New Nikkor 24-85 f3.5-4.5G IF-ED vs Nikkor 24-85 f2.8-4D

Hi all,

 

I am looking for a new F80S setup and want a general allround glass

on the wide end (mainly for landscape and general photography at this

stage). I am looking for optical performance above all else.

 

I was lookig at the Nikkor range and found:

1) New slient Wave Motor Nikkor 24-85 f3.5-4.5G IF-ED ~AU$800

2) AF Nikkor 24-85 f2.8-4D ~$1050

 

Now I am totally confused! My questions:

1) Why is the SWM nikon so cheap? is it a package deal consumer lens?

I thought SWM lenses were $2k+

2) On that note I want to do alot of landscapes, is 24mm a must or is

28mm enough to handle most situations?

3) out of the 2 which would you buy???

 

Thanks,

Chong

1) It's a GOOD thing... expect the AF-S technology to show up on more mid-priced lenses as time goes by. Also, note its maximum aperture is f/3.5 whereas the more expensive lens goes to f/2.8 so that helps explain the lower price of the AF-S G lens. The absence of aperture ring saves you another AU$5 or so.

 

2) I'd rather have 24mm available for landscapes than have my widest focal length be 28mm.

 

3) Cannot recommend one over the other, haven't used 'em, sorry. I know this was the most important question. The only two I could help with were the others.

As to whether a 28mm lens is sufficient, I find that I often will use my 24-50 at minimum FL for scenics, though not always. On occasion I have to switch to 20mm, but this requires more care in composition. I like the 24mm for indoor scenes which restrict my mobility.I have no experience with the lenses mentioned, but I would expect them both to be good value.

 

Alex

The new SWM lens is much better - the 2.8 is quite soft wide open - so for 1/2 a stop and a bigger lens what is the point. The SWM lens is quite good wide open and very good at F8 or so.

"I am looking for optical performance above all else" - it's always a matter of trade-offs. From all I've read, both these lenses will tend to lack resolution wider than f/8. If you mostly or always work for maximum DOF you'll be shooting slower than f/8 anyhow, but if you sometimes want to do bokeh, it will matter. But the next question is: what is the maximum print size you are contemplating? If 8 by 10 then both may well be optically adequate. If you foresee larger prints, I recommend the venerable 35-70/f2.8, which is what I use. I supplement that with a 28 prime for the odd time I need to go wider than 35. But this is very much a question of personal vision. No one can tell you whether 24 or 28 wide for landscapes. For some landscape shooters a 17-35 practically lives on their camera, others like I rarely go below 35.

 

The fact that you're asking for advice about focal lengths suggests that you are just starting out. I know how expensive equipment is in Australia because I live in Canada. I know it's even more important for us to make the right choice the first time. I urge you, therefore, to slow down and get this right. The very first thing you need to do is learn what focal lengths you need for your own vision, *then* worry about which lenses to cover them with. Perhaps the best thing you could do would be to buy or borrow a used junk zoom, the kind that often comes on a camera as part of a kit. Use this for several months; take lots of pictures during this time; then sell it. Do you find yourself shooting mostly at the wide end or the tele end? Do you keep bumping into either end of the range, needing more?

 

Another consideration is that the F80's finder, being mirrored rather than prism, is a tad dimmer than Nikon's more expensive cameras (my own camera is an F80, so I know). Combine that with the slower lenses you've named and you are setting yourself up for problems in dim light. This is another question the cheap zoom would answer.

 

Once you've answered these questions, consider used instead of new; see if you can't get a used pro lens for the same dollars as a new mid-range lens. The F80 is a wonderful camera, combine it with some good glass and a solid tripod and you'll be set to concentrate on taking pictures - rather than on dithering over equipment - for any number of years. My total kit is less than 15 lbs, which means I can hike for hours in rough terrain; again freeing me to concentrate on photography rather than equipment.

If optical performance is your top priority, you're probably best off looking at some prime lenses.

 

My opinion is that the extra half-stop you get for the 2.8-4 lens is not worth the extra money. If I need speed, I reach for a prime lens.

 

I bought the 24-85 AFS. Very happy. My favorite advantage is the high speed focusing. I'm very happy with the results.

 

24mm vs. 28mm, well I think it's your style of shooting. For landscapes, most of my photography is at 28mm. Seldom do I go below that. However, in cities, I'm all the way down to 18mm (on my 18-35 Nikon zoom). That's just my style: 28mm landscapes, wider to much wider in the canyons of New York. I've seen a lot of stunning 20mm landscape work.... I just haven't practiced enough landscape at 20mm to be effective yet.

Why a zoom in such a short focal length span? Nikon 24mm f2.8 $300 USD, 50mm f1.8 $50 used, then if you still feel like spending money, 80-200 f2.8 $600-700 used.

I have used them both, each for 1 week. I did not do the extensive test comparison. But used all appertures and shot 4 12exp Fuji Superia rolls on each, printed only at 4x6. The results are very closed. They're both excellent lenses. I tested them on an F100 and an N80. The 3.5-4.5G has much faster AF speed on both bodies. The 3.5-4.5G has ED glass and has a better quality built. The only advantage of the 2.8-4D is 1 stop brighter.

 

The 3.5-4.5G lens is definitely a pro class lens. Why it is cheap? I don't know.

 

For landscape, wider is always better. 24mm is much better than 28mm in my opinion.

 

You'll probably want the 3.5-4.5G, unless you have MF or old AF camera as back up that you can not use G lenses on those bodies.

 

Just my 2 cents.