Using the new 24-85 VR on DX as a general purpose travel lens

[gsbhasin]

<p>I am in need for a general purpose high quality travel lens for my D7000. <br />I use primarily a 35 /1.8 DX and sometimes it is either too short or too long.<br /> I would have liked the 16-85 DX or its rumored replacement and none of them are available.<br /> So I am thinking of getting the 24-85. (Ideally would have loved a 20 or 24 mm DX prime and the 85 /1.8G )<br /> Here are the reasons why I am considering 24-85 VR for the D7000:</p>

<ol>

<li>At 24 mm it is ok-wide 36 mm eq. on the D7000.</li>

<li>Shun and others who have tested it for PN, rate it very highly.</li>

<li>It is full frame so edge performances on DX would even be better</li>

<li>If I do get to an FX in the next few years - i would just need a body</li>

<li>The price is right</li>

</ol>

<p>BTW, hope to visit Yosemite in the very nearer future. And considering everything is shot at from a distance, would 28 mm eq. focal length be missed. (The sigma 17-50 is another contender that provides that. But it seems a mixed bag. And so do Tamron etc. There seem to be more compromises in IQ on non Nikon lenses. Of course I do lose 1-2 stops and 8 mm of focal length on the wise side)<br /> <br />What would you do in my shoes?</p>

[ShunCheung]

<blockquote>

<p>I would have liked the 16-85 DX or its rumored replacement and none of them are available.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I have no idea about any "rumored" replacement for the 16-85 DX, but I wonder why you keep on suggesting that it is not available.</p>

 

<ul>

<li>Adorama currently has it in stock, although it is the gray-market version: <a href="http://www.adorama.com/NK1685VR.html">http://www.adorama.com/NK1685VR.html</a></li>

<li>Keeble and Shuchat also has it, but it is the Nikon USA version and costs more. They are in Palo Alto, not that far from where you are: <a href="http://kspphoto.com/spec_sheet.html?catalog[product_guids][0]=81a81997-845e-4dbe-ad00-2e73ba238336">http://kspphoto.com/spec_sheet.html?catalog[product_guids][0]=81a81997-845e-4dbe-ad00-2e73ba238336</a></li>

</ul>

<p>If you are willing to look around, I am sure other stores may have it also. There are many more stores besides B&H and Amazon.com. And of course you can also find it used.</p>

<p>In case you are wondering about future lenses, as I have said many times, Photokina starts on September 18; I would expect lots of new camera and lens introduction after the Olympics.</p>

<p>Personally, I don't like the 24-85 zoom range on DX for "travel" photography; it is not nearly wide enough on the wide end. The ultimate travel lenses should be the 18-200mm DX and 18-300mm DX; notice that they both start from 18mm on the wide end, but you compromise on optical quality from those super zooms.</p>

[gsbhasin]

Good to know KS has it in stock. Will

pay a visit. Thx Shun

 

18-105/200/300 don't interest me . Too

heavy and not good IQ.

 

I have become a stickler for IQ.

 

Still might get the 24-85:)

 

Would 36 mm suffice for yosemite?

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>Not wide enough for DX imho. No way would I want a general-purpose travel zoom that only went to 24mm... It would drive me crazy...</p>

<p>You CAN find the 16-85 if you look, I'd get that, or a 17-50 Tamron and a 70-300 (either Tamron or Nikon).</p>

[errol young]

<p>16-85 on DX</p>

<ul>

<li>lighter</li>

<li>Wider</li>

<li>High IQ</li>

<li>sturdy</li>

</ul>

[JDMvW]

<p>Quite aside from the fact that you would have no real wide angle on your "walkaround"with a 24-85mm, I think it's a mistake to buy a lens because you might someday, sometime "upgrade" to FX format.</p>

<p>If you knew for sure that you were going to FX next month, that's something else, but otherwise it's sort of like the parent who buys a kid's clothes two sizes too large, hoping they will grow into them. Meanwhile, the kid looks like a dork, is teased, and grows up to be a psychopath, or something....</p>

<p>I personally don't understand why some Nikon users seem so reluctant to keep their old DX cameras if they do go FX. Having both formats in your kit is extremely handy. If you do that, then the 16-85 will still be useful to you; and, if you don't, it sells well on the used market and you will have had the use of it for however long.</p>

[gsbhasin]

<p>Can anyone having both the 35 mm DX and the 16-85 <strong>shoot @ 35 /F5 the same scene with both</strong> and post center and edge crops?<br>

If someone happens to have the 24-85 VR, can you add that too to a comparison above?<br>

Maybe I just got lucky but my 35 is super sharp even @ 1.8<br>

If the 16-85 @ F5 is as good, then I guess that's the way to go. My 50 AF-D 1.8 doesn't get sharp until F2.8 so 35 is the new yard stick (Yes i realise it is a prime, hence requesting comparisons at F5. Also know that zooms don't have F1.8)<br>

