The 24-85 VR & 24-120 f/4 VR are nearly the same price used now.

[nerwin]

The other day I was doing some eBay browsing because I'm going to looking into getting a mid-range utility zoom and was shocked when I noticed both the 24-85 VR and the 24-120 f/4 VR were selling for almost the same price used.

So I have experience with both lenses because I've owned 24-85 VR TWICE, but one was on DX which I didn't like and when I went full frame, I picked up another 24-85 VR wiched I used for a while and then upgraded to the 24-120 f/4 VR and kind of had nothing but complaints. It's an oddly large and awkward handling lens in my opinion, it was just kind of uncomfortable to use on a D6xx body. Probably was better suited for the D750 + D8xx bodies. Though, my MAIN complaint was zoom creep which some people had and some didn't. For the price of this lens, they should've put a lens lock on it.

However, I dealt with it and one thing I noticed was that there was hardly any difference in image quality that I could see. In fact, the 24-85 VR was actually sharper around the edge. The difference between f/4.5 and f/4 is so little that you will never notice. Also 85mm vs 120mm isn't that big of a difference as it sounds.

So what do you get with the 24-120 f/4 VR that you DON'T get with the 24-85 VR? Well you get slightly better build quality, slightly better weather sealing, NANO coating (which I believe is on only one element or two), possibly slightly faster and accurate auto focus, and I mean SLIGHTLY. You also get a better VR technology which is great for video work. Now the most important benefit you get with the 24-120 f/4 VR is that fancy gold ring! Which adds to the cost and makes you feel good.

So why are these two lenses approximate the same price now in 2018?

I believe people finally caught on with the 24-120 f/4 VR being an overrated lens and the 24-85 VR being an underrated lens. So the 24-120 f/4 VR sells new for what? $1100? At Least it was first released. I paid nearly $800 for my copy a year or two ago. Now they are selling used on eBay and there is an abundance of them for less than $500. I sold mine under $500. I lost money on this deal, it was a bad decision on my part.

When I bought my first 24-85 VR, I paid like $250 used and it was nearly brand new. Now they are selling about $400 which almost the cost of a brand new one! Yes, you can find cheaper copies if your lucky, they might be missing the lens hood or the box or they might have some superficial marks on it.

So for anyone who is looking for a good all-rounder utility zoom for their first full frame DSLR, I'm going to suggest the 24-85 VR over the 24-120 f/4 VR even if the prices are nearly the same.

There are other alternatives in the Nikon lineup such as the 24-85G non-VR which can be had for very cheap. The 24-85 2.8-f/4 is also decent and many people's favorite seems to to be the 28-105D 3.5-4.5. They are all great options, however they also all lack VR and for someone who does shoot video occasionally on their DSLR, having VR is very handy in that range.

Anyways, these are all my own developed opinions from past experiences. Your experience may differ. I decided to write this post in hopes that it might help someone who is looking at buying a utility zoom for their full frame body.

 

[OldManJim]

Thanks - that's exactly what I'm looking at and your thoughts and experiences are appreciated.

 

[Derrel]

There are two versions of the 24-120 that I am aware of, and perhaps the very-newest VR version is actually the third iteration of the 24-120? I just looked at PPS, and they list as follows:
NIKON AF 24-120 4.0 VR $995.00

They do not have a 24-85 VR currently, but that is a lens that was given away FREE with the purchase of some of the last few thousand D600 kits, after the oil splatter issue effectively froze the sales of D600s...that FREE 24-85 VR promotion lasted only like three weeks or so as I recall, but it means that there are a lot of people who bought/got that lens VERY cheaply ,and have no financial investment to recoup, which has really lowered the used market price on the newest 24-85VRs.

I think you might be seeing earlier, non-VR versions of the 24-120 in the 24-85VR price range, because the NEW, VR 24-120mm version is just under $1,000 in most cases used.

You are right: the 24-85 VR seems to be a very good picture-maker of a lens! I have an old 24-85 AF-S G...I'd love the newer,slower,VR-equipped version of it as an all-rounder and beach lens.

 

[nerwin]

The 24-120 f/4 VR are selling used for about $450ish on eBay.

I know this for a FACT because I sold mine for $425.

The 24-85 VR are selling around $325-400 used.

I never said NEW. I was ONLY referring to used prices.

24-120 f/4 VR | eBay

 

[Derrel]

DUDE.... NEW, AS IN "latest version VR model", and not the 2003-2010 production or "old" model...

Nikon 24-120mm VR
AF-S NIKKOR f/3.5-5.6 (2003-2010)
Nikon 24-120mm f/3.5-5.6 VR (2003-2010)


And "NEW" as in latest iteration...the one released most recently and still in production....this is the new, or latest version...the one that's $995 or so on the USA used market, and is $1299.95 new...

Nikon 24-120mm f/4 VR G

You are talking up an older, out-of-production lens, which is indeed $429- $450 used...the newer 24-120 VR is still $995 second hand.

