Nikon 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5G ED VR lens tested at DxO Mark

Nikon-AF-S-Nikkor-24-85mm-f3.5-4.5G-ED-VR-DxoMark-test-score (2)

Today DxO Mark published their test results for the Nikkor 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5G ED VR lens ($596.95) which was also on the list of recommended lenses for the D800E camera. The lens has a performance identical to the 24-120mm f/4G lens ($1,296.95) and outperforms the 28-300mm ($1,046.95) in almost every measurement. Both Tamron and Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8 lenses obviously scored higher then the 24-85mm:


This entry was posted in Nikon Lenses and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink. Trackbacks are closed, but you can post a comment.
  • saywhatuwill

    I’m assuming that no bars for chromatic abberations is better than some bars. The 28-300 have close to no bars, so I’m not sure that means the 24-120 ” outperforms the 28-300mm ($1,046.95) in almost every measurement.”

    • saywhatuwill

      I just looked at the number and it has a 30 next to it vs the 6 on the 24-120. Well, my bad. 😉

      • No longer Pablo Ricasso

        The 28 – 300 has 13. The 24 – 120 has 11. You will not notice the difference.

        • Roscoe Greenwood

          “No longer Pablo Ricasso”

          So Who TF are you now? Got a real name or just stuck with a phony one that you can’t shake off?

          Now when there’s actually a real Pablo Ricasso…why are you still referring to that name for your avatar?

          I mean nothing untoward really, just curious to know, that’s all.

          • The real Pablo Ricasso

            I’d like to know the answer to that as well 😉

            • papundek

              You guys crack me up…LOL!

              Can the real Pablo Ricasso please standup, please stand up, please stand up…


            • Pablo Ricasso

              I’m not sure you’re the “real” Pablo Ricasso. I had thought the name up myself, kind of like a take off of Pablo Picasso (who was never called an * hole.) I was mocking the quality of my photos. Then someone else came out of nowhere and started answering my posts with smart comments and later stated that he or she had been using that name for years and then called me an idiot. I didn’t think anything of it. But later I was bored and googled the name. Much to my amazement there appeared to be a photographer with that name and I thought it might even be that person’s real name.

              But NO. I googled it again. All the sites were in a foreign language. There is no photographer with that name. That’s MY handle. I’m stealing it back from you.

            • Pablo Ricasso

              And the only reason I said “No longer” was so that people could remember who was talking. And that lens is still a piece of junk.

            • Pablo Ricasso

              And the only reason you’re still posting Mr “no longer pablo ricasso” is because I didn’t complain to the moderator about you yet.

              Get off me, your posts are pointless and unsubstantiated anyway…

            • Pablo Ricasso

              Look again “Pablo” – It’s a real name, and I use it, as I have been using it for years. So you and your little petty excuses could just bug off. And yes, you’re right – it’s in foreign language.

            • Pablo Ricasso

              Nope the name is mine, and I am not a troll, shame on you accusing me of such a thing.

            • Pablo Ricasso

              I am taking the name back, or NO – you can have it. Good luck proving you’re the real Pablo Ricasso.

            • Pablo Ricasso

              Dude – who is accusing you of being a troll, you realize you just called yourself one? Oh, wait – you ARE one, indeed.

  • TR_T-Rex

    I am glad I opted for the cheaper and lighter 24-85 VR (mine is even more cheaper as I purchased the factory refurbished model for USD 350) instead of the 24-120 f/4 VR. I could have been tempted by the USD 300 off price tag in March, but glad I did not.

    Nonetheless I hope Nasim from would elobarate on why he thinks 24-120 f/4 VR is superior to 24-85 VR. His review currently compares these two lenses’ performance only at 24mm (which at this focal length does not quite match with other reviews) and says a thorough comparision will be available soon, though we are still waiting.

    I would say buy 24-120 f/4 VR only if you need the focal lengths between 85-120.

    I am expecting a 24-70 f/2.8 VR hopefully with improved optics and until such upgrade 24-85 VR looks like it will do the job perfectly fine when compared to similar lenses.

    • Dave in NC

      I have the 24-120 f/4 and like it a lot. It is sometimes so confusing to read conflicting reviews. Mansurov definitely likes the 24-120 better, but now DxO rates them the same. I guess the only way to really rate a lens is to get one and use it. That could be expensive when comparing lenses, such as the 24-85 against the 24-120.

