever since. It is soft in the corners. Stopping down to f8 helps a little.
Anyway I liked the macro capability and the "extra" 15 mm on the longer end compared with the 24-70.
D3s, D3, D200, D70
FX: Nikon 14-24/2.8G, 24-70/2.8G, 28/1.8G, 70-200/2.8G VR, 300/2.8G VR, 60/2.8D+105/2.8D micro, 85/1.4D, 16/2.8D, 50/1.4G, 500/8 reflex C, Sigma 8/3.5 EX, 12-24 EX, 150/2.8 OS EX...
TC: TC-14 E II, TC-17 E II, TC-20 E III
DX: 10.5/2.8, 18-70, 18-200
4*SB800's, R1C1 kit with 3*SB-R200, YN-622 kit (TX+4*RC)...
Posted 13 March 2010 - 20:28
Posted 05 April 2010 - 11:52
Posted 05 July 2010 - 18:29
Posted 01 October 2010 - 09:18
Indeed, on a 6mp DX sensor, the results were always appreciable and the contrast was good.
For this reason I did not sold it when I coupled it with a VR 24-120 (more helpful for my needs).
So, after some years of intense usage, I left it for a long time in a drawer, except for some high mountains hiking where I used it thanks to its relatively low weight and small dimensions.
Only one years ago, I decided to make some deep test comparing it with the VR 24-120 on a 12mp camera (D300)
The purpose of this was: 'Do I need a 24-70 2,8 or the overall quality of the 24-85 is enough for my needs?' The reason of this silly question was: as both the two lenses are not stabilized (that is one of my 'must') if the quality would be good, the 24-85 would be enough for my 'high quality needs'
The results were a real surprise!
Unfortunately on a 12mp camera at 2,8 full wide, the 24-85 is really a bad performer, especially in the corners/edges (widely worse than the VR 24-120) stopping down to 4-5,6 the situation becomes good in the centre but not acceptable in the corners/edges.
Stopped to f8 it becomes good/very-good in the centre and acceptable in the corners/edges, quite better than the VR 24-120 at least in the centre.
That was a real surprise, it was predicted to me as a good performance lens (lightweight but close to professional needs) but this was not true.
At the end I sold it right away and I happily bought the 24-70 f2,8.
Conclusion: good in the centre but insufficient at the edges unless you stop to f8.
Good colour rendition
Appreciable for hiking purposes the macro function.
Good if used on a DX 6mp camera, it shows its weak point of the insufficient definition in the corner/edges on more mp SLR.
I do not care about distortion.
As the sharpness is quite low at the edges, the CA is not an issue (I have no idea of it)
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users
An appeal to all Fotozones visitors: please help me to keep this site going by starting your gear purchases using any one of the affiliate links shown below:
Amazon.com | Amazon.co.uk | Amazon.de | Adorama.com | thinkTank Photo | DigitalRev.com | OWC | B&H or Donate via PayPal