Maybe my post above wasn't quite as obviously clear as it should have been, but I did try to tactfully point out above that there are _three_ 24-120 versions on the market. The first was the 1996-2002 AF-D model, but it had no VR. Nikon 24-120mm f/3.5-5.6 AF-D (1996-2002)

 

[nerwin]

DUDE.... NEW, AS IN "latest version, not the 2003-2010 "old" model...

Nikon 24-120mm VR
AF-S NIKKOR f/3.5-5.6 (2003-2010)
Nikon 24-120mm f/3.5-5.6 VR (2003-2010)


And "NEW" as in latest iteration...the one released most recently and still in production....this is the new, or latest version...the one that's $995 or so on the USA used market, and is $1299.95 new...

Nikon 24-120mm f/4 VR G

You are talking upo an olkd lens, which is $450 used...the newer 24-120 VR is still $995 second hand....

I don't understand what you are talking about Derrel.

I'm not talking about the older 3.5-5.6 model. I'm talking about the f/4 VR version.

A second hand 24-120 f/4 VR is not $1000. Just look at the eBay prices, they are around $450 lol.

24-120 f/4 VR | eBay

I really don't understand where you getting your figures from, Mr. Rockwell??? LOL

 

[Derrel]

There are TWO versions of the VR lens.... TWO versions. One is older. The other one is still being produced. One is really affordable. The other model is newer, still in production, and is selling for more money.

Here's a quote from KR's review of the NEWER-version 24-120 lens: "The new Nikon 24-120mm f/4 VR is a great lens. It is worlds sharper than its predecessor, the fuzzy 24-120mm f/3.5-5.6 AF-S VR (2003-2010). Both these 24- 120 AF-S VR lensesare much better ergonomically than their predecessor, the clunky 24-120mm AF-D (1996-2002). All three Nikon 24-120mm ..."

 

[nerwin]

There are TWO versions of the VR lens.... TWO versions. One is older. The other one is still being produced. One is really affordable. The other model is newer, still in production, and is selling for more money.

Here's a quote from KR's review of the NEWER-version 24-120 lens: "The new Nikon 24-120mm f/4 VR is a great lens. It is worlds sharper than its predecessor, the fuzzy 24-120mm f/3.5-5.6 AF-S VR (2003-2010). Both these 24- 120 AF-S VR lensesare much better ergonomically than their predecessor, the clunky 24-120mm AF-D (1996-2002). All three Nikon 24-120mm ..."

I understand that!!

I don't care about the junky 3.5-5.6 model. That belongs in the trash.

But the new 24-120 f/4 VR with the nano coating and fancy gold ring are selling for used on ebay for $450. B&H sells them USED for about $600. I sold mine for $425. I would never buy one new.

I really don't understand why are you arguing with me? You can clearly go to eBay and look at the used prices for the 24-120 f/4 VR and see for yourself. I'm talking specifically about eBay, NOT other stores.

 

[Derrel]

I'm considering getting the newest 24-85 with VR as a walk-about lens....I like the smaller sized lenses over bulky zooms. I tried the 28-105 AF-D on that lens Across America deal,and it was nice, but I like a VR lens for slow speed panning and for shooting in poorer light stopped down to about f/8 without needing a tripod.

On full-frame compacts like the D610 or whatever, the 24-120 seems kind of big to me....but again, I like a _smaller_ lens than a lot of people do, so the 24-85 VR appeals to me a lot. Looks so small!

AF-S NIKKOR 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5G ED VR

 

[nerwin]

I'm considering getting the newest 24-85 with VR as a walk-about lens....I like the smaller sized lenses over bulky zooms. I tried the 28-105 AF-D on that lens Across America deal,and it was nice, but I like a VR lens for slow speed panning and for shooting in poorer light stopped down to about f/8 without needing a tripod.

On full-frame compacts like the D610 or whatever, the 24-120 seems kind of big to me....but again, I like a _smaller_ lens than a lot of people do, so the 24-85 VR appeals to me a lot. Looks so small!

AF-S NIKKOR 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5G ED VR

I owned the 24-120 f/4 VR for my D610. You are not wrong, it's an awkward lens on these cameras. It pretty front heavy and overall diameter of this lens was just not right for this camera. Maybe on a D8xxx it will be just fine, but a D6xx..it's just handles odd. 24-85 VR is much better option for a D6xx.

The previous gen 24-85G, the non-VR model is still a good lens BUT because some of them were made in Japan, people are selling them as a premium just because of that! I think it's ridiculous. Just because a lens is made in Japan doesn't always mean it's going to be a better made lens with better optics.

 

[Derrel]

I owned the 24-120 f/4 VR for my D610. You are not wrong, it's an awkward lens on these cameras. It pretty front heavy and overall diameter of this lens was just not right for this camera. Maybe on a D8xxx it will be just fine, but a D6xx..it's just handles odd. 24-85 VR is much better options for a D6xx.

