24-85mm f2.8-4 opinions « Nikon Rumors Forum

Nikon Rumors Forum » Nikon Lenses

24-85mm f2.8-4 opinions

(7 posts) (4 voices)

Started 3 years ago by astrophotographer
Latest reply from astrophotographer
Related Topics:

Tags:

No tags yet.

astrophotographer

preferred member
Joined: Aug '09
Posts: 136
offline

I'm looking to replace my 18-135 for my D300 (it's going to my sister for Xmas). I have the 12-24 and 80-200. I like the faster speed of the 24-85 as I like working in available light when I can. Also, I see going to FX sometime in the future so an FX lens is a plus. The 24-70 f2.8 is too big and too expensive. But the 24-85 lacks VR.

So what's your opinion of this lens. Some of the DX options are interesting as long as the long end is 70mm or more. And the rumored Sigma 17-70 replacement may be interesting.

Posted 3 years ago #
heartyfisher

preferred member
Joined: Apr '09
Posts: 1,701
offline

Consider the 24-70 HSM sigma or the Tamron 28-75 as well. I have heard good things about the 24-85. Its a great little walk around lens for FX cameras. I have not played with one but the reviews are ok for it. I was considering getting it myself but I already have a 35-70 f2.8 which is a great old lens. I am waiting for tamron to come out with a VC version of the tamron 28-75 F2.8. an updated 17-70 from sigma should be interesting too.. The best in this range is probably the 16-85 dx nikkor but I am kind of spoilt by my 35-70 F2.8.. so I am rather picky in this range now. sigh ... Oh and I have the 18-200VR so i am in a different situation from you.

The reasons I was considering the 24-85 is the F2.8 at 24 make it almost as good as the other mid range F2.8 zooms esp as a walkabout lens. Its range is nice esp for portrait on DX. Its small and light(compared to the F2.8 zooms). IQ and distortion is quite good. Its a Nikon.

Cons for me : I already have the 35-70. IQ is not better than the 35-70. Its aperture varies from 2.8 to 4. If I were to get it It would be for a specific purpose which is for stage shows weher the F4 at 85 is not a good thing .. might as well use my 18-200 VR. which is also about F4 at 85mm and will have VR.

What am I looking for in this range? F2.8, VR, bit longer than 70, bit wider than 35. = no such lens yet. well not for Nikon anyway.

Posted 3 years ago #
nau

preferred member
Joined: Mar '09
Posts: 266
offline

24-85mm - my walk around lens (used it on my DX and now on FX body)
if you can wait till next Nikons announcement - wait
this lens is long due for redesign and I have a feeling its coming up

its a great lens for the money you pay and when size does matter

Posted 3 years ago #
astrophotographer

preferred member
Joined: Aug '09
Posts: 136
offline

Thanks for the input. Hearty, looks like you're looking at the same things I am. To me it's starting to look like an extra stop and the FX option in the 24-85/2.8-4 or wider wide and VR in the 16-85 dx. Also Nikon's own MFTs imply the 16-85 is sharper. Then the rumored sigma 17-70 update will have VR. Damn choices.

It's looking like one extra f-stop vs. VRII. And I don't have a single VR lens.

Posted 3 years ago #
QuadraPixel

preferred member
Joined: Mar '09
Posts: 245
offline

If you don't want to break the bank, then you may want to mostly consider the 24-85 Nikkor or the new Sigma 24-70 (not the old one. The older one is horrible on a FX camera).

On the DX side, I would only consider the 16-85 VR or 17-55 F/2.8 to be an upgrade over the 18-135mm. Or mby the new 18-200mm VR.

Posted 3 years ago #
heartyfisher

preferred member
Joined: Apr '09
Posts: 1,701
offline

I have the 18-200 vr. and its a great walk about lens. I have been very tempted by the 16-85 Vr. because its very sharp! And at 85mm the bokeh is great.(not so great at other focal lengths) One of the weakness of the 18-200 is that its not sharp until F8-F11 which can get annoying but for happy snaps and holidays its great and if you want sharpness just make sure its F8 at least. VR is amazing
I have taken 1/2 second shots with it with fairly good success(with good technique, at 1/2 second, take about 5 shots and you should get 1 sharp). Also F3.5 is only HALF a stop slower than F2.8. and at 85mm my 18-200 is about F4. so for me my current gear is not worth the upgrade to the 16-85 or the 24-85. if I had your gear then the 16-85 would slot right in nicely, The tamron 17-50f2.8 VC may be suitable too as the gap between 50-80 can be bridged by croping the 50mm end, I am waiting for something with VR to replce my 35-70 f2.8. good luck with your ruminations!

Posted 3 years ago #
astrophotographer

preferred member
Joined: Aug '09
Posts: 136
offline

Now Sigma has announced the 17-70mm F2.8-4 OS HSM. That's about the perfect spec. Now how much and how good? I was just about convinced on the 16-85, Hmm...

Posted 3 years ago #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply

You must log in to post.

The new Nikon Rumors Forum is now live at http://forum.nikonrumors.com/discussions. This forum is now in "read only" mode until I figure a proper way to import all data over to the new platform. Please register over at the new forum.

24-85mm f2.8-4 opinions

Reply