Nikon 24-85mm VR on a DX Body

[marc_g4]

<p>I recently bought a used D5000 that came with the 18-55mm VR and 55-200mm lens combo.<br>

I took some images with the 18-55mm at home and outside, and the results were a mixed bag in regard to sharpness even though I had increased the sharpness setting in the camera. Some of the images were sharp, and some were softer. I know aperture has a bearing.<br>

<br />My local camera shop told me that if I wanted consistant sharpness, that I should look to upgrade my lens to a quality one but that new are expensive, and used like the Sigma 17-50mm f2.8, are not cheap either. Anything good would be easily over $400. Unfortunately my budget was $300 or less.<br>

The other day, someone traded a mint 24-85mm VR. He told me that he would sell it to me for $250, and that it would be a bigger step up from the 18-55 in sharpness, with a little longer reach but I would have to step back a little for the 6mm loss in the wide angle.<br>

All of the reviews that I read cite excellent sharpness for this lens but the testing and reviewing were done on FX bodies.<br>

Have any of you used this lens on a DX body? What did you think of the results?<br>

I feel as if this is a better "kit" lens than the one that I currently own.</p>

<p> </p>

[doug andrews]

<p>I have a D7100 and the 24-85mm VR lens. I assume you are referring to the current version of this lens. The G lens that is f3.5-4.5. I use it in conjunction with a Tokina 12-24mm lens. I have no concerns with sharpness at all as the DX format crops out the corners where softness will show soonest.</p>

[marc_g4]

<p>Yes the current version, and thanks for the insight.<br>

Would you agree with my camera shop's suggestion that the 24-85mm VR being an FX lens, and me being on a budget, would yield better resolution and sharpness as an upgrade to my 18-55mm VR despite the slight loss at the wide angle?</p>

 

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>It might, but the 18-55VR kitlens is not as bad as many state it to be (and the shop, sounds like they just want to make an easy sale). I'd spend more time studying the photos that are not sharp to better understand why - shutterspeeds, possible focus errors etc. The kitlens gets knocked online in forums, for what often turn out to be user errors. Getting a more expensive lens won't cure that.</p>

<p>Another thing to consider is which focal lengths you use most, and in which range you find yourself zooming. For Doug apparently a "switch" at 24mm works - for me, it wouldn't and it really would drive me nuts at time. I spent a lot between ~18 and 35mm, and having to switch lenses to cover that range for me really wouldn't work. What works and doesn't work for others, though, says nothing about what works for you.<br>

But frankly, since you just got the kit, I would resist making an upgrade now, spend a bit more time with the 18-55VR to figure out why it doesn't perform consistently and get much more acquainted with your camera.</p>

[robert_bouknight1]

<p>I always thought that my 18-55VR was pretty sharp, never had any complaints. I doubt that the 24-85 is <em>significantly</em> sharper. The 24-85 I have is OK but a long way from the sharpest lens in my stable.</p>

<p>I would look closely at the images that you have taken and try to figure out why some are sharp and some or not. Is the plane of focus on the subject, or somewhere else in the image? Is VR turned on? What shutter speeds were used for the soft images, too slow?</p>

<p>Take your camera and lens to the store, shoot some comparison images to compare before you buy. I would miss the 18-24mm portion of the lens as others have mentioned.</p>

<p>Also, you could find a used 18-70 for not much $. No VR, but I always thought the one I had performed well.</p>

[craig_shearman1]

<p>"I took some images with the 18-55mm at home and outside, and the results were a mixed bag in regard to sharpness even though I had increased the sharpness setting in the camera"<br /><br />There's no reason for the images from even a kit lens to be anything other than tack sharp, and there's no need most of the time to even touch the sharpness setting in the camera. To be totally honest, if you are getting a "mixed bag in regard to sharpness" you need to work on your focusing technique, making sure you are using AF properly (or manually focusing properly), have the shutter speed high enough not to get camera shake or motion blur from the subject, use a tripod where appropriate, etc. Higher end lenses can producer sharper images, but that doesn't mean kit lenses aren't sharp. If you aren't already getting sharp images from your kit lens, buying a more expensive lens isn't going to help.<br /><br />I say all of this not to be critical of you but to save you from being ripped off. If your camera shop is saying the problem is that you need another lens, they are just trying to sell you something and take your money when they should be trying to help you get the most out of what you've got. I would find a new place to shop.</p>

