Nikon 24-85 VR Glass

[Spirit Vision Photography]

Hello

I have and like the Nikon 24-120 f/4 glass. But when a good deal came up on the 24-85 f/3.5-4.5 VR lens, I snagged it. What is the general consensus or experience with the Nikon 24-85 lens?

Thanks

 

[nerwin]

When I bought the D610 many, many years ago. The 24-85 was my only lens and I thought it was surprisingly good lens for the price. I liked the range....24-85mm and being only 3.5-4.5 there wasn't a massive difference in loss of light when zoomed in. Practically an f/4 lens. Lightweight, weather sealed, sharp, focused close, nice bokeh..no complaints. The VR also worked great too. It served me well until I got the 24-120 f/4 VR but I always liked the 24-85 because of the size and weight, it was plus for sure.

 

[Spirit Vision Photography]

When I bought the D610 many, many years ago. The 24-85 was my only lens and I thought it was surprisingly good lens for the price. I liked the range....24-85mm and being only 3.5-4.5 there wasn't a massive difference in loss of light when zoomed in. Practically an f/4 lens. Lightweight, weather sealed, sharp, focused close, nice bokeh..no complaints. The VR also worked great too. It served me well until I got the 24-120 f/4 VR but I always liked the 24-85 because of the size and weight, it was plus for sure.

How would you say it compares to the 24-120 f/4 VR, which I also have and use?

 

[nerwin]

How would you say it compares to the 24-120 f/4 VR, which I also have and use?

I think the 24-120 f/4 VR is optically superior. It has the nano coating too which helps with chromatic aberrations and what not. Sharpness wise I think they are pretty much equal for the most part but when it comes to distortion..the 24-120 vr is just better at it but that's to be expected as its a more of a premium lens. If it comes to resolving power, I have a gut feeling that the 24-120 vr would be better on a higher megapixel body than the 24-85, like the D850 for example.

 

[Spirit Vision Photography]

I finally was able to take the 24-85 "G" VR glass out for a few sample snaps. I was pleasantly surprised at how well it performed. Slightly soft wide open. Stopped down one stop, and it performs quite well. Even in the corners. And I found that the distortion is no worse than on my 24-120 f/4 VR glass. And well controlled when using the camera's (D780) distortion control setting. Optically, it appears to be equal to the 24-120 lens.

 

[JoeW]

I had the 24-85 and for years it was my primary lens for outdoor portraits and people/street photography work. In studio, I'd use my 85 f1.8 prime. But outside or in candid settings where I couldn't always direct the subject, it was my go-to lens. And I found it superb. I always got crisp shots from it, never found it "too slow" for the type of stuff I was shooting, thought it focused quickly enough for this type of photography (wildlife and sports--a totally different matter).

 

[Spirit Vision Photography]

I had the 24-85 and for years it was my primary lens for outdoor portraits and people/street photography work. In studio, I'd use my 85 f1.8 prime. But outside or in candid settings where I couldn't always direct the subject, it was my go-to lens. And I found it superb. I always got crisp shots from it, never found it "too slow" for the type of stuff I was shooting, thought it focused quickly enough for this type of photography (wildlife and sports--a totally different matter).

Thank you for the reply. Are you referring to the latest f/3-5-4.5 "G" VR version? Have you used the Nikon 24-120 f/4 VR glass, and if so, how do they compare?

Thank You

 

[JoeW]

Actually, though VR is popular, I've stayed away from that--it was never a selling point for me. First, it tends to drain batteries more. Second, any lens I found difficult to hold steady, I used a tripod or monopod on. In fact, when your camera is on a tripod, it's important to turn VR off because your camera will go looking for shake and movement. Third, VR is only intended to deal with camera shake--not a long exposure (and the leaves moves slightly due to a breeze, or your subject doesn't stand still like a statue). I find that with Topaz AI, I can reduce noise from a really high ISO. And a high ISO means I don't need to worry that much about shutter speed (and thus camera vibration from a slow shutter speed). So for me, I've never deliberately looked for a lens that had VR. A few of mine do--but that's not why I bought them.

So that's a long-winded way of saying my 24-85 didn't have VR.

As for comparison with the 24-120, I have used that lens but not extensively. It was more of a case of "hey, want to try this out on your body and see how it works?" kind of deal with another shooter. I personally found the 24-85 to be a little sharper. But that's my bias. I find that zooms with a really wide focal length tend to be soft at both ends. As a general rule, primes are almost aways sharper (because they have less glass--fewer elements in the lens). And so what is GENERALLY true is that a zoom with fewer elements is going to be sharper than a zoom with more elements (because it has a longer focal length range). That's my bias on the issue. But I never sat down and compared the 24-120 and the 24-85 results on similar subjects to see which was sharper, had better tonality, focused quicker, etc.

I think the 24-120 is a great lens for people who want to put one lens on their camera and go hiking. Or walk around town. And don't want 2 bodies on them. Or to swap out lens. But most of my shooting with with a specific subject in mind. when I shoot portraits, I use my 85mm f1.8 prime. When I shoot family candids inside, I shoot with a 40mm f2 or something even wider. When I shoot Bald Eagles I bring 2 lens--a 600mm mounted on a tripod and a 70-300 on a second body around my neck.