why not the 24-85 2.8?

Discussion in 'Lens Lust' started by yahtzee, May 31, 2005.

  1. 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....
  2. kengo

    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.
  3. 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 ;).
  4. 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
  5. Preston


    May 2, 2005
    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.
  6. The premium is much smaller if you compare them by the ounce ;-).

    Golf spelled backwards is flog.
  7. 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.

  8. MikeG


    Apr 30, 2005
    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.
  9. 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.
  10. 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. ???

  11. 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
  12. 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.