PB PM said:
Having tested that lens, I would hardly call it better, other than the faster aperture.

I didn't particularly like it either. It had that wavy distortion that is really hard to correct. Some lenses don't feel right, and that one didn't for some reason. CAs seem to be high as well. Then of course you have the continual issue of having the focus calibrated right.

@Spy Black - Now I think you are just trying to be antagonistic with your use of the word "significant." If you want to see significant distortion pick up a 18-135mm and try that one out or try any early zooms. That is significant distortion.

If $200 is close enough for your budget, and that is your only requirement - it looks like you found your lens.

It's easy to correct the distortion automatically...

How about the "old", non-VR, version of this lens, released in 2003/4?

It's appreciated by Simon Stafford in the Nikon Compendium and well-reviewed by Thom Hogan at:

http://bythom.com/2485lens.htm

I use this on a DX body and have used it on a film (ie FX) body with excellent results on both.

But then I'm not a neurotic pixel-peeper, so may have less hardcore criteria than some.

;-)

http://www.flickr.com/photos/68039985@N08/7276501112/in/photostream

Mick

Having tested that lens, I would hardly call it better, other than the faster aperture.

>>Honestly every wide to short tele lens I have ever used has basically the same amount of distortion. The Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8 has just a bit better distortion and that is $1,400 more than this lens. Canon's, Tamron, Sigma, and Tokina's are all about the same or more.<<

Not necessarily. After looking around, it appears the Sigma 24-70 mm f/2.8 EX DG HSM, ~$825, is the best candidate. It's SIGNIFICANTLY better than the Nikkor kit lens, and much closer to the Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8 in many respects, believe it or not. While somewhere in-between the two Nikkors at the wide end, it's better corrected than both Nikkors at the mid-point and long end, very important for me.

This will be the optic of choice for me when I get my D600. Between this optic and my old school Ai Nikkor primes, I'll be well covered.

Spy Black said:
If one either doesn't see the distortion or doesn't find it objectionable...

I beleive everyone sees it, but I think were the opinions differ is on the expectations of lenses in this range. If you are use to DX, distortion is less since DX systems only use the center most area of lenses. FX utilizes the whole lens and distortion on the extreems are seen. It seems that you beleive there is something much better out there for around the same price - simple answer is that nothing exists in that price range.
Honestly every wide to short tele lens I have ever used has basically the same amount of distortion. The Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8 has just a bit better distortion and that is $1,400 more than this lens. Canon's, Tamron, Sigma, and Tokina's are all about the same or more.

itsnotmeyouknow said:
I don't get the snobbery amongst you guys about third party glass.

I'm with tcole1983 - it is experience that pushes me towards Nikon. I really enjoy Tokina lenses as well. You are correct Sigma's primes have always been good and Tamron has some interesting options. In use though I have found Nikons VR to work faster, smoother, and more consistant. Same is said about AF and performance in general. Build quality and customer service also is a concern, that Nikon has always fullfiled flawlessly for me.

In the end, everyone has a difference desire for lenses, 3rd party fits for many and for some of us, they fall short for various reasons if even it was a few bad experiences with a brand. I know the Sigma 85 1.4 is a great lens, but with multiple negative experiences with the brand I have a hard time in picking one up.

Every round lens made has distortions. If you don't like, find a brand that makes square lenses.

Spy Black said:
If one either doesn't see the distortion or doesn't find it objectionable, I would say this lens would be a good candidate for you. It's blatantly obvious (and annoying) to me. In all honesty, I wasn't even looking at the Nikkor per se, I merely went over to the ImagingResource because there was supposedly low-light samples of the D600.

It was only when I was there that there were general pictures as well, and I decided to see how well the D600 fared overall. This is when I started noticing the excessive distortion the lens had, and realized it was the new kit lens Nikon is attempting to shill off with this body. That's what got me thinking about what kind of lens would actually be suitable to use with this body.

"...I haven't ever spent money on my Nikon glass and been disappointed with the results."

This Nikkor may be a first for you then if you decide to purchase it. When even the orange-skinned Ken Rockwell says it's badly distorted, you know it gotta be bad!
"The Nikon 24-85 VR's distortion is heinous. It has loads of distortion, just like its predecessor. At 24mm it has a load of barrel distortion, and at 35mm and longer, it has loads of pincushion distortion you will see without looking very hard.."

Would I though? What do you expect from a "kit" lens. Just like every other variable aperture lens it has some short comings apparently. Just like the 18-200. What do you expect from a super zoom? For most they give decent performance at a cheaper price. This might be a case where the third party lens is better, but the Tamron is $1200...I personally would pony up the little extra money and get the Nikon 24-70 instead. If you expect to pay $600 for a kit lens and hope that it is professional par then you will obviously be disappointed with any lens in the same category. In that same intent you probably shouldn't be buying such an expensive body if that is the case. Expecting it to make you a better photographer and not realizing how expensive photography is...especially if you expect pro quality pictures and don't want to buy pro caliber lenses because they cost too much.

