24-85 D f2.8-4 w/D200

I had this lens for a short time, and I thought it was OK, but I didn't think it was worth the $500+ brand new that B&H was charging for it. Actually, I preferred the $250 28-105/3.5-4.5 for its sharpness and color a bit more. For an absolute bargain, you should also consider the 35-70/2.8. B&H is selling this discontinued lens for $459! It was well over $1K back when it was a photo jounalist and wedding photography staple! I love it!

 

I had no issues on my D200. In fact, I thought it's auto focus was extremely fast for not being an AF-S lens. If you are going to get a 28-70, I would definely urge you to look at the 35-70 as well. For 1/3rd of the price I thought it was actually a bit sharper, and its colors were every bit as good. I actually returned the 28-70 after comparing the two. Here are a couple of quick hand held portraits of my wife that I shot with the 35-70/2.8 last week.

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

View attachment 88651

View attachment 88652

 

I had the 24-85mm F2.8-4 and I used it on the D70. It was nice and I liked it better than the 18-70 kit lens because of the larger aperture. I sold them both because they failed me in backlight situations outdoors.

 

Thanks Jeff. I love photography and I enjoy sharing the information that I have learned over the years. I am very passionate about my lenses and I love my primes. Here is a great little zoom lens that does not give me problems on the beach. It is the Nikon 35-105mm F3.5-4.5AFD.

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

 

Hi Jeff...

I know this isn't answering your exact question, but when I was looking at getting the Nikon 24-85 f/2.8-4, I was persuaded by the reports and discussion on different forums about the difference between the 24-85 f/2.8-4 and the AF-S f/3.5-4.5, that I eventually got the 24-85 f/3.5-4.5 AF-S version of it. Not that there is anything wrong with the 24-85 f/2.8-4, its just that the f/3.5-4.5 version was shown to be sharper with equal or better IQ, and it was almost half the price.

There is an interesting article by Thom Hogan about this lens... And I guess if its good enough for Thom, well then its good enough for me... LOL...
Link to the article..
http://www.bythom.com/2485lens.htm

Here is a shot with a D80 and the 24-85 f/3.5-4.5, and then a 100% view...

Original....
D80~24-85 @ 85mm, f/5.6, EV-0.3, ISO100

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

100% crop
View attachment 88654


Even thou I have the Nikon 28-70 f/2.8, I use the 24-85 when ever I want a light weight lens that will deliver sharp photos with great IQ....

Good luck with your final decision, hope this has helped you....

 

I agree -- the f3.5 version of this lens is excellent. I still have mine, even though I ultimately purchased the 17-55mm f2.8. I should sell it as it stays in the cupboard but it gave me a lot of great shots.

PaulC

 

Dave :


I have both, and I'd give an edge to the 28-70mm AFS f/2.8 over the 35-70mm f/2.8 in the overall "feel" to the lens. There's something about the Beast that's just bit better, and in some circumstances, it's unbeatable.

OTOH, the 35-70mm has a very servicable macro mode (just used it ten minutes ago, actually, to fire off some fast flower photos I'd promised to a friend over the 'phone last night), and the push-pull is in some circumstances rather fun to shoot with.

I picked up the 35-70mm as a back-up to my Beast on Ron Reznick's recommendation, and, like so many things Sensei Ron has told me, it was very solid advice. The lens is built like a tank, crisp wide-open, and, as noted, the colours through this glass are rich and flavourful. More than once, I've picked up the 35-70mm and put in the bag for the day instead of the Beast - a change of pace with glass can sometimes inspire my photography, I find.

Anyone who's pining for the Beast but can't find the funds right now is well advised to consider the 35-70mm f/2.8 AF as an extremely viable and more affordable fast glass zoom alternative.



John P.

 

Clearly this stuff is all subjective. I wanted to love the 28-70, but both copies I had really didn't have the sharpness I was looking for (though the color and contrast were beautiful). I actually have a 17-55 as my main everything lens, and It has that color and contrast that the beast has and is much sharper IMO. I use the 35-70 to fill the gap between 55-70, then my 70-200VR takes over from there.

That said, I do use the 35-70 for portrait stuff from time to time, but I also have the 85/1.4 and the 50/1.4 so its always a battle for camera time between the lens lineup.

As long as you're shooting and having fun, its all good!

 

Dave :


The hidden thing about all of these lenses is that there's a lot more product quality variation than the manufacturers want to admit.

I've had one lens that almost made me think I was simply a pathetically inferior photographer - I simply couldn't get crisp images from the lens - and I had friends who were producing fine quality images with their copies of the lens. One day, I switched lenses with my friend, and I proceeded to get good shots, while he struggled fruitlessly with my lens on his camera. I got rid of that lens, and came to understand that sometimes, the lens is what can make or break a shot.

A number of people here at the Café have commented on getting lenses that didn't perform and either trading them out, or having them serviced by the manufacturer to bring them up to spec. I just had my 28-70mm in for a "tune-up", and I'm seeing just a bit more sharpness in the images. But I'll never forget that bad lens.

As I said, it's a lot more common than many people realise.

Even so, your comment about perspective and subjectivity also plays into this. For some folks, a given lens is "better", and that's the set of results they achieve with it. It might be a self-fulfilling prophecy, or it might be something more concrete that they just don't put their finger on, but the results are what count...

Me, I've had great luck with the 12-24mm, 28-70mm, and 70-200mm for my "medium" sized kit walking around, but I do like to substitute the 35-70mm sometimes, occasionally changing out the 12-24mm for a recently acquired 17-35mm where I don't need as much WA, but might have lower light. I'm very lucky or blessed or something to be able to make those switches.



John P.