Is the 24-85/2.8-4 on a D200 comperable to the 17-55/2.8

[stephen_fassman]

Is the 24-85/2.8-4 used on a D200 comperable to the 17-55 in pix quality, res, CA, color reproduction,

etc? (I can always go wider with my 18-70 or 12-24 so that is not the issue.) My normal F4 film lens was

the 28-85/3.5-4.5, which I now use on my D70,.... so how bad could the 24-85 be? It's speed is perfect,

so is the 35-127 equiv focal length, and so is the price @ $565! I don't need a fixed f2.8 at 2x the price.

Have any reviews been written? Are there any users out there? Thanks.

[rjacksonphoto]

http://www.naturfotograf.com/index2.html

[Ed_Ingold]

I don't think any Nikon lenses are dogs these days. The image quality tends to be high throughout the line. The 24-85/2.8-4 is a consumer-level lens with a huge external extension as it zooms. The 17-55/2.8 is a top of the line Nikon lens, with fully professional build-quality, internal focusing and zoom, and AFS. In aggregate, the image quality will be significantly higher. Furthermore, 17mm is a lot more useful than 24mm at the wide end with a DSLR. If you can afford it, forget the 24-85 and dump the 18-70 to get the 17-55.

 

As in most things, you pay a lot more to get small improvements. The build-quality, speed and convenience are as important as IQ if you shoot a lot.

[sam_portera]

Ive had both. The 24-85 I used on an F100 and now I have a 17-55 on the d200. They are in a different league all together. The 24-85 has very prounounced ditortion at the wide end and soft wide open where as the 17-55 has little distortion and is sharp from 2.8-8.0 IMO That and the obvious difference in focal length

[marike1]

<p>Good review of the 24-85 f2.8-4 at <a href="http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/

lenses/nikkor_2485_284/index.htm">photozone.de</a>. Impressive MFT scores at 24 and

40mm in particular. Barrel distortion fairly heavy at 24mm, but evens out towards the middle

of zoom range. Overall, very good lens. </p>