I see Nikon US is still selling these ,but Nikon India has stopped selling these now .
Nikon 24-85mm F2.8-4D "Swiss Army of Lens "[2001-2012]-- Discontinued
(11 posts) (5 voices)-
Posted 11 months ago #
-
Makes sense to discontinue an older model, if a newer and better one is on the way.
Posted 11 months ago # -
I had that on my short list of lenses to buy next. But the resolution and CA numbers worked against me buying it. Read the 'macro' feature was so so. The Nikkor 17-35mm f/2.8D looks likely to be my next lens.
Posted 11 months ago # -
Funduro said:
I had that on my short list of lenses to buy next. But the resolution and CA numbers worked against me buying it. Read the 'macro' feature was so so. The Nikkor 17-35mm f/2.8D looks likely to be my next lens.Do you collect lenses or do you shoot film, or is there some other reason why you would choose to buy those old D lenses? With modern cameras, you do not need the aperture ring on the lens. Just asking, because I see no sense in that.
Posted 11 months ago # -
Funduro said:
I had that on my short list of lenses to buy next. But the resolution and CA numbers worked against me buying it. Read the 'macro' feature was so so. The Nikkor 17-35mm f/2.8D looks likely to be my next lens.I also gave this strong consideration, but chose the AF-S NIKKOR 16-35mm f/4G ED VR as being about $700 less, plus it has VR. Although the f/2.8 is about 20mm shorter and may be more what you want.
Posted 11 months ago # -
Godless said:
Do you collect lenses or do you shoot film, or is there some other reason why you would choose to buy those old D lenses? With modern cameras, you do not need the aperture ring on the lens. Just asking, because I see no sense in that.Yes I shot film, actually slides mostly. I do believe that older lenses have several positives that todays lenses don't. One being they were built 'better'. Hate to be a negative Nancy, but manufactures today are looking at saving money in manufacturing products, so something has to give. That capital letter N on the lens barrel could be: 1) marketing BS 2) needed to correct problems with newer lower cost lens design. 3) greater profit snake oil. In other words newer gee wiz bang is sometimes just a cover for lower quality manufacturing and greater profit.
To answer your primary question. I'm looking for a UWA zoom that can use filters. I would like to buy the Nikon 16-35mm f/4.0G AF-S ED VR-II, but that one is out of stock. I do not hold it against the lens because of age of design, as long as it meets my priorities. I'm sort of a technical person, certain specs have greater weight in my thinking. I take into consideration what ISO, shutter speed and aperture that will be used by me most often, then research if that lens has the better specs in those parameters. I also take into account VR's value but it isn't number one on my list. I also see all VR lenses as having lower MTBF(time till it brakes) issues. If a lens has extra VR electronics and specialty built electro-mechanical parts, it is likelier to fail faster then a lens that doesn't have it. Sure the lens I ultimately buy will have one or more spec that I rather it not have, but I know the ones(specs) I care most about compensate for them. Nothing is perfect, I compromise on my terms, I can live with certain limitation.
Sorry I do not have that buy, sell in two years, buy newest one and repeat personality. I like to buy and keep for a long time. Heck I could've ordered and bought the D800, instead I just purchased a new D700. That 36MP sensor requires way more sophisticated SW and chips, which has no proven track record, unlike the 4 year old D700. Just because it's new, has a bigger model # is not the primary reason for me to buy something. Is it me or do newer camera's have had more SW upgrades and sooner after being released? Plus I believe that high density manufactured components suffer more problems from heat and density problems(old term is crosstalk). Why does the twice as expensive D4 have 1/2 the MP of the D800? I work with massive size(up to 14' X 17") detectors(sensors really) in diagnostic imaging equipment. Maybe I see lower useful life and diminishing returns in greater density electronics. A D800 with the D4's sensor would have been ideal in my thinking. Not saying 36MP sensors have their purpose and uses, I'm not the target buyer I guess. This sentence will make certain people mad, but I do not have personality issues about having bigger, faster and newer. Many manufactures are having more and more parts being built outside their factories walls which can bring greater number of quality control issues(maybe that's why D800 has availability issue?) So simply put, old school has it's advantages.
Posted 11 months ago # -
@Funduro "Yes I shot film, actually slides mostly." Five stars in my book! And, I still have my two "F"bodies from the 1960's and three lenses. I rarely buy/sell just to get something different. I am always purchasing a lens for a distinct purpose.