And I thought 50 AF-D was good enough but guess CAD helps improve designs even more. </p>

[ShunCheung]

<p><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=402304">Gurpreet Singh Bhasin</a>, if you really want a new16-85mm DX, Nikon USA version, I would suggest giving K&S a call and pick it up quickly. Obvious there is some shortage for that lens. Since I have already posted the link above, other people may read this thread and pick it up ahead of you. I have no idea how many they have in stock. I was there a few days ago but forgot to ask.</p>

<p>On the other hand, Adorama has been showing in stock for the gray version for a little while.</p>

[Jerry_]

<p>If you are going to Yosemite National Park, you will need a larger parking lot to back up in if you are taking a 24mm lens on a DX body. The *view* of 36mm is going to be a challenge to use for scenic views in the park. You might look into the *old* AF-S 12-24mm f4 DX Nikkor lens for your trip.</p>

[chris_brandt1]

<p>In my opinion 36mm is wide enough for Yosemite. At least the high country. I just spent a week up high and rarely shot above 40mm. Most everything was at 24mm (36mm) or below. My favorite Landscape lens is the Nikkor 24mm AF-D. But I often used a Tamron 10-24 at Yosemite. The quality I gave up was worth the compositions. I am a prime lens fanatic so I rarely shoot a zoom but a friend of mine gets great results with their 16-85mm. Good luck!</p>

[kohanmike]

<p>In the early seventies had a Nikon F2 with a 35mm f/2 lens. That's what I used for years when I went to the High Sierras (between Kings Canyon and Yosemite). I found that focal length to be very good for most landscape shots I took at the time.</p>

<p>A few years ago I traded in all my gear for a D70s, 24-85 f/2.8-4 Macro and 70-300 VR. I found the 24mm (36mm equiv.) served me very well. Then I went to a Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 because the f/4 of the 24-85 was too slow for the nightclub concert shots I was doing. (I also traded in the 70-300 VR for a Sigma 50-150 f/2.8 and 120-400 f/4.5.6.)</p>

[vince-p]

<p>First in defense of buying FX lenses against a future Fx purchase. You're spending a ton of money on these lenses. If you believe you will one not so distant day trade up to FX, as I did for several years, and then in fact followed up by doing so, buying FX lenses makes perfect sense. I have a D700 and a back up D70 (which I picked up for $75!!) and my favorite lens on both these days is the AF-S Nikkor 16-35 f/4 G. The angle of view equivalents of 24-52 seem to me perfect for landscapes. <br>

On the other hand: the idea that 35mm is not 'wide enough" for gigantic landscapes is kind of silly. It's not wide enough to look WIDE. But it's wide enough to make excellent and compelling images.<br>

The great majority of Ansel Adams' images of Yosemite were made on 12" lenses on 8x10 format, and 6" lenses on 4x5. Six inches is ~152.4mm. The diagonal on 4x5 is 6.4". A six inch lens is equivalent in angle of view to 41mm on 135 format. He considered 120mm on 4x5 to be a very wide lens. That's 32mm in 135 terms. Sooooo..... that 24-85 will probably be FINE. </p>

 

[allan_jamieson2]

<p>I've used the previous version 24-85mm AFS lens as a walk around lens on a D90 in the past and it performed extremely well but you will miss the wide angle part using it on a DX camera. I had a Nikon 12-24mm lens with me too which covered everything you would need when used along with the 24-85mm lens. If you can get it the Nikon 16-85mm lens would make more sense for DX and then sell it on if/when you move to a full frame camera. Maybe best to buy a good used one, there are always plenty of good Nikon lenses for sale online, just buy from a reputable dealer and you won't go far wrong.</p>

<p>If you know you are definitely going to go full frame, a Nikon 20mm lens with the new 24-85mm lens will perform well on a D7000. Don't disregard the AFS version of the 24-85mm lens, it is an extremely good lens for the money, I bought mine as new "old" stock over a year ago and have found it to be much better than I thought it would be, even now I use it occasionally on my D800 and it is very sharp.</p>

[edwardchen]

<p>Nikon has two dedicated ultra wide zooms for DX format. They are AFS 10-24/3.5-4.5 and AFS 12-24/4. I owned 12-24/4 and it's an excellent lens. It's better built and it has less barrel distortion than its cousin 10-24. You can't go wrong with 12-24.<br>

But they are not cheap. if you are thinking to go for FX, you should consider 14-24/2.8?</p>

[orcama60]

<p>Shun already gave you a couple of stores to buy that great lens. I can only support that this lens, the Nikon 16-85 is the best lens in that range out there. I do have it and I trust it with my heart. I will only replace it with the amazing 24-70 f/2.8. I do not have any experience with the 24-85 but if you can buy the mentioned 16-85, I think it will be your best choice. It is wider, it is very sharp, it is reliable, it is not too heavy and very solid ... and also, whoever has it, has rated it as a great lens. Happy shooting !! </p>