[marc_g4]

<p>I appreciate the candor about technique but if what you are saying is that even kit lenses should be tack sharp, why the do pros themselves need to buy higher quality lenses? I think both technique, and quality lenses go hand in hand.<br>

For that matter, I just read an online review that gives my new 24-85mm better scores than my 18-55mm.<br>

Unfortunately, photography seems to be subjective but I am aware that I should find always find ways to improve my technique to optimize my images. Good technique plus a good quality lens is probably the winning formula but I do appreciate your suggestions.</p>

 

[ShunCheung]

<p>The 18-55mm DX kit lens has a plastic mount. We have discussed a number of times that its general construction is rather poor for a Nikon lens. If you buy a new one, you can expect it to be sharp initially. However, it looks like the OP's lens is used. Any kind of even moderate impact from a previous owner could affect the element alignment and therefore sharpness.</p>

<p>I would suggest first determine that it is indeed the current 18-55mm DX lens that is causing sharpness issues, and if so, is it still possible to return it or whether it is worthwhile to repair it. I have used the 18-55 DX and it is very frustrating indoors as that lens is very slow.</p>

<p>If the OP wants to get another lens, I would recommend against getting an FX 24-85 type lens as you mid-range zoom for DX. You will likely miss the wide end big time. If you need f2.8 for indoors, I would look into a third-party 18-50mm/f2.8 type lens.</p>

[marc_g4]

<p>You are right, my 18-55 is used but was refurbished by a Camera Repair shop.<br>

Unfortunately, I am on a limited budget, and after looking online, the best in terms of an interim upgrade and price, was this 24-85mm VR. I generally seek the longer end of a zoom anyway, than the wide but to compensate, I have learned to step back a few feet if needed.<br>

I think my camera shop was thinking that for price, and quality, this 24-85 VR currently is the best compromise for what I have, and can afford.</p>

[ShunCheung]

Did Nikon USA refurbish it? If so, they provide a 90-day warranty.

 

Others have better luck, but I returned two out of two refurbished Nikon lenses as they were still defective.

[marc_g4]

<p>No a third party Camera Repair company. I can still return it for a refund.<br>

To be more specific, being more of a hobbyist than a pro, sharpness and color rendition are more apparent to me and what I seek, than the other factors such as CA, Bokeh, and Distortion which a professional can easily discern. That being said, it appears to me that the 24-85 is sharper than the 18-55mm that I have been using.<br>

If budget was not a factor, I would look to get the best possible but my choices are limited. What struck me in my research was that many reviewers cited the sharpness the 24-85mm. Moreover, it appears that the lens is better built with a metal instead of plastic mount.</p>

 

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>24 is simply not wide enough on DX for a general purpose zoom.</p>

<p>From what I've read... the 18-105 VR might be worth looking at.</p>

[andylynn]

<p>You might get some advantage from that 24-85, but it's not going to be a lot. It's still a fairly slow kit lens. If you really want a different lens I'd say save up and get something more appropriate for your camera.</p>

<p>Heck, you could just go and get <a href="http://classic.keh.com/camera/Nikon-Digital-Non-Mfg-Zoom-Lenses/1/sku-DN099990995100?r=FE">a previous gen Tamron 17-50mm</a> for the same money.</p>

[StuartMoxham]

