oxskumxo Posted February 2, 2004 Share Posted February 2, 2004 OK I posted a thread a lil down the list asking about the 24-85 and the consensus is that it is a good lens, I�m looking for something to replace my 28-80G lens and ive come down to these 2 lenses, now I ask you is one of them better then the other? or will they both be great lenses? Also if you know of any other non Nikkor lens in this zoom range that is good please LMK what it is if it is in the ~600$ range Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toan_pham Posted February 2, 2004 Share Posted February 2, 2004 In my humble opinion, I think the only advantage of the 24-85mm f/2.8-4D is the 24mm. I have also been told that it is quite soft at f/2.8 at 24mm. The 35-70mm f/2.8D was designed as a pro lens and thus would offer a much sharper photo. There are postings comparing the 35-70mm f/2.8D with the new AF-S 28-70mm f/2.8D ED-IF which is the current pro lens in that zoom range. Some owners even say that there is no noticeable difference in picture quality; just the focussing speed is superior in the AF-S. In my opinion, I would get the 35-70mm f/2.8D anyday and save up for a 24mm f/2.8D prime. As for in the zoom range, the other 24-85mm zoom, the AF-S f/3.5-4.5G lens offers better optical quality and faster focussing but doesn't have the f/2.8. Good luck in your choice. :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed_Ingold Posted February 2, 2004 Share Posted February 2, 2004 The 35-70/2.8 is optically superior to the 24-85: sharper and less distortion, comparable to prime lenses. It is one of the finest lenses in Nikon's stable. The filter ring rotates with focusing, which makes it difficult to use a polarizer. It is a push-pull lens, which I kind of like. It's a matter of taste. It's nearly as good, optically, as the 28-70. I own both, and keep the 35-70 as a backup lens. I've seen "excellent" used lenses for under $350. The 24-85 has a more useful range as a travel lens, and the filter ring does not rotate while zooming or focusing. It is also much lighter than the 35-70. If you can use a "G" lens, that lens has silent-wave focusing and is reported to be better optically (and $200 cheaper) than the standard version. I don't have either, but I've seen a lot of my brother's pictures with the "G" lens, which look sharp and contrasty. The build quality suffers when compared to the 35-70 (or 28-70), but is comparable to the highly-regarded 28-105 (which was my backup to the 35-70). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oxskumxo Posted February 2, 2004 Author Share Posted February 2, 2004 "" The filter ring rotates with focusing, which makes it difficult to use a polarizer""" ive been reading that and im woundering, i currently only have circular polorizers, and with them wouldent you be able to negae the turning of the barrel basically, so it wouldent really matter? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andre_noble4 Posted February 2, 2004 Share Posted February 2, 2004 One example of its merit: I recently shot a scene with the Nikon 35-70 2.8 on Kodachrome 64 film at 70mm focal length. There was a football in midflight way out in the scene that is about 0.2mm! in actual size on the slide. The white threads of the football are clearly visible on this tiny football. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerry_ Posted February 2, 2004 Share Posted February 2, 2004 Plus the 35-70mm lens is 'macro' at 35mm only. The 24-85mm lens is 'macro' from 50mm to 85mm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed_Ingold Posted February 3, 2004 Share Posted February 3, 2004 Adam: A polarizer, linear or circular, is set to achieve the effect you want. That's hard to do if the filter turns when the focus (or zoom, as with the 28-105) changes. You have to disable the auto focus in that case. That's no big problem if you're shooting landscapes with a tripod. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abbilder Posted February 6, 2004 Share Posted February 6, 2004 Hello Adam! I own the 24-85 2.8-4 and up to now, I am not disappointed by the lens. I got my lens last year and the main contra, the distortion is nearly nill at my lens - at least not more or less than with the 20-35. You must ask you what you want: A very flexible zoom lens with good, but not the very best quality or a very good zoom lens with a very limited zoom range. If you decide for 2nd, you should consider getting one or two primes instead. Best wishes, Axel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now