Why is Nikon still continuing 25-85 f2.8-4?

[arun_seetharam]

24-85 f2.8-4 AF-D is a pretty old and a mediocre lens isnt it? I wonder why Niko still is continuing with it. I have had

this for some time now. This is indeed a party lens, a lens for all. May be thats why!! sell it to everybody...@ the

higher end it is pretty awful...

 

Or am I missing something here, like an operational secret...

 

:-)

[Ian Rance]

I have that lens - but it seems good to me (on film). I use it for my wedding work and it has never let me down, and it has good sharpness, contrast and colourI found. I use it wide open and stopped down, but have only found one problem - vignetting with a pola-filter when used at the 24mm setting. Not the best example, but http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/6559252-lg.jpg was taken with it.

 

Ian

[ellis_vener_photography]

According to Bjorn Rorslett's evaluation ( http://www.naturfotograf.com/lens_zoom_01.html#AF24-85f2.8 ) it is a decent lens.

[ShunCheung]

Just because a lens is not officially discontinued doesn't necessarily mean Nikon is still manufacturing it. I don't

know the details about this specific lens, but it is possible that manufacturing has stopped a while back; however,

Nikon still has stock that they have a hard time to sell. For example, they have discounted the D200 body to below

$1000, but they have a hard time selling it, well over a year since the D300 was announced.

[photo5]

The newer 24-85mm AF-S is said to be a better lens optically anyway, but having f2.8 might be nice too.

[j_sevigny]

Not sure I understand these questions about company motives. As far as I'm concerned, the more lenses that are available, the better.

[arun_seetharam]

This lens has been hangin around for very long. 2000 was when it came out. Yea..you may be right Shun. Too many of those still left in their dusty basements, because 24-85 AF-S came out in 2003. However...it has a short useful range zoom-n-apperture wise. Not that this lens is a total write-off but disappoints you a lot of times. Soft focus, distortions at the ends, vignetting and so on. May be I need to just use it between 30mm and 70mm at stopped down appertures.

[dan_brown4]

If a lens is selling, Nikon will keep it in production and distribution. To wit: Nikkor 80-200/f2.8D-AF zoom. Ditto for the old N6006,

which remained in production long after the N70 technically surpassed it.

[shuo_zhao]

>> "The newer 24-85mm AF-S"

 

Interestingly the AF-S 24-85 is actually discontinued, while the AF-D 2.8-4 24-85's not.

[graham_line]

Can't imagine why you're having such problems with it, though there were complaints about the very earliest ones. The only situation I consciously avoid with this one is close-up and wide-open. Even that works if straight lines aren't a consideration. The lens balances well on the F100.

If you show us some pics maybe we can diagnose the problem.

 

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

[crabseye]

Soft focus?

 

Not on my D80 ...

 

http://www.photo.net/photo/6547583&size=md

 

http://www.photo.net/photo/6377123&size=md

 

I'll take this lens over any other "party" lens (whatever that means) any time.

 

Perhaps the problem is in the technique?

[arun_seetharam]

80-200 ED is a great lens Dan!! And N6006 amazingly popular camera. They better milk those products. :-) Wow!! thats an interesting story.....24-85 AF-S being discontinued.

[arun_seetharam]

Hey thanks for the pictures guys.....its nice to know this one is a good lens. You know....I did think, Kirk. whether it was anything to do with my technique. But havent had the problem with 50mm or 105mm or the older 28-70 3.5-4.5 remember? Even with my 80-200 handheld comes out great. But then I went into the forums and other places to checkout what people think and most are like......Errr.....well....this lens is alright.....nothing to jump out at.

[kohanmike]

I've had the lens for 2 years, choosing it with a D70s instead of the kit lens. I've been more than happy with it, sharp, clean, and the macro

function is very useful. I shoot product, rock concerts, portrait, a very good all around lens, and the price is right, $550 US.

 

http://www.kohanmike.com/samples_24_85.htm

[harvey_edelstein1]

The design of this lens is very similar to the formula of the pro lens. Its got a good reputation. Here is what photozone.de said.