<p>Having a 24-85 on a DX body could be a bit limiting for some people. However I personally used a 28-75 f2.8 Tamron as my general purpose lens on DX bodies from 2006-2013, a 24-70 f2.8 would have been a bit more useful for me but generally I was very happy. When I finally got a full frame body I found the Tamron too short on the long end.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>there's a tradeoff using a 24-85 on DX which has nothing to do with optical quality. first of all, the 6mm difference is actually more like 9mm in real terms once you factor in the 1.5x crop factor. this is significant, though not as significant as using the tamron 28-75 on DX. second, you gain a whole lot of reach on the wide end over the kit lens, which makes the longer zoom better for portraits.</p>

<p>while the 24-85 is a marginally better lens than the 18-55 optically, better built and a bit faster, i dont think the sharpness difference will be earth-shattering, especially if you tend to shoot at around f/8. you'd be much better off with an older tamron 17-50/2.8 which is one of the sharpest lenses i've ever used, period. as to why you dont see pros shooting with kit lenses too often, the constant 2.8 aperture is useful in low-light or for subject isolation.</p>

<p>getting back to the 18-55, it's possible the lens got knocked around and is now misaligned, but also possible that user error is responsible for any perceived lack of sharpness. did you set a fast enough shutter speed and focus correctly? without examples, we can't tell. </p>

[User_5050610]

<p>Interesting discussion! Before I "knew better" I used the 24-85 f2.8--4 on a newly purchased D300S--with good results, for my kind of photos. Then--I read about how good the kit lens was--and ESPECIALLY how light weight it was--and bought one. Pleasantly surprised with the kit lens! Nice--sharp--and very LIGHT! The 24-85 did a great job, but was heavy. Are you a pro? If so- you don't care about weight. If not--wandering around for days at a time on a tour--big difference. The 18-55 kit lens can be VERY sharp! Up to the photog to hold it steady. Good luck!<br>

Paul</p>

[sjmurray]

<p>My experience with kit lenses is that there can be a lot of "sample variation." That's why some people have a good experience with their kit lenses, and some find their kit lens to be junk. I don't know what the statistics are, however. I've very lucky to have a very sharp 18-70 that I've had for about 10 years now, and the 18-105 that came with my D7100 is tack sharp wide open, which is very useful for shooting in low light. However, both of them were sent back to Nikon for adjustment when they were new, so they weren't perfect at first either. So far I've not seen any used samples of either lens at a reputable camera store that came close to the sharpness of the ones I have. I have a feeling that a good kit lens is probably as sharp as a more expensive pro lens, but the build quality is lighter and it won't stand up to day after day of heavy use like a pro level lens. I am an amateur, and only shoot intermittently, so a good kit lens works well for me. I take care of my lenses as well and I still have some from the 1960's in nearly mint condition. </p>

[elliot1]

<p><em>"I think both technique, and quality lenses go hand in hand."</em></p>

<p>When it comes to sharpness, Nikon does a really good job with virtually all of their lenses, even the cheap kit lenses (I am referring to image quality). Since you state that<em> "</em><em>Some of the images were sharp, and some were softer"</em>, I suspect that perhaps technique is coming into play. Often, technique is the culprit of image quality issues. I am not saying your lens may not be defective in some way, but I suggest you do some testing to find out for sure. It is certainly possible that your lens is good and your technique isn't.<br>

<br>

<em>"Why the do pros themselves need to buy higher quality lenses?"</em><br>

The higher quality lenses typically offer faster apertures that enable pros to shoot in lower light, wide open and still obtain great results. And also have better build quality.</p>

<p>Would you be better off with the 24-85mm? Perhaps. Depends on what you are shooting, your style and the size of the prints you are making. If the true issue is your technique and not the lens. the new lens will not give you any better results than the current lens you have.<br>

</p>

[marc_g4]

<p>Thanks everyone for your input.<br>

From what I have read here and elsewhere, what I learned is that technique is foremost, and lens quality contributes greatly but is costly.<br>

