opinions on best cheap normal zoom

I'm a bit confused by the apparent conflict between "cheap", "good-enough IQ", and your intention to put this on a D810, whose resolution will show off every flaw in all but the very highest quality glass.

David, to be honest, I think this is down to the idea that whoever buys a D8x0, buys it because of its high resolution, and as a consequence expects to capture as many perfect pixels each and every time. And I think this idea isn't entirely correct - there are many other reasons why one can choose a D8x0 over a D750 or D610, and simply accept that the resulting files will be a bit larger than really needed.

For myself, coming from a D300 and D700, I'm just very much prefer the way these bodies are laid out, I like the built-in viewfinder shutter, and I sincerely do use 1/8000th since I like using fast lenses wide open. While I did consider a D750 a long time, I could not get me to compromise. I've got my D810 despite its high resolution, not because of it. The D8x0 series is more than "high resolution", so in my view there is nothing dissonant nor disconosonant about using a D810 with lenses that may struggle. The resulting image does not get worse because of it - in fact it will be as good or better as it would have been with lower resolution sensor behind it.

And using my D810 with a pile of older primes - I don't see many issues. It is stunning how much detail old fast lenses render, even wide open where they're supposed to be notoriously bad. Plus, they're still the exact same lenses with all quirk and particularities I like about them. So, no reason at all to stop using them, even if my sensor now shows what they can't do. After all, I care about what they can do.

Agreed, Wouter. Coming from my D700 I wasn't sure I wanted a D800 for the resolution (although I now wouldn't go back) - it was the dynamic range in a D700-class body that sold me.

I do think it's a bit wasteful not to ensure you have some good glass for these bodies, although older primes are often just fine if you're happy below f/5.6. That doesn't mean every lens and every use of the camera has to be for resolution, and buying a separate body just to use less optically perfect (but smaller) lenses sometimes isn't exactly economical. I certainly don't use a tripod for every shot (or indeed most of them), and I've even been known to shoot at 200mm with lenses other than my 200 f/2.

People tend to see 36MP and get scared (or reviewers over-state it). The resolution difference and lens demands aren't all that much higher than a 24MP body. You can see it, but a stellar lens won't suddenly become awful, and an ok lens stays ok.

David, to be honest, I think this is down to the idea that whoever buys a D8x0, buys it because of its high resolution, and as a consequence expects to capture as many perfect pixels each and every time. And I think this idea isn't entirely correct - there are many other reasons why one can choose a D8x0 over a D750 or D610, and simply accept that the resulting files will be a bit larger than really needed.

For myself, coming from a D300 and D700, I'm just very much prefer the way these bodies are laid out, I like the built-in viewfinder shutter, and I sincerely do use 1/8000th since I like using fast lenses wide open. While I did consider a D750 a long time, I could not get me to compromise. I've got my D810 despite its high resolution, not because of it. The D8x0 series is more than "high resolution", so in my view there is nothing dissonant nor disconosonant about using a D810 with lenses that may struggle. The resulting image does not get worse because of it - in fact it will be as good or better as it would have been with lower resolution sensor behind it.

 

And using my D810 with a pile of older primes - I don't see many issues. It is stunning how much detail old fast lenses render, even wide open where they're supposed to be notoriously bad. Plus, they're still the exact same lenses with all quirk and particularities I like about them. So, no reason at all to stop using them, even if my sensor now shows what they can't do. After all, I care about what they can do.

I'm embarrassed to say it, but this post captures my feelings about the D810 in general and about its use with old lenses perfectly, far better than I did.

I received my AF-S Nikkor 24-85/3.5-4.5 G VR last night and have been playing with it around the apartment today. I like it.

It's a fairly handy size—significantly smaller than the 24-120/4 I used to have, but still much bulkier than the modest-aperture MF primes I'm accustomed to. However, although it's an ounce heavier than my heaviest MF prime (the 135/2.8 AI-s), it's much less dense and thus feels lighter mounted on the camera.

The silent-wave motor feels a bit slow. It takes somewhat more than a half a second to go from infinity to MFD—but it feels like a leisurely half-second. I have had the pleasure of trying out a couple of truly quick-focusing lenses (an AF-S 300/2.8 D II and an AF-P 18-55/3.5-5.6 VR); this lens is downright poky by comparison. However, most of the time one is not racking focus from end to end, so in practice I think the AF will be quick enough. It does seem quite accurate.

I was surprised at how closely the lens focuses. The specification states an MFD of 0.38m (1.25 ft), but when the lens is maximally extended at the long end of the zoom range, the working distance is only about 6 inches! This close focus results in a maximum reproduction ratio of 0.22x, so far from macro, but nice to have for certain kinds of compositions.

