24-85 vs 28-105 Shootout

Peeb · Dec 12, 2016

Got in my latest ebay purchase: 24-85 f/3.5-4.5 Nikkor (non-VR).

I'll post my first hour's testing here.

Missy (my avatar) was not quite as excited as I was:

(apologies- focus caught on the nose, rather than the eyes- my bad)....

The subject of my outdoors test: an outhouse (I'm glamorous that way)...
Here is the old lens at widest setting (28mm) wide open:

New lens at widest (24mm) wide open:

The crapper at 105 mm:

And the new lens at longest (85mm):

Indoor test shots in next post...

Peeb · Dec 12, 2016

Messy photo drawer with old lens at widest (28mm):

New lens, wide (24mm):

Old lens: 105mm:

New lens (85mm):

My thoughts in the next post...

Peeb · Dec 12, 2016

The color and the contrast are CLEARLY better in the new lens than in the old lens (check out the dead leaves on the tree behind the crapper in the outdoors pics, and the saturation in the carpet colors in the indoor pics). While I prefer how the new lens renders much better than the old lens, I must admit that the extra 20mm reach on the old lens is not made up by the improved resolving power of the more modern glass.

STILL, I find I prefer the newer lens, as it's my opinion that if 85mm isn't long enough, then 105 very likley isn't either and you'll really need to go with the long glass in that instance.

The new (G) lens is quite 'at home' on the D610 (Nikon sold a ton of cameras with this camera until the VR version came along in 2006).

I don't have VR in the old 28-105 so I'm not missing it in the 24-105 at this point.

Overall- I'd say an excellent expenditure of $200 on Ebay. I'm pleased.

jcdeboever · Dec 12, 2016

I'd be curious how it would compare shooting buildings. I may wrong by I have not found a zoom lens yet that can compare to the 28-105 for minimal distortion.

Peeb · Dec 12, 2016

jcdeboever said:
I'd be curious how it would compare shooting buildings. I may wrong by I have not found a zoom lens yet that can compare to the 28-105 for minimal distortion.

The distortion in the 24-85 is SIGNIFICANTLY worse than in the 28-105. What I've posted is the post processing in photoshop using distortion correction for both.

You are absolutely correct.

jcdeboever · Dec 12, 2016

I was recently playing around with an old, ugly, Nikon 50-105mm AIS F3.5 that an old guy from the golf course I live on, has. He let me borrow it but it is in bad shape, zoom creep and beat to all get out. He said it was his main walk around lens. I shot like 20 test pics with it (D7200, a day and a half) and he called me all of a sudden in a panic and wanted it back (thank God I was on it), like I was gonna hold on to it and never give it back, weird...I have been trying to get to know him but unfortunately a heavy drinker and his mood is unpredictable. I have been carefully asking him questions over the last year on various golf outings but he clearly is annoyed with a newb photographer. I was shocked when he offered me to use the lens as I thought he slept with it frankly. Strange and angry man but the bartender lady at the club house says he thinks the world of me...confused.

Anyway, the color rendition, contrast, sharpness on this lens is superb. Didn't have the opportunity to test on buildings, I did put in my calendar to do so for what it is worth. If the 28-105mm had this, it would have been the perfect lens. I was able to slip a 6T on it (50-105) and that sold me for flowers using my F or FM. I need to score some Porta 160 to use for multiple exposures using the FM. The more I use the FM, the more I appreciate it. It is like my K1000, it just works.