[kj_thomas]

<p>You have a D7000, which is a DX camera. I would take Shun's advice (as well as some you've received from other folks on threads you've started), and pick up a 16-85mm. It may be hard to find, but it's not impossible to find. Just check around at all of the authorized Nikon dealers. I have this lens, and I pick it in the bag with my D300s whenever I travel.</p>

<p>The 24-85mm is a great lens according to the reviews, and I'm sure it will take fine shots on the D7000. But a better fit for most DX shooters is something that gets out to 18mm...or even 16mm. You could also couple the 24-85mm with a 12-24 or a 10-24 if you need something wider.</p>

[andylynn]

I'd just point out that having used a 16-85 and an 18-105 and an 18-200 on a D7000, which the 18-200 is too soft for

my tastes I can't discern any IQ difference between the 16-85 and the 18-105. If you want a travel lens and choose

based on IQ and weight, I'm pretty sure the 18-105 is actually better because it weighs less. If you want better IQ than

those you'd be looking at one of the f/2.8 zooms, probably the Sigma or Tamron because the Nikon is heavy. The 24-

85 is great on FX but I wouldn't want it for DX

[vince-p]

<p>Based on what criterion except personal taste is 35mm equivalent not wide enough for landscape photography? I want to keep pointing at Ansel Adams and jumping up and down..... </p>

[joel_b.1]

<p>Gurpreet, I traveled recently to Mexico with a D7000 and like you wondered about lens choices. Like you, I love the 35mm 1.8 on that camera, so I brought that. To get wider, I brought a 20mm 2.8 AF-D. I also brought a 50mm, but I found I used the 35 and 20 almost exclusively, and I very rarely found myself wishing for a focal length I didn't have. The 35/20 prime setup is also, of course, very lightweight and compact. I've looked at your lovely portfolio and it seems you shoot wide most of the time, so I don't know if you even really need the long end of a zoom. Just thinking out loud -- hope you enjoy your trip!</p>

[allan_jamieson2]

<p>The only other lens not mentioned which might make sense if you were definitely going to move to full frame sooner rather than later is the Nikon 16-35mm. Bigger than the 16-85mm and not as much of a range but very usable on DX or FX cameras if you like ultra wide angles.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<blockquote>

<p>Based on what criterion except personal taste is 35mm equivalent not wide enough for landscape photography? I want to keep pointing at Ansel Adams and jumping up and down.....</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Vince, so by your logic, since Ansel Adams mainly shot black and white in his entire career, we don't even need color photography today?</p>

<p>I respect Ansel Adams a lot mainly because he was a pioneer. Otherwise, I prefer the work from modern landscape masters and really don't care what equipment Adams used many decades ago.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The only other lens not mentioned which might make sense if you were definitely going to move to full frame sooner rather than later is the Nikon 16-35mm. Bigger than the 16-85mm and not as much of a range but very usable on DX or FX cameras if you like ultra wide angles.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Unfortunately, 16mm is not even ultra wide on DX. On DX, it is at best moderate wide.</p>

<p>I still recall that back in 2006, early 2007 before Nikon introduced the D3, some people bought the 28-70mm/f2.8 AF-S (FX lens) for their DX cameras in anticaption of full-35mm-frame from Nikon. Sure enough, Nikon indeed introduced the D3 in August 2007, but Nikon also introduced the 24-70mm/f2.8 AF-S simultaneously. All of a sudden, the 28-70 those people bought immediately became a less desirable, discontinued model.</p>

<p>My suggestion is still to buy suitable lenses for your <strong>current</strong> cameras. It is almost never a good idea to buy a lens because you may need it a few years down the road, especially if it doesn't quite meet your current needs.</p>

<p>If I travel, to Yosemite or other places, and I have no lens wider than 35mm for FX, 24mm for DX, I would be extremely frustrated. But that is just me; your mileage may vary.</p>

[gsbhasin]

Hi Joel,

I don't mind getting a 20 /24 af-d and 85 1.8 g. With the 35 DX and 50 1.8 af-d I would be set.

 

Hesitant on 20/24 since a lot if reviews I have read point out that neithe is as good as the 35 ( which I realize is at

least 10-15 years younger design and DX) on 16 MP digital.

 

You are correct. Very rarely have I shot at 18 mm end if my 18-70 on my D70. It is mostly at 20-50 mm .

 

As to 14-24 types they are too big.

 

Would you mind posting center and edge crops of your sharpest pics taken with the 20 mm on D7000?

 

Maybe that lens or the 24-85 is what I would get.

 

Thx,

Gurpreet