Jump to content

opinions on best cheap normal zoom


chulster

Recommended Posts

Hi all,

 

Soliciting ideas and opinions on what is the best bang-for-buck, cheap-and-cheerful "normal" zoom. Am strongly leaning toward an autofocus lens to fulfill this role.

 

Here are the normal zooms I've owned, how much they cost me, and the reasons for no longer owning them:

  • Nikkor 28-105/3.5-4.5 D ($120)
    Good enough lens, but just didn't float my boat. Don't really know why.
  • Nikkor 28-70/3.5-4.5 D ($100)
    Light, compact, adorable little lens, optically good enough; but needed different AFFT values at opposite ends of the zoom range, which I can't abide.
  • Nikkor 35-70/2.8 D ($300/$200)
    Owned this twice. Excellent lens, but ultimately too heavy and the zoom range too small.
  • Tamron 28-75/2.8 ($220)
    Have had back luck with this lens. First copy I tried was a piece of junk optically. Second copy had just acceptable IQ, and it too needed different AFFT values at opposite ends of the zoom range—in its case, the discrepancy was about 15 points!
  • Nikkor 24-120/4 (free)
    This one, given to me by my father when failing strength prompted him to stop using FX gear, was actually my first normal zoom, and in many ways the best. I used it quite a lot because it had great IQ and was so versatile. Ironically—and idiotically to any rational person—these strengths were ultimately its downfall: I had to get rid of it in order to justify trying and using other lenses within its extensive focal length range. But also, it was too big and heavy.

What I am looking for now:

  • Something cheap. I'm a cheapskate, okay? Do cheapskates wind up paying more due to having to constantly replace the cheap crap they buy? Perhaps—but still less than the cost of one modern pro zoom!
  • Good-enough IQ. What's good enough? I'm not looking to replace my primes. I just want something I can throw on the camera when photography is a target of opportunity, not the main mission.
  • Light and compact. If it's not sufficiently light and compact, I won't want to take it out on the occasions mentioned in the previous point.

Currently on my list of candidates:

  • AF-S Nikkor 24-85/3.5-4.5 G VR
    Can get one for about $265 in exc condition. I'm biased against the cheaper G lenses, but considering how disappointing the sampled older alternatives have been....
  • AF Nikkor 28-85/3.5-4.5
    One of the few pre-G-era budget normal AF zooms I haven't sampled.

Not on my list of candidates:

  • Tokina AT-X Pro 28-70/2.6-2.8 (or just 2.8)
    Have seen highly divergent reports of its IQ, and not enough reports on an FX body. Heavy—even heavier than the Nikon 35-70/2.8 and 24-120/4 lenses.

So, what should I get? Perhaps something not mentioned here?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 67
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Have the 24-85 - light relatively small & handy - not too expensive worth shopping around.

Have the 28-85 - a solid, metal pro lens - use it mostly on film cameras. Good lens and can be had inexpensively.

Have the 24-120 - pretty much permanently installed on my DF - the zoom I use the most.

I'm not a pixel peeper, but all three have been very satisfactory. I like the extra reach on the 24-120.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is no clear candidate. I would reconsider the 24-120/4 VR or give the 24-85/3.5-4.5 VR a try if the former is too heavy.

 

May I ask what camera you will use the lens on?

 

D810. I do not want to get another 24-120; it is more than I want to spend, and too big and heavy for me. The 24-85 is a better fit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Have the 24-85 - light relatively small & handy - not too expensive worth shopping around.

Have the 28-85 - a solid, metal pro lens - use it mostly on film cameras. Good lens and can be had inexpensively.

 

Is the 28-85 in the same IQ ballpark as the 24-85 G? I like that it's very cheap.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is the 28-85 in the same IQ ballpark as the 24-85 G? I like that it's very cheap.

I find it quite sharp, but so haven't used it on my digitals - just B&W film. There are a variety of reviews on the internet - also if you search this site. I'll try it vs. 24-85 abs post a pair of shots.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you don't want the 24-120 then I'd go with the Tamron. There is a new one out apparently but mine is an early production lens that has been excellent in IQ and durability. I also have the 24-120 G and it is also excellent but bigger, heavier, slower and more expensive. From what you listed these are the two I'd pick and did.

 

Rick H.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find it quite sharp, but so haven't used it on my digitals - just B&W film. There are a variety of reviews on the internet - also if you search this site. I'll try it vs. 24-85 abs post a pair of shots.

That would be fantastic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you don't want the 24-120 then I'd go with the Tamron. There is a new one out apparently but mine is an early production lens that has been excellent in IQ and durability. I also have the 24-120 G and it is also excellent but bigger, heavier, slower and more expensive. From what you listed these are the two I'd pick and did.

Is your Tamron the one with screw-drive AF? Both the samples I tried and rejected were that. I wonder if the BIM version will be free of the AF issue I described.

 

There is a brand new version for Sony (and other mirrorless?) mount, but not for Nikon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

May I ask what camera you will use the lens on?

 

Exactly! What is suitable for one camera body, may not be so handy or usable on another.

 

Tools, any tools, are appropriate according to their utility, not in some absolute sense.

 

If you are so "cheap" how did you come to accumulate so many lenses?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My 24-85 f/3.5-4.5 VR is on my D800 probably 75% of the time. I also use it as a walk-around with my F100.

