why not the 24-85 2.8?

Joined
Apr 6, 2005
Messages
425
Location
Glen Allen, Virginia
comparing against the 28-70 2.8 ED.....Is it because its D glass and not ED? Just dont understand the difference in price and would love the added range but dont want to give up quality....
 
K

kengo

Guest
The D on this lens stands for it having a distance chip for flash metering, the ED on the 28-70 afs stands for the a type of glass used in the 28-70 afs. An ED on the lens doesn't equate a lens to be more expensive, sine the 24-85 F3.5 AFS ED is even cheaper than the 24-85mm F2.8-4. The 28-70 is expensive because it has a constant 2.8 across all focal length.
 
Joined
Jan 26, 2005
Messages
1,011
Location
San Jose, CA
There's only one way to find out for sure, Yahtzee. Buy a 24-85, and see if it satisfies your lust. If not, you can always
trade up later. Personally, though, I think the 70-200 has spoiled you for consumer lenses :twisted:.

The financially responsible solution would be to sell your 70-200 and replace it with a 70-300. Then your other
lenses wouldn't suffer by comparison ;).
 
Joined
Apr 6, 2005
Messages
425
Location
Glen Allen, Virginia
Uncle Frank said:
There's only one way to find out for sure, Yahtzee. Buy a 24-85, and see if it satisfies your lust. If not, you can always
trade up later. Personally, though, I think the 70-200 has spoiled you for consumer lenses :twisted:.

The financially responsible solution would be to sell your 70-200 and replace it with a 70-300. Then your other
lenses wouldn't suffer by comparison ;).

you're real funny ...i actually sold my 70-300 ED to get my 70-200 (it basically covered the tax on it, lol)....not sure if you can tell yet, but i cant stand to settle....i know ill buy the 24-85 and then want the 28-70....ill just make it easy and buy it first. :D
 
Joined
May 2, 2005
Messages
273
Location
Reno, NV
The 24-85 3.5-4.5 Nikkor is VERY good glass. Much better quality per dollar than the 28-70 2.8 Nikkor.
 
Joined
Jan 26, 2005
Messages
1,011
Location
San Jose, CA
Preston said:
The 24-85 3.5-4.5 Nikkor is VERY good glass. Much better quality per dollar than the 28-70 2.8 Nikkor.

The premium is much smaller if you compare them by the ounce ;-).

Golf spelled backwards is flog.
 
R

Removed User 2

Guest
iiiiiihhhhh!!!! :shock:

Preston, I understand someone who likes this lens (24-85). Affordable with AF-S and nice overall feel.... However, the 24-85mm was one of the worst lens I used, ever. unusable until 45mm for softness and most of all, incredibly ugly Barrel distortion. And I noticed it was constantly underexposing, making it a 4-5.6 lens. I still can't believe how much the lens distorted, even on a 1.5 crop...

Have you tried shooting some architecture? Maybe I had a lemon... but I coubt it.

Regards!
 
Joined
Apr 30, 2005
Messages
145
Location
SF Bay Area
The G version (f/3.5-4.5) isn't a bad lens at all, and AFS to boot.

If you can live with the floppy/sloppy zoom barrel, which doesn't seem to interfere with image quality, this is a sharp little lens with good contrast, color rendition and decent boke. Size-wise, much more compact than the f/2.8 siblings.

Not as fast a light-gatherer as the 17-55 or the 28-70, but a competent walk-around or PJ style lens.
 

AFS

Joined
May 1, 2005
Messages
3,001
Location
Minnesota (formerly Florida)
aren't we talking about the 24-85mm f/2.8-4D AF-D?
It does have a changing aperture, which probably is a good deal of the price difference.
 
Joined
Apr 7, 2005
Messages
1,714
Location
Westlake Village, Ca. and 20 mi NW of Prescott, Az
AFS said:
aren't we talking about the 24-85mm f/2.8-4D AF-D?
It does have a changing aperture, which probably is a good deal of the price difference.

From B&H:
"Nikon Zoom Wide Angle-Telephoto AF Zoom Nikkor 24-85mm f/2.8-4.0D IF Autofocus Lens."

Aperture changes over zoom range like most "consumer" lenses.

FWIW: I have the F3.5-4.5 version and I'm very satisfied with it's performance. My copy is slightly sharper and contrastier than the kit lens. Oh, this version has AFS whereas the F2.8-4.0 version is 'screw-drive' focus. This might only be an issue for sport events. ???

JohnG
 
Joined
May 7, 2005
Messages
811
Location
North Carolina - Western
I have both the 24-85 G and 28-70 AF-S. They both have their place, although usually not on the same photo trip. The 24-85 is a nice little lens, light and easy to use. The 28-70 is a superior lens, with a lot of glass and very heavy, but that what it takes to have such a quality lens. I use the 24-85 as a "often carry" lens, often with flash. When I want a reliable quality image, I go for the 28-70.

Enjoy, Bill
 
Joined
Feb 2, 2005
Messages
2,868
Location
Sudbury, Massachusetts
I've owned both. The D version was very soft and not that great. The G on the other hand is very good and I've kept it. My wife uses it on the D100.
 

Latest threads

Links on this page may be to our affiliates. Sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.
Nikon Cafe is a fan site and not associated with Nikon Corporation.
Forum post reactions by Twemoji: https://github.com/twitter/twemoji
Forum GIFs powered by GIPHY: https://giphy.com/
Copyright © Amin Forums, LLC
Top Bottom