Jump to content




The above adverts really do help Fotozones. Please click on them if they are relevant to you. Not seeing them? Just exclude Fotozones from your ad blocker. Thanks!


Photo
- - - - -

Nikon 24-85mm f/2.8-4D IF


  • Please log in to reply
5 replies to this topic

Poll: Rate this lens (13 member(s) have cast votes)

Rate this lens

  1. 1 Star - appalling (0 votes [0.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 0.00%

  2. 2 Stars - below average (2 votes [15.38%])

    Percentage of vote: 15.38%

  3. 3 Stars - average (6 votes [46.15%])

    Percentage of vote: 46.15%

  4. Voted 4 Stars - above average (5 votes [38.46%])

    Percentage of vote: 38.46%

  5. 5 Stars - outstanding (0 votes [0.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 0.00%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#1 Dallas

Dallas

    Fotozones Owner

  • Administrators
  • 18,150 posts
  • LocationDurban, South Africa
  • Edit my pics?:Yes

Posted 13 March 2010 - 08:10

Have you used this lens? If so please let us know about your experience with it.

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:

Amazon.com | Amazon.co.uk | Amazon.de | Adorama | B&HThinkTankPhoto | Digital REV | OWC or DONATE via PayPal (donor list)

 

 

Follow Me On: social-facebook-box-blue-icon.png social-twitter-box-blue-icon.png YouTube-icon.png google-icon.png 


#2 helioer

helioer

    Advanced Member

  • Life Member
  • 666 posts
  • LocationHelsinki

Posted 13 March 2010 - 13:00

I had this lens for about one year and replaced it with 24-70/2.8G because corner area sharpness at large apertures of the 24-85 was not good enough. "Eye-opening" event was a low light outdoor hockey game where I did most of the shooting with a 70-200/2.8 VR I and I used the 24-85 for the team photos. I replaced the 24-85 the next week.

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.

Erkki

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)...


#3 Clactonian

Clactonian

    Advanced Member

  • Life Member
  • 362 posts
  • LocationEssex Sunshine Coast
  • Edit my pics?:Ask Me

Posted 13 March 2010 - 20:28

I use it as my walk about lens. I'm not a pixel peeper and find the results on both my D70 and D2Xs more than acceptable. The macro facility, whilst not as good as a dedicated macro lens, is very useful. In essence I would say good value for money.
Still trying.

#4 Jason Ross

Jason Ross

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 19 posts

Posted 05 April 2010 - 11:52

Overall this lens may not be the quality on the Nikon 24-70 on a D3s but it's just as good at 24mm and the lens handles a lot better than the Nikon 24-70, I love the macro mode and it works very well for flower photos, it's a well made lens and both zoom and focus rings are very smooth, the Nikon 24-85 is fantastic on my Nikon F4 and it works on my Nikon FM2 and F2.

#5 Preston

Preston
  • Life Member
  • 7 posts
  • LocationSt. Louis, Missouri
  • Edit my pics?:Ask Me

Posted 05 July 2010 - 18:29

I bought this lens in 2002 as a general purpose optic to go with a D100.  The performance is excellent on a DX sensor.  Now that I'm using on a D700, I can see the barrel distortion at 24mm, slight pincushion at 85mm and chromatic aberration on the edges wide open.  The sharpness sweet spot is f/8.0 and visible chromatic problems are gone.  While the 24-70mm is a better optical performer, for a workhorse lens, I'd miss the macro and rack out to 85mm on the FX sensor. 

#6 gsabbio

gsabbio

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 20 posts
  • LocationItaly

Posted 01 October 2010 - 09:18

I bought mine one in 2004, along with a D70, it was the core of my first digital SLR gear.

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





The above adverts really do help Fotozones. Please click on them if they are relevant to you. Not seeing them? Just exclude Fotozones from your ad blocker. Thanks!


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

Starting your shopping here doesn't cost you anything more, but by using the links above (or any others found on the site) you are advising the affiliate that you support this website. This results in a small commission that helps with the running costs. If your preferred outlet isn't among those listed above you can also support the site by making a donation of any amount via PayPal (no PayPal account required). Any donation will be most appreciated.