24-85mm f/2.8-4D or 24-70mm f/2.8G

[photaholic]

my head is starting to spin haha

i was reading the exact same review as you mentioned.
Nikon 24-85mm f/2.8-4D AF Nikkor Test Review © 2004 KenRockwell.com

yea didnt think about the weight of body versus lens issue

back to block one it seems .......

My impression is that the 24-85 AF-D, the f/2.8~4 model is an old, film-era lens with adequate optics on OLDER, low-megapixel d-slr cameras; that the 2003-era and now discontinued 24-85 AF-S f/3.3~4.5 that I own has significantly better optics; and that the NEWEST 24-85, the AF-S VR-G model, has the best optical performance of all three designs, and while it is a slow lens aperture-wise, as Thom Hogan points out, it is actually up to the task of MODERN, high-megapixel digital sensor capture...the 24-85 AF-S VR-G was in fact, "the kit zoom" NIkon paired with the D600 at its introduction.

The other issue....are you aware of what a 40-ounce class 28-70 f/2.8 AF-S or 24-70mm f/2.8 AF-S Nikkor handles and carries like on a smaller, lighter camera body? It's like a BRICK, taped to the long end of a pool cue.

The 24-70/2.8 AF-S is long, and heavy, and is a nose-dive special on a lightweight, half-height camera body: it was designed to ride on the front of a D2x or D3x, a nearly 3.5 pound body with a very low center of gravity.

 

[Derrel]

Well, as braineack said-do not buy new in this lens class!!! For example, $744 for an OLD, pre-digital 24-85mm AF-D lens? A screwdriver focusing lens? Wayyyyyyy overpriced on NOS, or new old stock, stock that dealers have been sitting on for years now...buy any lens in this class USED!

 

[astroNikon]

The Nikon 24-70/2.8 is like a brick
not the 24-85

the 24-85 isn't heavy but yes it is old as Derrel says. But it's still a "nice lens for the price" if you buy it used.
and the newer ones are sharper and cost more.

my head spun alot when I was changing lenses and stuff. I've just found that the 24-85 fit the scenario well. I've tried to replace it several times just to end up keeping it.
But if you have the money, get a 24-70 Nikon, Tamron, Sigma
or maybe the 24-85G version.

I used to be "G" adverse. But now I'm okay with it as I realize I don't have to have the aperture ring as the camera can control it all without issues and I don't use it.

It's kinda like the 85/1.4 AF-D .. it's not as sharp as the 85/1.4G but people prefer the AF-D for portraiture it seems.

 

[shefjr]

I can't compare the two lenses but, I own the 24-70 2.8 nikkor lens. I absolutely love it. Since buying it I rarely remove it from my camera. I could have gone for one of the other options but, ultimately for me I wanted what is known to be the best. Additionally, I would say there is nothing wrong with the other lenses as has been pointed out by several other members here. For me I just wanted to know it wasn't a lens holding me back and that it was my own skills.

 

[Mike_E]

I'd get a UWA zoom, a 50mm and an 85mm f1.8 and a good pair of shoes.

All three of those are likely to weigh less than a 24-70mm f2.8. No matter how good the lens is it won't do you any good if you refuse to carry it.

 

[Derrel]

No matter how good the lens is it won't do you any good if you refuse to carry it.

And that is part of the reason the 24-85mm AF-S VR-G was the kit zoom Nikon decided to pair with the D600 when they moved FX down to "entry level full-frame" territory... it weighs in at 16.4 ounces

Nikon | Imaging Products | AF-S NIKKOR 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5G ED VR

The Nikon 24-70 f/2.8 AF-S weighs DOUBLE what the 24-85 AF-S VR-G weighs, and it's looooong! http://www.nikonusa.com/en/Nikon-Products/Product/Camera-Lenses/2164/AF-S-NIKKOR-24-70mm-f/2.8G-ED.html

The Tamron 24-70mm f/2.8 VC is ALSO big and heavy...almost two pounds, at 29.1 ounces and it uses the ridiculous 82mm diameter filter size!

