Nikon AF 28-105 3,5-4,5 or 24-85 2,8-4 D

[ismail_ba_aran]

<p>I decided to replace my bulky Tamron 28-105 f2,8 LD IF lens which I use on my D700; with either Nikon Nikkor 28-105 F 3,5-4,5 or Nikkor 24-85 f 2,8-4D. During my decision of replacement, my intention was to own a lighter everday lens which has a good image quality, with decent macro capability (as an amateur of it, it is important to me) and my search took me those two alternatives.<br>

Would anyone give their suggestions in terms of image quality comparison of those two lenses.</p>

[rolubich]

<p>I have had the two lenses for a short period in order to decide the lens to keep (I too have a D700). I tested their sharpness quite extensively and I found out that they are very close (very good center sharpness, extreme corners need f8/f11 to be sharp, good bokeh for a zoom too and very good color rendition).<br>

I finally kept the 24-85 just for the zoom range I like more and for the goofy 28-105 hood.</p>

 

[kohanmike]

<p>I have the 24-85 and find it to be sharp and clean, fast enough auto focus, and really like the 1:2 macro, which seems to me to get even closer than that. I use a D70s.</p>

[CvhKaar]

<p>Maybe wait 2 - 3 days, there may be a new 24-120 F4 on the way from nikon to be anounced this week ...</p>

[john_n._wall]

<p>I had both the 24-85 and the 28-105 and for me the 28-105 won out on sharpness hands down. I kept it and haven't looked back. Makes first-class images for me, and I usually shoot wide open.</p>

<p>The 28-105 has had a good reputation for a long time. The 24-85 has had not so good a reputation. People I respect evaluate it as better than the 24-120 but not as good as the 24-85 f/3.5-4.5, which they say is the hidden gem in this zoom range. </p>

<p>Except, of course, now, I too am waiting for the 24-120 f/4 with my credit card in hand.</p>

[ismail_ba_aran]

<p>Dear all, thx for your constructive feedback.</p>

[jim_mohundro1]

<p>I purchased a used 28-105 a couple of weeks ago and I'm very pleased with its performance, both at the wide end (I had to just slightly increase my Lightroom's default sharpness setting from 25 to 50 for the wide end) and at the long end. I'm going to attempt to upload a quick indoors test "macro" here and I'm even more pleased by that result, to which I've added no sharpening. The sunshade (which was swiftly sent from B&H) is indeed a bit goofy, but it works and I'd recommend it to complete the 28-105. By the way, the image, if it is successfully uploaded here is of about 4 inches of a 4-1/2 inch miniature bottle and is not sharpened beyond the LR default.</p><div></div>

[ShunCheung]

<p>Image quality aside, for an FX-format camera, I by far prefer a mid-range zoom that starts from 24mm over 28mm. That extra 4mm makes a pretty big difference. In fact, as far as I am concerned, 24mm is wide enough for most of my wide-angle applications so that I don't have to have a wider 17-35 or 14-24mm with me. (Unless I shoot super wide landscape or building interior, in such cases I want something wider than 20mm.)</p>

<p>Of course, your mileage may vary, but that is a factor I would consider.</p>

[tom_dwyer]

<p>A slightly different perspective........I used to own the Nikkor 28mm f2.8 AF non-D along w/ the 28-105mm. I wondered if I should keep both. I shot them both wide open. The zoom was oodles better than the prime. I'm not sure if that's kudo's to the zoom or damnation for the prime. Needless to say, I sold the prime and use the 28-105 about 70-75% of the time. I never tried the 24-85 f2.8-4. It intrigues me but the price for a new one is a bit off-putting, though used prices are not terrible. Regardless, I own and love the 28-105.<br>

Good luck w/ your decision.</p>

 

[jim_mohundro1]

<p><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=24372">Shun Cheung</a>,<br>

I agree with your comment re the extra 4mm. If we're carrying only the one body and are limited to one lens (tourist images, street shooting generally, or where we just can't pack much on us), it's a good idea to bring some, necessarily compromising, zoom that will at once give us both the longest and widest tools we think we are likely to use. I purchased my used 28-105 (a spendid buy at $200) for 1) street shooting and 2) hanging out with a very fast 4-year old grandson. For images where I have a bit more leisure to prepare I bring along my dandy 24mm f/2.8 AI-s Nikkor and one or two other primes depending on the general plans for making pictures that day. Would that I could afford the excellent lenses available down around 14mm and 16mm, but I'd not use them that often, I think, to justify the cost since I'm an amateur. I do find that 24mm for me seems to be down toward the lower end of what I can deal with given any aim toward "normal" perspective.</p>

[andrewg_ny]

<p>I can't answer to all attributes of these lenses but the 24-85/2.8-4 has considerably higher magnification in its macro mode vs. the 28-105/3.5-4.5 or 24-85/3.5-4.5 AF-S, but this close-focus is restricted to the longer (I believe) part of the focal range while the AF-S has its close-focus capabilities across the whole focal range. It's also the largest/heaviest of this trio with 72mm filter vs. 67 and 62 for the other lenses.</p>

[ralph_schwarz]

<p>I have the 28-105mm and for the weight and range, it is a great lens. I too have the hood, which I would recommend.</p>

<p>I ended up getting a 24-70mm f/2.8 for my D700 for pure image quality, etc. But it is about 2x the weight and I lose some telephoto range.<br>

Go with the 28-105mm.</p>

<p>Ralph.</p>

[ismail_ba_aran]

<p>Th to all responders. I decided to own a 28-105mm.</p>