The zoom action on this copy feels uncomfortably dry and fairly stiff. I don't know whether that's normal or not for this model. It's especially stiff and squeaky when zooming between 24mm and 35mm. The zoom action on the 24-120 was definitely more fluid. I'd appreciate hearing from other owners whether their zoom rings feel stiff. If anybody has any tips for treating the squeakiness, please share them.

Optical performance is impressive given the price of the lens. The center of the frame is sharp enough, even wide open, at all focal lengths. Borders are much softer and only improve gradually upon stopping down. I think I need to be at f/8 or f/11 to get borders that I'd call sharp. One thing you notice about relatively modern designs like this one compared to old MF glass is that, although absolute resolution is not always significantly better, the modern lenses have much better microcontrast wide open; they lack the dreamy glow of the old lenses at max aperture. I guess this means the newer lenses control spherical aberration better. Coma, although still present, is much less objectionable on this lens than, for example, the old 24/2.8. The only aberration that seems worse on this lens than on my old ones is rectilinear distortion, which is strong at both ends of the zoom range. Fortunately, software corrects it automatically.

Here are a couple of half-size exports from Lightroom with default sharpening and no output sharpening. Both photos were shot at 1/15 sec, showing the effectiveness of VR. Click a thumbnail to view the photo.

35mm, f/5.6, ISO 180

85mm, f/5, ISO 2000

All in all, the lens is a keeper. Thanks, everyone!

I received my AF-S Nikkor 24-85/3.5-4.5 G VR last night and have been playing with it around the apartment today. I like it.

 

It's a fairly handy size—significantly smaller than the 24-120/4 I used to have, but still much bulkier than the modest-aperture MF primes I'm accustomed to. However, although it's an ounce heavier than my heaviest MF prime (the 135/2.8 AI-s), it's much less dense and thus feels lighter mounted on the camera.

 

The silent-wave motor feels a bit slow. It takes somewhat more than a half a second to go from infinity to MFD—but it feels like a leisurely half-second. I have had the pleasure of trying out a couple of truly quick-focusing lenses (an AF-S 300/2.8 D II and an AF-P 18-55/3.5-5.6 VR); this lens is downright poky by comparison. However, most of the time one is not racking focus from end to end, so in practice I think the AF will be quick enough. It does seem quite accurate.

 

The zoom action on this copy feels uncomfortably dry and fairly stiff. I don't know whether that's normal or not for this model. It's especially stiff and squeaky when zooming between 24mm and 35mm. The zoom action on the 24-120 was definitely more fluid. I'd appreciate hearing from other owners whether their zoom rings feel stiff. If anybody has any tips for treating the squeakiness, please share them.

 

 

All in all, the lens is a keeper. Thanks, everyone!

Glad you're enjoying the lens, I think as you use it more you'll like it. I haven't experienced the zoom action as you've described, so perhaps that's something you could have serviced? But I do agree that it does focus a little slowly, but faster than the D version of the lens. It's something I only notice after I rent a 24-70 lens or use primes. Then I put the 24-85 back on and am let down, until 5 minutes later when I've gotten used to it again and forget. :)

Happy shooting!

Glad you're enjoying the lens, I think as you use it more you'll like it. I haven't experienced the zoom action as you've described, so perhaps that's something you could have serviced?

Thanks, yardkat. Yeah no, I'm sure getting the lens serviced would cost at least a hundred bucks. If I can't live with the stiff zoom, I'll sell the lens (with full disclosure of condition, as I always do) and buy another one.

Thanks, yardkat. Yeah no, I'm sure getting the lens serviced would cost at least a hundred bucks. If I can't live with the stiff zoom, I'll sell the lens (with full disclosure of condition, as I always do) and buy another one.

Since you already bought the lens and like it that's good. My one reason for not wanting to buy the VR version because it's made in China. Of course few people would think like me.

Since you already bought the lens and like it that's good. My one reason for not wanting to buy the VR version because it's made in China. Of course few people would think like me.

Is that for quality issues or human rights issues? Or something else?

Is that for quality issues or human rights issues? Or something else?

Nikon can make their products in Japan if they want to. What is the reason to make them in China or Thailand? Do they expect better quality there? I don't think so. I think the only reason is to make them cheaper hoping they get the same quality. It's simply not fair to expect better workmanship for less money.

Nikon can make their products in Japan if they want to. What is the reason to make them in China or Thailand? Do they expect better quality there? I don't think so. I think the only reason is to make them cheaper hoping they get the same quality. It's simply not fair to expect better workmanship for less money.