For me, the FX 24-85mm, from what I have read elsewhere, will have optimum sharpness because I would be using its center sweetspot. Second, it is slightly faster, and finally, better constructed than my kit because it has a sealed metal mount.<br>

So for now, it may not be a major step up but perhaps a step in the right direction. Of course, at the price of compromising slightly at the wide angle. When you are on a budget, there are limitations but I am not discouraged. At the same time, one could go bonkers because there is no limit as to the quality of lenses, and what one could pay.<br>

I guess it boils down to what works for you.</p>

<p> </p>

[john_hawley4]

<p>Shun must have had some bad traumatic experience with the 18-55 lens, though all he says is quite true! As a family we have at least three of them, and no problems with performance. Last one I bought was a brand new but pre-VR version and from memory cost about $125. So my wife won't be parted from it! The light weight is a big plus, but another thing I really like about it is that it focusses a lot closer than other similar lenses. So we were taking some pictures of specimen blooms, and my wife was shooting away while I was getting out my macro lens and enduring comments about my slowness given the variable wind and light conditions!<br>

The killer for me using the 24-85 would be limited wide angle. 24mm on FX (DX equivalent 16mm) is about as good as you can get on a general purpose lens, but 24mm on DX is just dipping a toe into even moderate wide angle territory. Stepping back is often not an option, e.g. for interiors and some architectural work (though the constraint might lead to more interesting compositions).<br>

Pros use more expensive lenses because they want bigger aperture - even if not needed for the exposure it seems to me that autofocus is a bit more positive with more light - and because they do beat up on their equipment - they can't afford to be gentle and miss a shot. I've not known it happen, but it wouldn't surprise me if a pro ripped the mount off a plastic mount lens. You can also use them, e.g. the 17-55 f/2.8, for personal defense, but best to check your back and shoulder muscles before adopting that approach! For weddings and events you really need an assistant just to carry stuff for you.</p>

[Jochen_S]

<p>If I was to buy a used zoom locally, I'd try to evaluate it via a few test shots and pixel peeping on a proper computer screen. - I don't know what to say about 24mm on DX bodies. - It isn't very wide. But I am recalling a time (late 80s) when people bought 35 -80mm kit zooms or some feistier ones picked 35 - 135mms as "all in one" lenses. - 35-70 + 80-200mm used to be a popular zoom combo too in the early 80s. It didn't take me long to want and add a 20mm to my lens line but at that moment I had 3 SLR bodies.<br>

Its hard to say something wise about "ideal" zoom ranges. - I have a 12-24mm in good shape that seems to beat my older Sigma 14mm. With that lens for "wide" it would make sense to have a nice 24-85 on the medium body that would also back up most of a "long" body. - My old 35-80 is a nice lens to shoot somebody outdoors, with acceptable results and it makes less sense to pack a 18-50 for that job, since it might be a tad short.<br>

Unlike Wouter I feel little concern about the switching at 24mm, the usual at 50-55mm annoys me a bit more, since there seems to be my favorite focal length and switching is needed in a one on one situation too, but well, I am shooting multiple bodies anyhow.<br>

Upon Marc's current kit lens: it would be nice to figure out what is to blame about it. - there seem some lens testing manuals floating around on the net. Anyhow: If you find out its "bad" collect your refund while you still can. - I don't know the repair shop you bought it from but from my experience a once broken zoom is unlikely to get "fixed", even by a paid repair. - I had 2 coming back with a focus drift through the zoom range. - Other jobs, than zooms, are easier to do for repair techs. <br>

I'm no friend of zooms in general. - Yes, I have some, but I don't want to rely on them anymore. - Too many broke in the past. When I want to buy image quality, I usually look for primes, hoping they'll last longer or can get repaired successfully. From that POV zooms are still fine for figuring out what we want at all or to close gaps in the lens line or obviously for plain convenience. - I'm unlikely to bite the bullet of getting f2.8 zooms again. Its known that they'll break some day and consumer zooms take pictures for a while too and when done its no big loss to dump 50 Euro of no longer "fantastic" plastic instead of spending the same to send a faulty zoom in and get it back with a "in specs" notice. To be clear: By "consumer" I mean the "kit zoom + long add on" price range. I'll stay away from endless tourists' zooms and rather get a 2nd body for speed. - Seems cheaper and more redundant in the long run.<br>

