Nikkor 24-85mm f2.8-4 AF D- underated lens?

Is the Nikkor 24-85mm f2.8-4 AFD an underated general purpose lens? I've been

looking at all the reviews, both for film and digital and it seems like this

lens is a fine performer.

 

It seems to me that it may have been overshadowed by other more expensive "pro"

lenses. I think it may make a great back-up or general purpose PJ lens for a

prospective D3 owner.

 

I've been thinking of purchasing one as an extra lens to go with my nikon 12-

24mm f4 on the D200 (& soon D300). They seem to be going for a great price on

the used market too.

 

I've never used one so would be keen to here from any users out there.

Thanks.

I like mine a lot... it's sharp and focuses fine. Several years ago I read various user reviews questioning the lens, then put it through a series of tests. It did quite well and is only a smidgeon less sharp at 24mm than my prime. I ended up realizing its true quality. Perhaps I got a good sample, but it's a keeper for me. Cheers, -Greg-

Consider the 24-85mm G AFS as well. I consider mine a keeper.

 

See Thom Hogan's review.

 

http://www.bythom.com/2485lens.htm

I thing it's a great lens. I wanted something fast, but not terribly expensive, so I bought it

as my main lens for a D70s (it becomes a 36mm-127mm), $550 from Adorama. It is also a

1:2 macro. (I have the Tokina 12-24 and Nikon 70-300 VR). Here are a variety of samples,

mostly with the 24-85:

 

http://www.kohanmike.com/Cityscapes.htm

 

http://www.kohanmike.com/Concerts.htm

 

http://www.kohanmike.com/Macro_Closeups.htm

 

http://www.kohanmike.com/Portraits.htm

I got the lens to use with an 801s third body. It is an interesting piece of glass. Nikon took out the ED elements in the 28-70mm f2.8 but left the asph made the lens wider but trimmed the diameter of the lens so it was not quite as big or fast as the 28-70mm. They have the same number of elements and groups as eachother and were likely designed by the same engineers. Nikon gave it a mid level construction but for me that was good because it resulted in a lighter good carry all day lens.

 

Bjorn gives the lens a good rating of 4 out of 5. It really will be a great lens on a D3 in 5:4 mode since the long sides of the image are trimmed from 36mm to 30mm which eliminates the area of the image circle that had a touch of softness. The center of the frame is very sharp as the photo of the dog shows. Its nice to go as wide as 24mm and still go out an extra 15mm to 85mm. I have a 70-200 and the 1.7tc to cover the long end.

 

In 5:4 mode on a D3 it would crop only the long side, and the long side would have a 29-102mm view. A very handy view for directly framing portraits size 8x10 and 16x20 inch prints.

I wonder if it is actually being overshadowed by the cheaper f/3.5-4.5 AF-S, which as Keith

suggests is a surprisingly good lens - I think it represents excellent value for money. I'm not

clear on the advantages of the f/2.8-4 over it, though I imagine that greater consistency of

performance is part of it.

It's my main D100/D200 lens. I use the 2.8 (at 24mm) opening all the time so was not too

interested in the cheaper 3.5-4.5 version (which as mentioned does appear to be a very good

lens). My main N90s lens was the 35-70mm/2.8 and that was what I was trying to duplicate

when I got a D100 5 years ago.

For all-around use, I've been very pleased, and the price is pretty competitive. The first reviews were critical, so maybe there were bugs to work out. It balances very well on an F100 and gives a nice, bright image in the finder.

 

Mostly train stuff:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/74312783@N00/tags/2485mmf284d/

I have other, similar lenses, so don't use it so much. It is very prone to flare, ghosting, even some rainbows shooting toward the sun. If I was better with a lens hood, I'm sure it would be better, but the lens hood is quite large-doesn't fit into my lens case. I think the optics and range are quite good.

I looked into tests of the AFS G type 24-85, from all I read it was a good lens except the wide end was barrel distorted. The max aperture was also a problem, I wanted to blur the background and shoot indoors too. So after I came across Bjorns review I went with the faster lens.

Hopefully now that we have Nikon using FF sensor I will be able to afford an FX camera at some point and this lens will be my main lens.

Thank you everyone. the only bad review i read about it was Ken Rockwell's, the others were really good.

 

I think I'll purchace one as a sharp, relatively fast, light lens. Thank you!

I used the lens today a bit, and was quite pleased with the results. I put up an image from the day's shoot. I even carried the lens hood (didn't need it). With the 12-24 and the 80-200 it gives a full range for landscape work.

Comparing the 24-85 to the 80-200 in the 80-85 range was instructive. Maybe it is the ED glass in the latter, but the contrast and color saturation are much nicer in the 80-200. I compared to the 25-50 MF f4 lens the next day, and again, the 24-85 f2.8-4 is the loser. It renders a flatter, less saturated image to my eye.