I've had an internal battle going on for quite some time. After reading day-in and day-out about how nothing can compare to the 24-70, I thought I really needed to get one. Yep, then I could say I had one and that there's nothing better out there.... and that may be true. But, better for who? Bottom line: Could I afford it? Yes. Do I need it? No.
A couple of weeks ago, I bought a NIB 24-85VR for $227. I couldn't pass up that deal, even though I knew I really wanted the 24-70. I took some photos with the 24-85 and I was pleased with the results, but it wasn't the greatest lens since sliced bread.
Then came the lens rebates from Nikon. I agonized late Saturday night and Sunday morning. I actually got to the point of entering my credit card number for the 24-70 on the Adorama site.
In a moment of clarity, I closed the computer and decided I'd prove to myself that I needed the 24-70.
So, I went out to take photos with the 24-85VR just to show that the resulting quality would lack something to prove how inferior the lens really was. I could always order the 24-70 later.
I took a bunch of photos with lots of straight lines and bright corners. (I took pictures of real objects, not paper with squares, circles and bulls-eyes.) Even though I didn't own a magnifying glass, I knew I'd be able to detect flaws in the 24-85VR photos. I knew it.
Upon processing some of the resulting photos, I discovered something..... I'm an idiot who was easily influenced by the Jones'. I didn't need the 24-70. The 24-85VR is a wonderful lens that produces really nice photos. Photos, not matrix squares and scales. I was almost caught up in the game. I'm not a professional. I don't make money for my photos. Heck, anyone can have them for free. And, as I said earlier, I don't own a magnifying glass.
Besides the realization that I was caught up in the "mine's bigger than yours" frenzy, I could put the $1,700 toward a photo trip instead. Now, doesn't that make more sense?
Straight lines. Hard corners. Color. Not a test pattern.............
View attachment 27702
View attachment 27703
View attachment 27704
A couple of weeks ago, I bought a NIB 24-85VR for $227. I couldn't pass up that deal, even though I knew I really wanted the 24-70. I took some photos with the 24-85 and I was pleased with the results, but it wasn't the greatest lens since sliced bread.
Then came the lens rebates from Nikon. I agonized late Saturday night and Sunday morning. I actually got to the point of entering my credit card number for the 24-70 on the Adorama site.
In a moment of clarity, I closed the computer and decided I'd prove to myself that I needed the 24-70.
So, I went out to take photos with the 24-85VR just to show that the resulting quality would lack something to prove how inferior the lens really was. I could always order the 24-70 later.
I took a bunch of photos with lots of straight lines and bright corners. (I took pictures of real objects, not paper with squares, circles and bulls-eyes.) Even though I didn't own a magnifying glass, I knew I'd be able to detect flaws in the 24-85VR photos. I knew it.
Upon processing some of the resulting photos, I discovered something..... I'm an idiot who was easily influenced by the Jones'. I didn't need the 24-70. The 24-85VR is a wonderful lens that produces really nice photos. Photos, not matrix squares and scales. I was almost caught up in the game. I'm not a professional. I don't make money for my photos. Heck, anyone can have them for free. And, as I said earlier, I don't own a magnifying glass.
Besides the realization that I was caught up in the "mine's bigger than yours" frenzy, I could put the $1,700 toward a photo trip instead. Now, doesn't that make more sense?
Straight lines. Hard corners. Color. Not a test pattern.............
View attachment 27702
View attachment 27703
View attachment 27704