AF-S Zoom-Nikkor 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5G IF-ED Impressions?

Any owners care to comment?

Hi Steve,

 

I like this lens, I have owned it for several months and use it with my N80. The focus is very fast, the 24 to 85 covers 90% of what I shoot. I use it with the SB-22s flash, set it all on program, and have a set-up that gets everything right EVERY time. When I pick up my prints I'm never disappointed. Is it the fastest lens, obviously not, is it my sharpest lens, no (thats my 50mm 1.8). I think its a great stay on the camera most of the time lens. Perfect for traveling light. It does what its designed to do very well, which is be a general purpose, high quality mid-range zoom. If thats what you desire this lens will fit the bill.

 

Happy Shooting!

Hugh

Don't have one, will not buy one, all the g mount lenses are cheap, poorly constructed consumer junk. If you want a decent lens look for one with an aperture ring (ie. the F mount).

 

The previous is my standard response to any question concerning the g mount lenses, if they will not work on an original Nikon F they are not suitable for a Nikon camera.

I have this lens and it works just fine with my D100 and N80. Won't work with my 15 year old Nikon FA though. Which is OK as I do have all the MF prime lenses in that range.

 

Focus is fast, smooth and QUITE. Pictures are very sharp. It is made out of plastic, but so are my two new bodies. I will recommend it. It is definetly not 'junk'. For $325 it is worth it.

 

Haris

Great lens - definitely not "junk." Very contrasty and sharp - and fast AF. A great travel lens for certain. I've shot both film (N80) and digital (D100) with this lens up and down the respective camera's ISO ranges and it is a keeper. If you can hold out for a couple of months, consider getting the new 24-120 ED-IF VR AFS, which looks like it will easily encompass the performance of the 24-85 plus improve on the older 24-120's shortcomings.

I agree about waiting for the new 24-120. I did shoot a single roll with the 24-85G, and it's a nice piece of glass, definitely not junk. But I'd wait to see how the new 24-120 tests out, since it includes VR in addition to AF-S.

"all the g mount lenses are cheap, poorly constructed consumer junk"

 

---------------------------------------------------------------

 

Not so with this G lens. Its construction is on par with other Nikon lenses in that price range. Doesn't compare with the AF-S lenses or the 85mm/1.4D, but it's not junk.

 

I shot a few rolls with the lens. I didn't have a big problem with the optics, though it does have a bit of distortion. I returned it however because simply because I decided I needed a faster, better constructed lens.

 

With the 24-120 coming out, I'd definitely wait and see.

The 24-85AFS' construction quality is neither cheap nor top notch. It falls squarely in the middle of the spectrum and is generally comparable to other Nikon zoom lens in the $300-$600 range. It's optical quality is good, being sharp, contrasty, but rather heavy in distortion. It's autofocus is quiet and discreet, but not all that fast compare to previous Nikon AFS lenses, which blazes. It uses the odd 67mm filter ring for unknown reason, necessitating the acquisition of yet another set of adaptor rings or filters. All in all, it is a good value as long as you use it primarily on later Nikon bodies.

This question should definitely be in the FAQ for this Forum, if there is ever an FAQ.

 

Chuck Fan is among the very early owners of this lens when it was first introduced. I pretty much agree with his points. I am more used to the excellent quality in the 80-200 and 17-35 AF-S, and the build quality for this lens is average but not poor. With rebates (especially last December double rebates in the US), you can get this lens for $300 or so, and that is excellent value for the money.

 

The up-coming 24-120 AF-S G VR will have a wider range and VR. But apparently that lens will be around US$600 or so, or double the price for the 24-85. Therefore, these two lenses are not in direct competition. Personally, I prefer the 24-120's 72mm filter size as that goes alone with my Contax 645 set up, but that is just my reason.

I also think the newly announced 24-120mm f/3.5-5.6G AFS VR is worth waiting for. The zoom range is more generically useful, Nikon's VR has proven to work very well, the AFS focusing is typically fast and quiet. The major unknown quantity is the optical performance, but Nikon usually delivers on that front. You can always wait until that lens is on the market and have been reviewed before you choose.

I am about to get the 24 to 85 with a f100 giving me double rebate..but I have a few observations. Firstly is this lens also a "D" lens. In some Nikon articles it is lised as so, in others, even by Nikon it is not.Plus the lens does have an ED element which usually means good glass. The upcoming 24-120 has 2 ED elements but probably because it goes out further. I concentrate mostly on stronger telephoto zooms for birds but this lens will be an affordable good small zoom..From everything I read and that has been alot, including this forum, it is not junk, nor is it the best zoom ever made by Nikon. It is simply a pretty good zoom unless you shoot architecture..I do not and will be careful about horizons at 24mm..I would love the 28-702.8 but it is way too high priced and I like the 24mm when needed.Again I have some confusion about if this a true d lens. I am also getting a used sb28 and it would be nice to have the flash features of the D lenses.

>>>I am about to get the 24 to 85 with a f100 giving me double rebate..but I have a few observations. Firstly is this lens also a "D" lens<<<

 

Yes, it is a D lens.

 

This is a pretty decent little lens, especially for it's price, but it does have some distortion. I too am waiting for the 24-120 VR to see how it performs. I'll definitely sell the 24-85G and buy the 24-120 G VR if the VR lens has decent optics.