Diagnostic imaging...sounds like health care to me.... and you do not sound at all like a "negative Nancy at all".
Posted 11 months ago # -
Funduro said:
One being they were built 'better'.Partially true. I love the feel of old AIS Nikkors in the hand, but for instance I haven´t shot a single image with the AIS 24mm f/2.0 since getting the AF-S 24mm f/1.4G - it really is that much better except for size and price. As for the craftsmanship, I dare say the AF-S version is very rugged in build, at least it feels that way.
Against the plastic fantastic 18-55, 55-200 and 55-300 the older lenses win every time in craftsmanship, hands down. Then again, I find the non-decoupled focus ring found in many D series lenses a sign of lazy/bad design. And I am not a big fan of the optical characteristics of some/most older lenses - from any manufacturer.
Funduro said:
That capital letter N on the lens barrel could be: 1) marketing BS 2) needed to correct problems with newer lower cost lens design. 3) greater profit snake oil. In other words newer gee wiz bang is sometimes just a cover for lower quality manufacturing and greater profit.And in the case of the 50mm 1.4G and 50mm 1.8G you are at least partially correct.
Funduro said:
Sorry I do not have that buy, sell in two years, buy newest one and repeat personality. I like to buy and keep for a long time.We all have different needs and criteria for equipment. I like to know other people´s preferences, because I am just curious to know why others do the same things in a different way.
I like to keep the things that I find exciting enough to keep. I like to get the photos with the least amount of hassle in post-production, and in that regard, the 24mm f/1.4G has served me very well - delivers every time.
A lot of the time, I shoot in very dark places. I do like the D7000, except for the size (too small for my hands or something in the shape that makes my fingers ache - a thing that never happens with the D300S/D700/D3S). I sold the D300S, because I did not like the High ISO image quality beyond 800 - the only reason I kept the D7000 is that it is relatively cheap and currently the ultimate non-dwarf-size Nikon DX body for High ISO shooting.
Posted 11 months ago # -
Godless said:
We all have different needs and criteria for equipment. I like to know other people´s preferences, because I am just curious to know why others do the same things in a different way.
I also read lots of opinions/reviews on lenses, sometimes a nugget is in them. Heck learning is good. Ok here are my FX lenses : 17-35mm f/2.8D(will buy soon), 50mm f/1.4 Ai-S, 70-200 f/2.8G VR, 300mm f/4D, TC-14EII . No Holy Trinity for me. 105mm f/2.8G VR macro is likely to be in my bag late this year. I consider 28-35mm to be as useful as 50mm. I guess I'm lazy loving zooms, that and do not want to carry a warehouse of prime lenses. I also have several DX zoom lenses for the D300S. I do not see buying $5,000+ FX telephoto lenses anytime soon. Birding will be strictly DX only for me, that's why I own the 300mm f/4D / TC-14 / +1.5 DX crop factor. I live in sunny Florida so birding will mostly be under bright skies.
I'm getting the bug to photograph industrial valves/pipes, old tractors and industrial buildings. I could shoot it with the UWA zooms I have using my D300S. But I want to do those images with higher quality FX glass. which is why I bought the D700. Also I can use all the D300S accessories on the D700 too. BTW I'm just a hobby photographer, without college age children, nor a drug addiction( my excuse for spending thousands on a hobby) ;-)
Posted 11 months ago # -
Funduro said:
I guess I'm lazy loving zooms, that and do not want to carry a warehouse of prime lenses.Do you consider 4 primes a warehouse? I have had a 8/24/85 and 300 (now 8/24/85 and a 120-300) as the set, and it covers the most occasions. Could use a longer lens now and then, but could use a thicker wallet or foreknowledge of a huge inheritance as well.
Posted 11 months ago # -
I had this lens for about 3 months and was vastly disappointed in the performance on every level of it. At F8 & F/11 it was great, but so is a 18-55mm ED VR lens. Slow AF, really weak wide open, and diffraction showed like no other lens that I have tried. I may have had a dud though. Others really liked it and thought it was a great performer. If I shot studio work with it, it could have been better. Really plastic-y too.
(Diffraction correction: I'll take that back, I have a 1962ish 50mm 1.4 that is worse, but it never is shot above 5.6. I didn't buy that lens to be perfect but for the old "soft" style of rendering at f/1.4-4.)
Posted 11 months ago #
Reply
You must log in to post.