TAMRON | SP 24-70mm F/2.8 Di VC USD [Model A007] Specifications

 

[Sventek]

I have a Nikon 24-120, and it's a fantastic lens. It's what I use when I'm on holiday and don't want to cart all the gear, and it does a great job. I also have a Nikon 24-70 f2.8, and I tend to agree with @Braineack - it isn't as good as everyone would like to think it is.

 

[Braineack]

and I tend to agree with @Braineack - it isn't as good as everyone would like to think it is.

I wasn't saying it itsn't good. It has qualities I like about it better than the Tamron. But it's not twice as good as the price tag suggests.

 

[Tailgunner]

and I tend to agree with @Braineack - it isn't as good as everyone would like to think it is.

I wasn't saying it itsn't good. It has qualities I like about it better than the Tamron. But it's not twice as good as the price tag suggests.

This is why I went with the older 28-70mm 2.8 instead of the 24-70mm 2.8. It's a well built tank that still takes a decent photo but it's cheaper. At the time i bought mine, it was only $500 cheaper but you can find them around $700 now.

 

[astroNikon]

This is one reason I stuck with my 24-85 other than the low used price.
edit - I'm sure they didn't test all the lenses out there. I would assume the 28-70/2.8 would rank higher, which is one i've considered alot but can't afford at the moment.

On dxoMark it rank #3 on their list of "best standard zoom lens for nikon d600" above some higher priced competition, but significantly lower than the Nikon and Tamron 24-70/2.8s ==> Best lenses for Nikon D600 | Nikon Rumors

Best lenses for Nikon D600
By [NR] ADMIN | Published: MAY 17, 2013
After the best lenses for D800 series, DxOMark published several new articles covering the best lenses for the Nikon D600 DSLR camera:

Best standard zoom lenses for Nikon D600

Lens Model	DxOMark Score
Nikon AF-S Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8G ED	27
Tamron SP 24-70mm f/2.8 Di VC USD	27
Nikon AF Zoom-Nikkor 24-85mm f/2.8-4D IF	23
Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 IF EX DG HSM	23
Nikon AF-S VR Zoom-Nikkor 24-120mm f/4G ED	22
Tamron SP AF 28-75mm F/2.8 XR Di LD Aspherical [IF]	22
Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5G ED VR	22
Nikon AF-S Zoom-Nikkor 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5G IF-ED	21
Nikon AF-S VR Zoom-Nikkor 24-120mm f/3.5-5.6G IF-ED	18

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

The listed lens test scores were measured with a D600, but the results are still very close to the list of best lenses for the D800.



Read more on NikonRumors.com: Best lenses for Nikon D600 | Nikon Rumors

 

[Mach0]

I have the 35-70 2.8 and have rented the 24-70 2.8G. I don't think it's that big. With a lens hood on it looks big but honestly, it's not that big. Bigger than the tamron 28-75 for sure but I will say that the 24-70 is a nice lens. It's sharp and image quality is nice but it's best feature IMHO is its focusing speed and accuracy.

 

[Derrel]

I wasn't saying it itsn't good. It has qualities I like about it better than the Tamron. But it's not twice as good as the price tag suggests.

Until 10 years down the road when you go to sell it...then the Nikkor is about three times as good as a third-party lens.

What you will find is this: after 10, to even 15 years, a Nikkor high-end zoom lens is worth almost exactly what you payed for it, a DECADE earlier, and you can sell it on the used market for what you payed for it originally, or even a bit more. This has been my experience since the early 1980's, and I expect this to hold for the forseeable future.

$1199 sunk into a new Tamron or Sigma today is worth HALF that money on resale in a few years' time. That is absolutely not true of Nikon high-end or Canon L-glass...