Ewwww, right there, you NAIL the issue: front-heavy (I hate that!) and too big a diameter. Ehhhhh...nope. I don't care so much about total weight: if a lens is what I call a "nose-dive" model, I can't stand using it. Glad to hear your assessment in terms I relate to. Odd handling is a deal-breaker for me. By the way, there's a new photo book out in which a lot of the pics were shot with the old 24-85 AF-D and the new 24-85VR model....I think the book was by Michael Freeman (?),and a lot of the digital images were shot on the D3x and the D800, so on 24-MP Nikon and 36-MP Nikon, and the pics look VERY good. I looked thru it at the library about a year ago, and was impressed that he'd done so many travel shots with these 'consumer' zooms.

 

[nerwin]

I owned the 24-120 f/4 VR for my D610. You are not wrong, it's an awkward lens on these cameras. It pretty front heavy and overall diameter of this lens was just not right for this camera. Maybe on a D8xxx it will be just fine, but a D6xx..it's just handles odd. 24-85 VR is much better options for a D6xx.

Ewwww, right there, you NAIL the issue: front-heavy (I hate that!) and too big a diameter. Ehhhhh...nope. I don't care so much about total weight: is a lens is what I call a "nose-dive" model, I can't stand using it. Glad to hear your assessment in terms I relate to. Odd handling is a deal-breaker for me.

Now my 70-200 f/4 VR is heavier than the 24-120 f/4 VR and it doesn't feel front heavy. Maybe it's just the design of the lens? Like the weight is distributed better than the 24-120 f/4 VR? I don't know.

 

[Dave Maciak]

The other day I was doing some eBay browsing because I'm going to looking into getting a mid-range utility zoom and was shocked when I noticed both the 24-85 VR and the 24-120 f/4 VR were selling for almost the same price used.

So I have experience with both lenses because I've owned 24-85 VR TWICE, but one was on DX which I didn't like and when I went full frame, I picked up another 24-85 VR wiched I used for a while and then upgraded to the 24-120 f/4 VR and kind of had nothing but complaints. It's an oddly large and awkward handling lens in my opinion, it was just kind of uncomfortable to use on a D6xx body. Probably was better suited for the D750 + D8xx bodies. Though, my MAIN complaint was zoom creep which some people had and some didn't. For the price of this lens, they should've put a lens lock on it.

However, I dealt with it and one thing I noticed was that there was hardly any difference in image quality that I could see. In fact, the 24-85 VR was actually sharper around the edge. The difference between f/4.5 and f/4 is so little that you will never notice. Also 85mm vs 120mm isn't that big of a difference as it sounds.

So what do you get with the 24-120 f/4 VR that you DON'T get with the 24-85 VR? Well you get slightly better build quality, slightly better weather sealing, NANO coating (which I believe is on only one element or two), possibly slightly faster and accurate auto focus, and I mean SLIGHTLY. You also get a better VR technology which is great for video work. Now the most important benefit you get with the 24-120 f/4 VR is that fancy gold ring! Which adds to the cost and makes you feel good.

So why are these two lenses approximate the same price now in 2018?

I believe people finally caught on with the 24-120 f/4 VR being an overrated lens and the 24-85 VR being an underrated lens. So the 24-120 f/4 VR sells new for what? $1100? At Least it was first released. I paid nearly $800 for my copy a year or two ago. Now they are selling used on eBay and there is an abundance of them for less than $500. I sold mine under $500. I lost money on this deal, it was a bad decision on my part.

When I bought my first 24-85 VR, I paid like $250 used and it was nearly brand new. Now they are selling about $400 which almost the cost of a brand new one! Yes, you can find cheaper copies if your lucky, they might be missing the lens hood or the box or they might have some superficial marks on it.

So for anyone who is looking for a good all-rounder utility zoom for their first full frame DSLR, I'm going to suggest the 24-85 VR over the 24-120 f/4 VR even if the prices are nearly the same.

There are other alternatives in the Nikon lineup such as the 24-85G non-VR which can be had for very cheap. The 24-85 2.8-f/4 is also decent and many people's favorite seems to to be the 28-105D 3.5-4.5. They are all great options, however they also all lack VR and for someone who does shoot video occasionally on their DSLR, having VR is very handy in that range.

Anyways, these are all my own developed opinions from past experiences. Your experience may differ. I decided to write this post in hopes that it might help someone who is looking at buying a utility zoom for their full frame body.

Hey thanks for your post. I've been looking for a 24-85 f/2.8 D I currently use primes (D types 24, 35, 50) and also the 28-300 zoom. I'd like to get a smaller lens than the 28-300--which has been a great tool but it's cumbersome due to it's size, not to mention weight. Main Nikon is the D780. Your post has helped me make up my mind but just to be sure I'll go to my local shop and compare the two in person not with a spec page. Thanks again.