Taking a quick look at Adorama's offerings there seem Nikon 18 - 55s for less than $100. After figuring out that the OP's current one is "bad", I would try to order one of these to have a "good" one and lean back or send it back. After getting an OKish kit lens I would wait & figure out what primes I might like and buy them and a 2nd body when wealth allows.<br>

I'm not informed about the merits of the 24-85 Nikkor. Do they blow you away far enough to sacrifice the wide end of a good kit zoom?</p>

[StuartMoxham]

<p>I also used a 35-135 on a Canon EOS 100 film body. I chose that lens rather than the 28-70 and 70-210 combo I had before. I really liked that lens and rarely ever used my 24mm prime. When I did use the 24 mm I knew I needed it. Half the time I never had the 24mm with me. Eventualy I bought a 28-70 80-200 f2.8 combo but I rarely used them unless I had two bodies with me.<br>

If Nikon ever release a decent 35-105 f2.8 it will be on my D800 like a shot. I have been tempted by the 24-105 f4 sigma and the 24-120 f4 Nikkor, I would just rather have the option to shoot at 2.8 when need. I also wonder how good the f4 lenses are wide open as this is where I would likely use them.</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>As said before, the nuisance of having a switch at that focal length is a personal preference. What works for me or you, may or may not work for the OP and vice versa. My only point was that it is something the OP will need to find out for himself. Our personal experiences are not that relevant in this respect, apart from anecdotal evidence that it indeed is a personal preference.<br /> ___</p>

<p>Marc, you seem quite focussed (sorry, bad pun) to get the 24-85VR. By all means, none of us can decide how to spend your money of course. Just to be sure the tone of the thread isn't misunderstood; those, as me, who warn that the issue may be your technique do not say so to put you down, or talk down on you. Rather it's hard lessons learnt (at least in my case): buying something to resolve a problem sounds great, but if you still find the same issue afterwards, it feels like very sour money spent for nothing. For this, it is worth it to figure out the data of the shots when the results are not to your liking: which shutterspeeds, which aperture, which AF point(s) was selected, which focal length was used? Then test if under those conditions, the failure is easy to reproduce, which would point to a lens failure. If not, odds are your technique does come into play.</p>

<p>Avoid to buy something in a rush, especially if you're not exactly sure how the new lens affects you (<em>18 to 24mm is *not* just one more step back; it is a noticeable different perspective, and sometimes there is no step back</em>) potentially leads to other disappointments, and that would just be a waste of money. If you really want another lens, at your budget I'd look at the 18-105VR rather than a 24-85VR, but that's, as said, largely a personal preference.<br /> I don't think anyone argues the 24-85VR is a very decent lens (I'd probably get it myself if I didn't already have a lens in that range), but whether it is the solution to the problem you experience, impossible to tell. And I'd want to be sure it solves my issue before putting down my money.</p>

[sebastianmoran]

<p>Here's a little story about cheaper zoom lenses: I had the Nikkor 55-200mm lens. It was fine. I loaned it to my son in law who took it on a ski trip. Afterwards, I started seeing image quality problems. Tested it against another and sure enough is was significantly softer after the ski trip. </p>

<p>So I bought another one and destroyed the bad one. </p>

<p>Two obvious suggestions: Maybe your 18-55 has been on a "ski trip" (test by comparing with another one). And, do test the 24-85 that's coming out of repair.</p>

<p>One more: for improving image quality, try a 50mm lens, any of them. I like the 35 f/1.8G and the 50 f/1.8G from Nikon, both relatively inexpensive.</p>