A $1699 70-200 VR I bought the week it came out a little over a decade ago...in Like New condition from KEH.com....$1602 today...

 

[greybeard]

If it were me, I'd go this rout
NIKON 24-85MM F/2.8-4 D IF ASPHERICAL MACRO AUTOFOCUS LENS {72} - KEH Camera
6 mo warranty, like new, and at about 1/2 the price of new.

 

[Braineack]

I wasn't saying it itsn't good. It has qualities I like about it better than the Tamron. But it's not twice as good as the price tag suggests.

Until 10 years down the road when you go to sell it...then the Nikkor is about three times as good as a third-party lens.

What you will find is this: after 10, to even 15 years, a Nikkor high-end zoom lens is worth almost exactly what you payed for it, a DECADE earlier, and you can sell it on the used market for what you payed for it originally, or even a bit more. This has been my experience since the early 1980's, and I expect this to hold for the forseeable future.

$1199 sunk into a new Tamron or Sigma today is worth HALF that money on resale in a few years' time. That is absolutely not true of Nikon high-end or Canon L-glass...

A $1699 70-200 VR I bought the week it came out a little over a decade ago...in Like New condition from KEH.com....$1602 today...

I bought my lenses to shoot nice pictures...doesn't bother me.

 

[Tailgunner]

This is one reason I stuck with my 24-85 other than the low used price.
edit - I'm sure they didn't test all the lenses out there. I would assume the 28-70/2.8 would rank higher, which is one i've considered alot but can't afford at the moment.

On dxoMark it rank #3 on their list of "best standard zoom lens for nikon d600" above some higher priced competition, but significantly lower than the Nikon and Tamron 24-70/2.8s ==> Best lenses for Nikon D600 | Nikon Rumors

Best lenses for Nikon D600
By [NR] ADMIN | Published: MAY 17, 2013
After the best lenses for D800 series, DxOMark published several new articles covering the best lenses for the Nikon D600 DSLR camera:

Best standard zoom lenses for Nikon D600

Lens Model	DxOMark Score
Nikon AF-S Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8G ED	27
Tamron SP 24-70mm f/2.8 Di VC USD	27
Nikon AF Zoom-Nikkor 24-85mm f/2.8-4D IF	23
Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 IF EX DG HSM	23
Nikon AF-S VR Zoom-Nikkor 24-120mm f/4G ED	22
Tamron SP AF 28-75mm F/2.8 XR Di LD Aspherical [IF]	22
Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5G ED VR	22
Nikon AF-S Zoom-Nikkor 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5G IF-ED	21
Nikon AF-S VR Zoom-Nikkor 24-120mm f/3.5-5.6G IF-ED	18

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

The listed lens test scores were measured with a D600, but the results are still very close to the list of best lenses for the D800.



Read more on NikonRumors.com: Best lenses for Nikon D600 | Nikon Rumors

This list is rigged I say lol

Seriously, I would have thought the 28-70mm would have place better as well. I'm actually thinking about upgrading my walking around lens, maybe a 24-120mm F4.

I wasn't saying it itsn't good. It has qualities I like about it better than the Tamron. But it's not twice as good as the price tag suggests.

Until 10 years down the road when you go to sell it...then the Nikkor is about three times as good as a third-party lens.

What you will find is this: after 10, to even 15 years, a Nikkor high-end zoom lens is worth almost exactly what you payed for it, a DECADE earlier, and you can sell it on the used market for what you payed for it originally, or even a bit more. This has been my experience since the early 1980's, and I expect this to hold for the forseeable future.

$1199 sunk into a new Tamron or Sigma today is worth HALF that money on resale in a few years' time. That is absolutely not true of Nikon high-end or Canon L-glass...

A $1699 70-200 VR I bought the week it came out a little over a decade ago...in Like New condition from KEH.com....$1602 today...

There is no arguing the resale value on Nikon for sure. This is one of the main reasons why I stick with Nikon.