And I am out of this thread...enough of my point.

If one either doesn't see the distortion or doesn't find it objectionable, I would say this lens would be a good candidate for you. It's blatantly obvious (and annoying) to me. In all honesty, I wasn't even looking at the Nikkor per se, I merely went over to the ImagingResource because there was supposedly low-light samples of the D600.

It was only when I was there that there were general pictures as well, and I decided to see how well the D600 fared overall. This is when I started noticing the excessive distortion the lens had, and realized it was the new kit lens Nikon is attempting to shill off with this body. That's what got me thinking about what kind of lens would actually be suitable to use with this body.

"...I haven't ever spent money on my Nikon glass and been disappointed with the results."

This Nikkor may be a first for you then if you decide to purchase it. When even the orange-skinned Ken Rockwell says it's badly distorted, you know it gotta be bad!
"The Nikon 24-85 VR's distortion is heinous. It has loads of distortion, just like its predecessor. At 24mm it has a load of barrel distortion, and at 35mm and longer, it has loads of pincushion distortion you will see without looking very hard.."

My snobbery comes from experience. I have tried out and owned third party glass. My Nikon glass has always been first rate. My third party glass was decent, but it wasn't my Nikon lenses. It also comes from reviews, talking to others, and seeing the market. Nikon lenses hold their value better and as far as I can tell are more reliable in the long run (I realize any can have problems).

Sure there are good third party lenses. And I know there are third party lenses that fill a gap that Nikon doesn't cover. Tamron just released the 24-70 with VC...which Nikon doesn't have. I personally don't find VR all that necessary in this range, but it is something Nikon hasn't updated yet.

But you come to a Nikon forum and ask us...well I admit I am a Nikon snob. I own all Nikon glass now...and well I love all my lenses. I like the way they perform. I like that they are fully compatible and my body corrects them. I like the build quality especially my pro lenses over the third parties. And I know everyone isn't made of money and Nikon is more expensive in cases, but I haven't ever spent money on my Nikon glass and been disappointed with the results.

I don't get the snobbery amongst you guys about third party glass. Both Sigma and Tamron make excellent glass. You only have to look at the Sigma 50 and 85 1.4s to see how good they can be. Would you call Zeiss milk bottles? Before finally settling on a nikon 24 - 70 for my D800, (second hand in mint condition) I had a good look at the Tamron which is also constant 2.8 and also has Vibration control. It's very sharp. The used nikon was £50 more than the brand new tamron. It took me some time to decide. I took the Nikon mainly because it holds its value. If they didn't have a used model I would have got the Tamron.

Good glass is good glass - it doesn't matter what the label is. Same goes for bad glass.

I guess I don't see the pincushion as much as well.

Just because I like to look at sites who do reviews, and realize they all are a bit unique, I usually look at a lens that I know well to see what they review it as to get a base line as each reviewer does start from a different point.

Nikon Nikkor AF-S 24-70 mm f/2.8G ED (LensTip)

On full frame the problems with distortion become more pronounced. It would be foolish to expect anything else, though. We deal here with a zoom lens with the angle of view as wide as 84 degrees. You can’t avoid geometric deformations in such an instrument. Our measurements showed that at the shortest focal length we get barrel distortion amounting to –3.94%. Although in the absolute scale this value is not low we must say that for such an angle of view and a zoom lens reaching a value above –4% is a good result. In the middle of the focal range the distortion turns into pincushion and gets to 1.58% and at the maximum focal length it decreases to 0.72%.

Most other sites have about 1/3 to 1/2 of what they showed, but the same "curve" of results, which tells me people are using different software to test the results.

I'm not trying to say you or they are wrong or anything, but I think it is good to compare their comments and results to other lenses that are considered superior. Interestingly, their numbers from the Nikkor 24-85mm VR are not far off from the pro lens. This tell me it is not as bad as they describe. Most lenses in this range perform just about the same as distortion is concerned. Only the pro lenses perform any better.

Depending what you are shooting though, as I said before any distortion could be an issue. If it is, then I'm not sure any mid-range zoom would fulfill your needs unless you rely on LR4 or PS to correct it.

For Tokina - the link below has a list of all of them.
http://nikonglass.blogspot.com/2009/11/tokina-at-x-pro-28-70mm-f26-28.html

shrugs. i guess i don't really notice distortion that much

"IMO if you buy a $2100 camera buy the right lens if you don't like the kit one...simple answer really."