You would rather they made them in Japan—at higher cost—and sell them at the same price, thus reducing their profitability and jeopardizing the future of the imaging unit?

Anyways it's not crazy nowadays to think that China's manufacturing may be superior to Japan's and every other country's. Look at iPhones and how well they are put together, with such tight tolerances.

You would rather they made them in Japan—at higher cost—and sell them at the same price, thus reducing their profitability and jeopardizing the future of the imaging unit?

 

Anyways it's not crazy nowadays to think that China's manufacturing may be superior to Japan's and every other country's. Look at iPhones and how well they are put together, with such tight tolerances.

I am issued an Iphone but I would buy it. But let not go off topic. Congrat on your new to you lens.

Must say I'm surprised at the one making the final cut. Maybe I'll try another.

If you're happy with the 28-105, the 24-85 VR isn't a compelling upgrade unless you really want VR or 24mm. The IQ is not worlds better; the lens is not much lighter or much smaller. Obviously, there's no aperture advantage either. And the newer lens lacks the 1:2 "macro" feature.

At the end of the day, both lenses are JOAT-MON lenses, more valuable for their flexible utility than anything else.

Last night, I attempted to mitigate the stiff/squeaky zoom action of the newly acquired 24-85mm. I stripped the lens down to the point of exposing the outer cage where the cams that control the zoom are. The zoom mechanism seems devilishly complicated to me; I was afraid to go any farther. I swabbed a little silicone grease on the parts that I could see making contact, but it didn't help much, if at all. I failed to expose, or even identify(!), the parts that are actually rubbing together and causing the friction when zooming. However, there was one serendipitous outcome of this exercise.

Since I was already disassembling the lens, I decided to try and remove a largish speck of debris behind the rearmost element. This element is embedded in its own little metal carrier that is attached to the rest of the rear lens assembly by three screws. I unscrewed and removed this carrier, thinking that the debris was either on the far side of the rear element, or on the close side of the one behind it. Unfortunately, it was on neither surface; it must be on the far side of the second-rearmost element, which I could not see how to remove. So I put the rear element carrier back in its place and finished reassembling the lens, having accomplished neither of my goals.

When I tested the lens to see if I had screwed it up in any way, it was obvious that the edges and corners of the frame were now much blurrier than they had been. Reasoning that I must have put the rear element back incorrectly, I removed it and carefully put it back in. At this point, I noticed that the three screws that attach the element's carrier to the rest of the rear lens assembly were not ordinary screws: each of them had a kind of spring-washer on it. I realized that these screws must be used to fine-tune the positioning of the rear element. When I was first reassembling the lens, I had tightened these screws down rather more firmly than they had been at first. So, this time, I used less force. I tried the lens again, and to my relief, the edges and corners were restored to their former sharpness, and more. They are now quite a lot sharper than I remember them being, even with the lens wide open. So, I did get something for my efforts, after all.

I did not read through all the responses. Best "Cheap" zoom?

The old Tamron 24-70/AF-D/3.3-5.6. (Camera data says it's 25mm, but it has the same coverage as the other dozen, 24-? something) lenses.)

I have 3 just to confirm that my original was not an abnormality, as it's sharp as heck. It also sells for $79.00 or less.

I did not read through all the responses. Best "Cheap" zoom?

 

The old Tamron 24-70/AF-D/3.3-5.6. (Camera data says it's 25mm, but it has the same coverage as the other dozen, 24-? something) lenses.)

 

I have 3 just to confirm that my original was not an abnormality, as it's sharp as heck. It also sells for $79.00 or less.

Wow, that's off the beaten path. Weird-looking lens! Wider than it is long (physically, I mean), and barrel-shaped. According to the first webpage that comes up in a google search for the lens, it's actually not very sharp except at apertures where most lenses are sharp (f/8 and f/11). But there must be other reasons why I've never heard of this lens until today? The max f/5.6 aperture at 70mm is a bit of a turn-off, for sure.

Still, thanks for the addition!

Wow, that's off the beaten path. Weird-looking lens! Wider than it is long (physically, I mean), and barrel-shaped. According to the first webpage that comes up in a google search for the lens, it's actually not very sharp except at apertures where most lenses are sharp (f/8 and f/11). But there must be other reasons why I've never heard of this lens until today? The max f/5.6 aperture at 70mm is a bit of a turn-off, for sure.

 

Still, thanks for the addition!

That aperture range is about right for non-Pro grade/priced lenses, and similar to Nikon's lenses in that range. f/3.5-4.5 or 3.5-5.6

If you want fixed f/2.8 you have to pay for it.