Nikkor 24-85 2.8-4 decent alternative to 24-70 2.8?

[wade_thompson]

<p>I am looking for a decent alternative to the pricey Nikkor 24-70 f2.8 to fit my needs.<br>

This would be for use in semi-close range 5K events. I used to have the Tamron 24-70 f2.8 but was not impressed and sold it. Just not sharp (maybe I had a bad copy).<br>

The variable f2.8 to 4.0 should not be a problem for my use.</p>

<p>I was interested in what people thought of the AF and the sharpness of this $600 2.8-4.0 lens.</p>

<p>thanks in advance.</p>

<p> </p>

[lornesunley]

<p>I've got one. I use it as my regular on-camera lens for my D700. Even the 1:2 "macro" works pretty well.</p>

[lornesunley]

<p>I meant to include a 100% crop from a portrait I did with the lens at F/8 85mm (with flash ...)</p><div></div>

[lornesunley]

<p>and here is its "macro" focusing f/5.6 at 85mm</p><div></div>

[John Crowe]

<p>I've recently considered this lens myself as it seems to be the next best one available. With less zoom there is also the 35-70/2.8 D.</p>

[Mary Doo]

<p>The 24-85 f2.8 lens is an excellent value. See Thom Hogan's review <a href="http://bythom.com/2485lens.htm">here</a>.</p>

<p>Good luck!</p>

[Mary Doo]

<p>The 24-85 f2.8 lens is an excellent value. See Thom Hogan's review <a href="http://bythom.com/2485lens.htm">here</a>.</p>

<p>Good luck!</p>

[rconey]

<p>I owned this lens for a while. At least my copy had less contrast and had complex distortion that was objectionable for the landscape work I do. The 35-70 f2.8 is a great lens in its limited range. That plus a prime 24 f2.8 would get you the same effective range.</p>

[lornesunley]

<p>@Mary, that review is not for the 24-85mm f/2.8-4 lens</p>

<p>This review http://www.photozone.de/Reviews/237-nikkor-af-24-85mm-f28-4-d-if-review--test-report (photozone.de) is for the OP lens question</p>

<p>and the 35-70 f/2.8 or the 28-20 f/2.8 are much better lenses</p>

[Mary Doo]

<p>Oops, I accidentally grabbed the review for the f/3.5 lens! :$</p>

<p>Actually I have used both the f/2.8 and f/3.5 versions. I thought both of them were pretty good but, of course, neither can beat the current 24-70mm for focussing speed!</p>

[john_hinkey]

<p>I tried 3 copies of the 24-85/2.8-4 and none of them were impressive in any way. I finally settled on a 24-85/3.5-4.5 AFS which was better at every aperture (except f/2.8 of course).</p>

[hans_janssen]

<p>I'm ver satisfied too of my AFs 24-85/3.5-4.5 on a D700 and I'm using a 28-70 only when I need the 2.8.</p>

[arun_seetharam]

<p>I used 24-85 2.8-4 for sevral years now for several types of photography. It is a great lens for most appertures under 75mm. But I would always use over f4 or 5.6. After 75mm it is a bit soft. f8 - f12 is the sweet spot. It is sharp, great colors and is a wonderful lens. 24 - 45mm has been all round wonderful.<br>

I also use the 24-70 2.8. It is just unfair to compare the two. Ha! Ha! AF-S makes it superfast focus. This has the magic glass also or the ED elements which really makes a difference. Truly pro, this is a fantastic lens. So there is a separation between the two lenses.<br>

Honestly, I wouldnt have bought 24-70 2.8 if a job didnt pay for it. But having it, is special. Interestingly I never sold away my 24-85. I still use it widely. And it keeps giving me surprisingly pretty results.</p>

[john_n._wall]

<p>I had a copy of this lens for a while but found it to be soft.</p>

<p>I compared it closely with a 28-105 Nikkor and found the 28-105 to be significantly sharper throughout the range.</p>

<p>I sold both lenses and bought a 24-120 f/4. Its a great lens. I haven't looked back.</p>