Nikon 24-85 AF-S vs. 24-120 VR vs. 28-105

[kent_morris]

I've had my N75 for a little over a year now and I'm shopping around

for a lens that will be a step up from the 28-80 f/3.3-5.6G that came

with my camera kit. I enjoy mostly landscape and people photography,

and would like a lens that will improve my images a bit. There's not

a camera shop to try these where I live, so I've scoured the internet

for reviews and wanted to see if anyone has any experience with these

before picking one to order and try out. The three lenses that I'm

considering are:

 

1) 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5G ED-IF AF-S - All the reviews read great, just

wish it had a bit more range at the top end.

 

2) 24-120mm f/3.5-5.6G ED-IF AF-S VR - This is one that I want to

like, sounds great on paper. The VR would be a nice feature, and the

extended focal length would be perfect, but a fair number of reviews

mention it isn't as sharp, enough that it's hard to ignore them.

and it's also a bit more $$.

 

3) 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5D AF - ?

 

Again, any comparisons or experiences would be appreciated. Thanks

in advance.

 

/km

[andrew_hall1]

Lots of links here: www.nikonlinks.com

[ethan_melad]

personally, id go with the 28-105. its well tested and durable, definitely sharp, and has an

aperture ring. i just dont like those G lenses..

[ilkka_nissila]

I also recommend the 28-105. Nice lens. The 24-85 is softish at 24 mm and has a lot of distortion at that FL. The 28-105 is better for wide angle while the 24-85 is better for tele. If you want a hybrid lens for film and digital, the 24-85 is it, but for film only, the 28-105 is great.

[kent_morris]

Did I read right? The 28mm is better than the 24mm for wide angle, and the 85 mm is better than the 105mm for tele? Pardon my ignorance, but why do you say this?

 

Not having an aperature ring does not bother me since the aperature is controlled from the camera on my N75 and thus wouldn't be used anyway. Is there another reason not to like the G lens series?

 

I will be doing film only, at least for a while.

 

km

[ilkka_nissila]

The 28-105 is optimized for high quality between short and medium focal lengths and is a bit soft at 105 mm. However, the 24-85 produces its highest quality at 85 mm and the quality drops, being not so great at 24 mm. This is what I meant. The differences are quite significant. If you mostly take shots at 85ish focal lengths, it's better to choose the 24-85 because your shots will then be sharp. If you want the best quality at 28 mm, take the 28-105 mm because that's the way the things were designed. I know it may sound paradoxical but there is a reversing in Nikon's zoom design policy that took place between the design of the two lenses. The 24-120 VR is also best in the tele end and not great at 24 mm.

 

The G aspect is only a factor if you want to use the lens with cameras that don't have the sub-command dial, so in your cases it doesn't matter at all. The quality of these lenses is in the same ball park, except that their strong points are different. I have used both and think either is a decent lens. I recommend that you try each lens out in a store and see which you prefer. My personal choice is the 28-105 but I use F100 and F5 bodies which have better focusing systems than the F75. It might be better to choose the 24-85 AF-S because it will focus more securely on your camera. It is also easier to manual focus accurately because it has geared-down manual focus which is excellent.