Is the Nikon 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5G ED VR AF-S Lens a good "gateway" lens?

rwdflynavy

Senior Member
Current camera is a D7100. I'm looking to upgrade to FF in the next year or so. I know quality glass is important. Is the above lens a good lens compared the the much more expensive Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8G ED AF-S Nikkor Wide Angle Zoom Lens or should I just save my pennies for the real deal?
 

Krs_2007

Senior Member
The the below was shot with the 24-85, it's a nice lense but it will be replaced by the 24-70 when I can.

_ks65904.jpg
 

Anco

Senior Member
I'm having the exact same dilemma. I think it is going to come down to how long it's going to take u to save for that nikon gold and whether or not you need a lens to cover that focal range in the meantime. For me, I just bought my first nikon last week, and I have no glass in that range so I'm looking at picking up a second hand 24-85 for the interim. There are plenty of fairly unused cheap ones around, so maybe that's an option for you. If you don't 'need' a lens in that range straight away just save your pennies.
The other option is the Tamron 24-70. Some people don't like 3 rd party, but I have heard nothing but good things about that lense and it's half the price.
 

rwdflynavy

Senior Member
I have the 18-140mm so I'm covered, but I was looking to get more FF glass. I'm definitely open to third party glass since the reviews are great. Thanks to all for the input. I think I will save for now.
 

BackdoorArts

Senior Member
I used the 24-85mm on my D600 for over a year before upgrading to the 24-120mm f4. I didn't upgrade for the quality jump as much as I did for the added reach. I love the 24-85mm and it's a great "toss it in the car" lens for walking around. No issues at all with the IQ. Are there sharper lenses? Absolutely. But just because some lenses are sharper it doesn't mean that this one isn't sharp - an often misunderstood concept.

My recommendation? See what you can get with kit deals on your FX body, because this lens will certainly work in the interim, especially with the D600/610. You'll eventually upgrade like the rest of us, but it will give you a nice zoom to use while you add other full frame glass.
 

480sparky

Senior Member
The 24-85 is an excellent performer. I upgraded to the 24-120 solely for the extra reach, and I cannot tell the difference between the two in post without looking at the EXIF. You can generally pick one up at a good savings as many believe since it's a "kit" lens it's rubbish.

I kept my 24-85 as a back-up to the 24-120.
 

singlerosa_RIP

Senior Member
I have the 24-85 and am quite satisfied with it for what it is. I use it when I want to travel light, leaving the 24-70 and grip at home. Makes me look like a tourist instead of a photographer, which can be a good thing.
 

searchlight

Senior Member
I have somewhat of a similar issue.

I own a Nikon D5000 with the 18-55mm VR and found some of my images were soft.

My local camera guy suggested that if I want consistant sharpness, that I need to upgrade to a better lens like the Sigma 17-50 f2.8 or pro Nikon brand but in either case, I am looking at upwards of $400 to spend.

The next day, he called to tell me that someone traded a mint Nikon 24-85mm VR, and he would be willing to sell it to me for $250. Knowing that I was on a limited budget, he told me that being an FX lens, sharpness would be better, and consistant in the center on a DX body so it would be a step up from my 18-55mm VR kit lens.

So would you agree with his recommendation that one could consider it a budget lens step up, and the price was right?

I bought the lens, and it does seem sharper to me. As a non-pro, sharpness and color rendition is more obvious to me than chromatic aberration and distortion which I do not really look for in my photos. Any my D5000 can correct for the distortion.

Elsewhere, I have read that in using an FX lens on a DX body renders corner shaprness issues moot.

What do you think?
 
Last edited:

480sparky

Senior Member
I have somewhat of a similar issue.

I own a Nikon D5000 with the 18-55mm VR and found some of my images were soft.

My local camera guy suggested that if I want consistant sharpness, that I need to upgrade to a better lens like the Sigma 17-50 f2.8 or pro Nikon brand but in either case, I am looking at upwards of $400 to spend.

The next day, he called to tell me that someone traded a mint Nikon 24-85mm VR, and he would be willing to sell it to me for $250. Knowing that I was on a limited budget, he told me that being an FX lens, sharpness would be better, and consistant in the center on a DX body so it would be a step up from my 18-55mm VR kit lens.

So would you agree with his recommendation that one could consider it a budget lens step up, and the price was right?

I bought the lens, and it does seem sharper to me. As a non-pro, sharpness and color rendition is more obvious to me than chromatic aberration and distortion which I do not really look for in my photos. Any my D5000 can correct for the distortion.

Elsewhere, I have read that in using an FX lens on a DX body renders corner shaprness issues moot.

What do you think?


You'd lose a bit on the wide-angle end, but if your short-term goal is to jump on the FX boat, that would be the route I'd take.
 

searchlight

Senior Member
I was told that since the lens is FX, overall on a DX body like mine, the results would be an upgrade to the cheaply made 18-55 VR.

Does anyone agree that if sharpness and accurate color plus little longer zoom is what I seek, that this lens serves the purpose?
 

gqtuazon

Gear Head
I was told that since the lens is FX, overall on a DX body like mine, the results would be an upgrade to the cheaply made 18-55 VR.

Does anyone agree that if sharpness and accurate color plus little longer zoom is what I seek, that this lens serves the purpose?

To better determine if you are going to be happy with that lens, use your cheaply (your word) 18-55mm lens and set it at 36mm. That would be the widest that you will get at 24mm using the 24-85mm lens on DX. Unless you are getting a full frame camera shortly after that, you might be disappointed for a while.
 

SkvLTD

Senior Member
Honestly 2.8 zooms are really there if you're a pro or a hardcore hobbyist with a fat budget. There are plenty less expensive options with stupid level of IQ for all practical purposes. Many vintage options as well. I'd honestly say, try a 50 1.8G and see how that goes instead of diving into the 24-85 before you even have a FX body.
 

singlerosa_RIP

Senior Member
To better determine if you are going to be happy with that lens, use your cheaply (your word) 18-55mm lens and set it at 36mm. That would be the widest that you will get at 24mm using the 24-85mm lens on DX.

Are you sure about that? Shouldn't he set the 18-55 to 24? Besides, he already bought the lens.
 

BackdoorArts

Senior Member
Are you sure about that? Shouldn't he set the 18-55 to 24? Besides, he already bought the lens.

Yes. 24mm on a DX lens = 24mm on an FX lens when placed on the same body - at least until you run out of DX lens.

What I can't twist my head around is how and why a 50mm 1.8 is going to do anything to try and help someone figure out if they want a 24-85mm, on any camera. That's like saying try this toaster oven to see if you want the one that has a warming tray and convection.
 
Top