Yep, that is correct, that is why I have this post here. I happened across a review of the 24-85mm Nikkor over at Lenstip, and apparently they are seeing the same things I'm seeing:

"On a bigger detector the situation is quite different. At the shortest focal length you deal with huge barrel distortion which level we assessed as –4.22%. It can be hardly called an imperceptible value. Fortunately it is still a bit lower than in the case of the Nikkor 24-120 mm VR where, at the same focal length, it amounted to –4.91%. The deformations decrease very quickly with the increase of the focal length because at 35 mm we deal with pincushion distortion of 0.74%. Serious problems start at longer focal lengths. At 50 mm there is 2.48% pincushion; it increases to 2.88% at 70 mm and to as much as 2.95% at the maximum focal length.

Lenses of this type made us used to noticeable pincushion distortion at the longer end of the focal range. The problem is that, more often than not, it is a level of 2% (e.g. the Nikkor 24-120 mm VR didn’t exceed 2.4%). The values of almost 3% which we see in the case of the Nikkor 24-85 mm are a very disreputable exception. "

Frankly, this lens has no business being a Nikkor. I've looked around a bit and the best alternative I could find in it's relative price range is the Sigma 24-70 mm f/2.8 EX DG HSM. Not as long a zoom range, but overall this lens looks more like the lens this Nikkor should have been!

Gosh if that is horrible then I must be blind. I looked through all the samples and I haven't found anything near what I would consider horrible. That being said it is a variable aperture $600 lens. It comes out at a price less then the 18-200, there are no recent equivalents for the price. IMO if you buy a $2100 camera buy the right lens if you don't like the kit one...simple answer really. The 24-70 F2.8 is great. If the distortion is bothering you then I doubt you will be happy with any third party lens. That and they usually have other problems like CA.

So in the end spend the money or not and be happy with the 24-85. I would stick with Nikon either way.

"horribly pincushioned? do tell where the photos that have these distortion are..."

I suppose if you read my post, checked out the site link, and actually LOOKED at the photos, you'd have your answer.

"I have a 28-85mm f/3.5-4.5 AF Nikkor."

Thanks, I'll have a look at that.

"I use an old Tokina 2.6-2.8 and it seems to work well if you want to go used."

Thanks, yeah I figured Tokina would be a good alternative, they have a pretty good track record. What's the focal-length range on the Tokina?

Most wide-to-tele zooms barrel-out at the wide end, and have some pincushion at the long end, but the mid-range is usually pretty good. By the time the new 24-85 Nikkor gets to the upper-40s, it's already "pinning", and by 50mm it's pretty bad. A picture is worth a thousand words, so check out the link I posted and see for yourselves.

Horrible pincushion? All the stuff I have seen puts it around the 2% range which is not bad at all. After all, it is not a $1800 lens or a prime. Most 3rd party lenses on either end usually are around 5% or have complex wavy distortion which is worse in that price range. My experience has been anything under 5% the in camera control or LR/PS will fix it auto-Magically with no issues. If you are shooting straight lines, that could get annoying though and your only choice may be a prime. Sigma's and Tamron's lenses are close to $1,000 that seem to perform well.

For under $600 I'm not sure if you could find better. I use an old Tokina 2.6-2.8 and it seems to work well if you want to go used. Wide range does have some barrel distortion. Never had it measured for distortion though but I never notice any above 35mm. The 24-85 af-d? 2.8-4 seems to be a good candidate above 35mm. When I had that lens it barreled bad on the wide range.

If you go over to mansurovs dot com - he has a good write up about it and comparison to the lens Satellites suggested as well as the older version and 24-120vr f4. I find his reviews to be spot on for the most part. He is a photographer, not a reviewer so his focus is "real" world not numbers.

IMHO Nikon best mid range FX zoom is the 24- 120 f4 vr
3rd Party? why buy a Nikon then put a milk bottle on it ?

I have a 28-85mm f/3.5-4.5 AF Nikkor. Built like a hammer and very sharp. A bit clunky, but has a nice macro focus feature as well.

how about the old 24-85 af-d? 2.8-4, sharp, fast focusing. good lens all around and built well.

horribly pincushioned? do tell where the photos that have these distortion are

and as far as third party i don't think theres any around that autofocuses that is more of a consumer grade.

Hi folks, I'm curious as to what third-party lens options there are out there to the new Nikon "kit" lens they've outed for the D600? Looking at images from ImagingResource posted at this link:
http://nikonrumors.com/2012/09/13/nikon-d600-sample-images.aspx/

...the new Nikkor is horribly pincushioned-out at around 40+mm onwards. By 50mm it's hideous. It's a bit on the soft side too, although the distortion is what's really bothering me.

So I'm curious what options there my be out there from third-party manufacturers that may offer better IQ in a similar zoom range, and possibly the same price range, that you have personal experience with. Thanks for any information.