 

Is it optically great? No. Is it built as well as a high end lens? No. With that said, it's good enough for me most of the time, is relatively lightweight, and covers a useful focal length range for me. While it's not as well built as lenses like my 14-24 f/2.8, it is what I'd call a "high end amateur" lens and does at least have both full-time MF via "ring" AF-S and a focus scale-the former of which use to be missing from bottom-end lenses and the latter of which is present on some less expensive AF-S lenses like the DX 35mm f/1.8. It does have a rear dust gasket also.

 

I compared it side by side in the store with the 24-120 f/4 VR on my camera, and decided that the 24-85 was better FOR ME. I valued the light weight vs. the 24-120, and I don't use the range between 85mm and 120mm that much. IF the lens went to 135mm, I probably would have been swayed in its favor despite the heavier weight.

 

I'm a wide angle junkie, and value a lens that can go to 24mm more so than one with a longer range that stops at 28mm. That's very much a personal preference, though.

 

BTW, in the age of VR and clean high ISOs, I don't find the difference between a variable aperture that bounces between f/3.5 to f/4.5 to be all that significant vs. a fixed f/4. Who does't love an f/2.8 lens, but that also comes with a significant weight penalty.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Accumulate? I no longer have any of the listed lenses. If I were not a cheapskate, I'd have kept all but the defective ones.

 

It's hard for me to see such "churning" as anything but spendthrift, sorry. If you were truly 'cheap' you'd have found one and stuck with it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's hard for me to see such "churning" as anything but spendthrift, sorry. If you were truly 'cheap' you'd have found one and stuck with it.

Okay, but many spendthrifts buy expensive pro gear (and then sell it to buy newer pro gear—this describes 80% of users of FredMiranda.com's Buy/Sell forum). Spendthrift is merely the opposite of thrifty.

 

So, that word does not quite capture what I am, which is someone who tries a lot of cheap lenses and sells most of them due to expecting too much from cheap lenses. Perhaps the best word is fool.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Have I missed which body this is for? I mention it because a perfectly acceptable and convenient lens on one of the lower-res bodies (such as the 28-80 f/3.3-5.6G or 28-200 f/3.5-5.6G) fall apart as the resolution increases.

 

For what it's worth, I'm sympathetic about the 24-120 - while I used it a bit recently (mostly because I know where my 77mm polariser is and I've mislaid my 82mm one) it's sufficiently big and heavy, and optically less than perfect, that I'd rather use my Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 VC (which I recommend for consideration - it's not that cheap or small, but it's quite compact, much smaller than the Nikkors, and for me a better trade-off than the 24-120). If the variable aperture 24-120 weren't known for being a bit optically awful, I'd much rather have one (or have Nikon just make a smaller 24-120 f/4 - or even 28-120 f/4 if that helps). My 24-120 got traded in as part of my 70-200 upgrade.

 

I'm vaguely looking at the 24-85 VR myself, because it's much smaller, but to be honest I tend to carry an RX100 around when I want a portable camera (to the detriment of my ability to take Nikon Wednesday photos - I wish the Coolpix A were cheaper). I'm vaguely tempted by the non-VR version (which is optically very similar and even smaller), but it's discontinued, and since it wasn't manufactured for all that long I'm not sure it's actually significantly cheaper than a used VR one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In all tests I've seen, the 24-85VR is roughly par with the 24-120VR for optical quality. If the 24-120VR is too large and heavy, my pick would certainly be the 24-85VR. In fact, I agree that the 24-120 f/4VR is rather bulky, and at times wished I'd have gone for the 24-85 instead. But I also tend to use the long end quite a bit, so I just accept the extra bit of weight, and keep the 24-120.

 

The older 24-85 f/2.8-4 is a step back from the newer lenses. For $175 not a bad deal, but your D810 will not have a hard time showing its shortcomings. Whether that's a problem for your intended uses is another matter though. My 24-120VR certainly isn't perfect on my D810, but for the kind of uses I have for this lens, it's easily good enough. I could sure understand the rationale for a lesser lens if the uses aren't too critical.

Edited by Wouter Willemse
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

One more option to throw into the ring, guys. The AF 24-85mm f/2.8-4D. Apparently still being made, incredibly enough, or at least stocked—though I won't buy a new one, of course. Anybody have any experience with this? I can get a copy in quite good shape for $175.

 

I had one, and traded it for the G version shortly after I got my D700 several years back. I missed the close focus switch for about 5 minutes, but the quality of the G version is much better than the D, and the focus is faster, too. If I could see the quality differences on my D700, your D800series will really show it.

Get the 24-85Gvr and don't look back. :)

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm vaguely tempted by the non-VR version (of the 24-85 G).... I'm not sure it's actually significantly cheaper than a used VR one.

The VR version goes for roughly $300 on The Auction Site™; the non-VR, for about $200.

 

My 24-120VR certainly isn't perfect on my D810, but for the kind of uses I have for this lens, it's easily good enough. I could sure understand the rationale for a lesser lens if the uses aren't too critical.

Yes, indeed. The lens should fit the uses to which it will be put.

 

I had one, and traded it for the G version shortly after I got my D700 several years back. I missed the close focus switch for about 5 minutes, but the quality of the G version is much better than the D, and the focus is faster, too. If I could see the quality differences on my D700, your D800series will really show it. Get the 24-85Gvr and don't look back.

Thanks for the direct comparison!

 

Seems like a plurality of recommendations are for the 24-85 VR (with the proviso that its bigger brother, the 24-120, has an optical edge at the cost of money and weight). I'm grateful for all the opinions and experiences. You guys are great. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...