Nikon 24-85VR, underestimated, and under appreciated.

T

TedG954

Senior Member
For a general, walk-around, vacation, prepared for almost anything, lens....... I'm very pleased with the 24-85.

DSC_8919.jpg

DSC_8978.jpg

DSC_8995.jpg
 
J

jrleo33

Senior Member
The 24-85mm G VR lens provides images very close to what both my 35mm and 50mm D Primes provide; with the convenience of being a zoom. Using Lightroom for PP, the D600 software removes most all distortion to date. Using the DX mode on the D600, this lens will crop at about 127mm at the long end. This lens when new, priced out at arount $600.00 US, but being associated as a kit lens for the D600 with its sensor dust and oil problems, the price fell, which is a bonus for Nikon users, as a refurb on E-Bay, is about $320.00 US.
 
SkvLTD

SkvLTD

Senior Member
Actually thinking what to pick up for my D600 coming in as a semi-dedicated AF/mid-zoomer. That or perhaps a 50 of sorts, or a proper macro. Thoughts?
 
SkvLTD

SkvLTD

Senior Member
Would still be fully useable on my DX as well if needs be, and I'm pretty familiar with the 24 end (~35), so it's wide enough given there's plenty more zoom to go through. And I'd imagine it's perfect on FX.
 
D

Deezey

Senior Member
I love my 24-85 kit lens I got with the D610. I am seriously debating putting off the 24-70 2.8 purchase because this thing does such a good job. For my needs anyways that is.

Instead I will look at picking up an 85, 105, and the new Tamron 150-600 first.


Sent from my RM-860_nam_usa_100 using Tapatalk
 
G

gqtuazon

Gear Head
Deezey said:
I love my 24-85 kit lens I got with the D610. I am seriously debating putting off the 24-70 2.8 purchase because this thing does such a good job. For my needs anyways that is.

Instead I will look at picking up an 85, 105, and the new Tamron 150-600 first.
Sent from my RM-860_nam_usa_100 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

My initial impression is that the AF is not as responsive as the Nikon 24-70mm f2.8G if that matters to you.

The good thing about it is that I like the lighter weight and cheaper price tag compared to the 24-120mm f4VR or 24-70mm f2.8G lens. It should be fine if you augment it with flash when used indoors or outdoors with good light.
 
SkvLTD

SkvLTD

Senior Member
What of the 24-85/2.8-4 D? Reading mixed, but generally positive things so far, and it's a stop better and lighter overall. Has a little "macro" to boot, which I've grown to like in standard lenses for taking some close-up, detail shots.

Wouldn't get AF on my DX, but I'm really not buying it with it in mind as much.
 
G

gqtuazon

Gear Head
SkvLTD said:
What of the 24-85/2.8-4 D? Reading mixed, but generally positive things so far, and it's a stop better and lighter overall. Has a little "macro" to boot, which I've grown to like in standard lenses for taking some close-up, detail shots.

Wouldn't get AF on my DX, but I'm really not buying it with it in mind as much.
Click to expand...

it might be a stop better on the wide end but it may not mean that it is sharper wide open.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
R

rocketman122

Senior Member
SkvLTD said:
What of the 24-85/2.8-4 D? Reading mixed, but generally positive things so far, and it's a stop better and lighter overall. Has a little "macro" to boot, which I've grown to like in standard lenses for taking some close-up, detail shots.

Wouldn't get AF on my DX, but I'm really not buying it with it in mind as much.
Click to expand...

Ive used the old 24-85AFS and the 2.8-4 AFD. the AFS was a better performer and the new AFS VR seems to improve upon that.
 
SkvLTD

SkvLTD

Senior Member
Still having a hard time deciding whether to come back to zooms or maybe just stick to primes under 70mm. I'm trying to figure if ~$150-200 between the two would be enough of a difference visually to merit giving up close focusing of the D. I've grown to enjoy the convenience "macro" modes quite a bit on a couple of my lenses.
 
R

rocketman122

Senior Member
SkvLTD said:
Still having a hard time deciding whether to come back to zooms or maybe just stick to primes under 70mm. I'm trying to figure if ~$150-200 between the two would be enough of a difference visually to merit giving up close focusing of the D. I've grown to enjoy the convenience "macro" modes quite a bit on a couple of my lenses.
Click to expand...

I think a photographers gear lineup should have primes and zooms. zooms for convenience and must get pictures under stress and prime for the utmost in IQ.
 
SkvLTD

SkvLTD

Senior Member
Bit the bullet on the VR for right under 300 shipped. The real advantageous part besides it being a G, so my 5100 will have no problem with it if needs be, as of the past forever and a day my widest is my 24mm Sigma, so I got more than used to it being my "36mm" widest angle on a DX. Since I still vaguely remember the kit 18s, I'd imagine that's what the 24 would look closer to on FX and I wouldn't mind that extra extra reach at all. So I should have absolutely no problem using this cross-body and knowing exactly what to expect out of it.
 
SkvLTD

SkvLTD

Senior Member
By the way, of all the 24-xxX kit zooms, is the 85 the only one with a metal mount/weather seal ring? I remember researching the 105 and 135 and those being plastic, not sure on the 120 and 140 though....

On actual topic, 85 has been my indoor/cramped space/walkabout ever since I got it. All small gigs added up, It has long made back its $300 cost to me and thus is totally worth it despite the relatively heavy barrel distorsion (or do all short zooms do that when you zoom then all the way out?)
 
Last edited:
Top