 

Verdict

The Nikkor AF 24-85mm f/2.8-4D IF is an very good standard zoom and it was the right decision by Nikon to discontinue its younger cousin (AF-S 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5G IF-ED) rather than this lens. The resolution characteristics is very good to excellent throughout the zoom range with a sweet spot towards the wide end. The contrast suffers somewhat at large aperture settings, specifically at 85mm, but is lifted significantly when stopping down a little. Vignetting and CAs are very well controlled whereas distortions are about average for a lens in this class. The mechanical quality is decent without reaching the true pro grade Nikkors here due to a rather extensive use of plastics and an old style AF.

 

I have the lens and for the money its good.

[harvey_edelstein1]

Other thoughts as an owner, I could never afford the 24 or 28-70mm that uses ED and LD glass but I wanted a wide range lens and 24-85 accomplished that. The F2.8-4 makes this lens great in low light, its a FX coverage lens too so if the trend is toward FX cameras and you own this lens your all set with an Ideal walk around lens.

 

The plastic used is not cheap plastic, its at least as good as third party lenses and you have a Nikon with Nikkor quality control. One last point, this lens has a macro mode switch and with the 85mm set you get a useful feature making you able to grab close shots on a zoom lens.

[leonard_forte1]

I have the 24-85 f/2.8-40 (the first lens I bought with the D200) and I find it to be quite good! As sharp as most with good contrast. I decided to keep it, particularly since it has a very useful macro.

[Jerry_]

And the AF 24-85mm f2.8D~f4D is either a DX lens or a FX lens, so if you have the lens and go from a D200 to a D700 (or D3,) the lens is not going to be placed 'out-of-service.'

[Landrum Kelly]

I used to shoot this lens with the Kodak 14n at fourteen megapixels in good light, and at that resolution the limitations of my copy, at least, were quite obvious. It was not a bad lens, but it certainly did not sparkle like the 80-200 ED f/2.8 which I used on the same camera. The incredible resolution of the 14n was not enough to show the limits of the 80-200, but it did show the limits of the 24-85. This is anecdotal evidence based on my own copies, of course, but it is all I have.

 

Never doubt that under the best conditions the 14n was capable of some incredible resolution. It is a shame that it had so many flaws, but that is another story. It certainly "found out" a number of lenses that I mounted on it.

 

--Lannie

[harvey_edelstein1]

So Arun, what lens anywhere in its price range, coverage, speed, with close up ability competes with it?

Go to flickr and find the tag for the lens an study the pictures. From the comments here pros are happy with the lens for concerts and weddings and its not a pro lens at a pro price. I have found lots of lenses like this that people like Bjorn Roslette like enough to bring to our attention and save us money which we can spend for other gear. If it sat around in a box on a shelf because the public was unaware what a bargain it was so what.

[ivan_verschoote1]

According to www.photozone.de, the 24-85/2.8-4 is not a bad performer indeed.

 

I think - together with the 28-105/3.5-4.5 - it is the best midrange (affordable) zoom for FF use.

[ilkka_nissila]

My problem with the 28-105 and the AF-D 24-85 is that the manual focusing ring is difficult to use for precise focusing. The 24-85 AF-S has massive barrel distortion at 24mm and isn't all that sharp at the wide end whereas at 85mm it is very good. The 28-105 is the opposite: very good at 28mm, a bit soft at 105mm.

 

I am considering getting the 35-105 AF-D - it is cheap 2nd hand, a compact lens and as far as I remember, it got decent reviews. I have the 24-70 which is a great, but huge lens, and for $150 how bad can the 35-105 D be? If I get one I'll report on its performance on the D700 back here.

[Palouse]

Nothing wrong with it--this was taken at 85mm f11.<div></div>

[harvey_edelstein1]

I'm talking about the F2.8-4 version the AFS version was discontinued it was a slower lens with more distortion at 24mm. The F2.8-4 version I have is smooth to focus manually for me and has a nice sized ring.

[heyjaehey]

My guess is that this lens provides pretty good focal range with full-frame body. Nikon started to manufacture the "cost-friendly" full-frame body only recently so maybe that's why this lens is still hot? Just an random thought.

 

I have D300 and yes I have this lens. It's a good lens.