      • desmo

        your on to something Dave
        lens rental is a cost effective way to accomplish this

    • niXerKG

      Same performance, bigger range and constant f/4 is what puts the 24-120 over the 24-85. For walking around, 24-120 is a very attractive focal range.

    • Pablo Ricasso

      I’d pick Nasim’s real-life lens rating over DxO any day.

      The DxO rating has been proven to be all over the place and something none of us should take seriously when selecting the lens for our own use.

      You may kick yourself in the future for not going for 24-120 f/4, but hey, it’s your choice and your lens.

      • TR_T-Rex

        My purpose was not to degrade Nasim’s statements or support DxO ratings in general. I would say I rely more on Nasim’s reviews than DxO’s. However in the case of this particular lens, what I have read so far from various sources indicate that 24-85 VR and 24-120 f/4 VR perform almost exactly the same, an argument precisely supported by DxO in this particular case. Regardless, Nasim makes a quite powerful statement that reads “In short, the Nikon 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5G VR does not stand a chance against the Nikon 24-120mm f/4G VR” which in my humble opinion justifies some thorough explanation.

        As a side note, I consider this claimed “almost identical performance” as a positive aspect of 24-120 f/4G VR because the lens is claimed to perform the same despite its remarkable extra range.

        • Calibrator

          Have you actually asked Nasim?

          • TR_T-Rex

            Frankly not. I know he is inundated with reviews, articles and his new lens database. I have been waiting for a while for him to update his review, which he seems he will do as he says so in his review. Perhaps it is time to ask in the light of DxOMark’s new findings.

            • Calibrator

              I’d do this – Nasim often answers to posts in his forum.

        • Ron Perlman

          “… what I have read so far from various sources”

          I wouldn’t read the Internet reports so much as I’d talk to the owners of the particular lens for their first-hand opinion. The 24-120 has been around for few years now, plenty of photogs that have been using it in real-life situations. Talk to them, ignore those tech-specs pixel-peeping reports.

          • Manula Johnson

            Well stated Ron…I agree that people should look at the end result and talk to lens owners before they make the ‘jump’.

            Here’s an interesting link that shows some of the photos taken with the 24-120:


            I don’t own either, but may go with the 24-120 for few reasons, the main being extra focal range, fixed aperture and nano-coating. Still saving $$ hard, though 🙂

            • Roscoe Tanner


              The guy is also very talented photog…

            • Aldo

              outstanding photos, great skill on framing/cropping and LR technique. Bravo

            • Can’t Believe It

              This isn’t a fair comparison because the photographer who took those shots with the 24-120 has some serious talent. Those kind of people can make any lens look good.

            • desmo

              your right
              it isn’t fair

              most of the poster’s here
              dissing the lens
              serious talent

              it isn’t fair

        • desmo

          not only ask Nasim,
          as calibrator says but also log on to Nikon’s nikon imaging website and compare the MTF plots
          the 24-120 is sharper than 24-85 by nikon’s engineering ‘s own plots

          • JakeB

            Good point, just checked it, you’re right. 24-85 comes close but no cigar.

            DxO has had many hit-and-misses in the recent past, my guess is this is one of them.

            • Bihi

              Based on, the 24-120 outperforms 24-85 on full frame especially on the extreme borders

      • Dxo is fine as far as it goes, but it doesn’t go in a lot of places, such as LOCA, COMA, subjective bokeh quality, handling, VR, construction, QA, and so on. If you knw what DxO is measuring, its measurements are fine — but the magic rating number is hopeless.

        For the record, I have the old 24-85 f2.8-4 (rated higher by DxO than either the 24-85 or the 24-120). It’s noticeably soft unless stopped down, handling is horrible (macro mode), requires a focus motor, and no instant focus override.

    • Pablo Ricasso

      “…why he thinks 24-120 f/4 VR is superior to 24-85 VR. ”

      Probably because it is better than the 24-85.

      – longer focal range
      – constant aperture
      – Nano coating (which DxO never measures against)
      – Better mech build (lens construction contains metal parts, 24-85 is full plastic)

      • TR_T-Rex

        Well, I meant “optically superior” and in this context longer focal length does not necessarily translate into better optical performance. Constant aperture generally does, but not so much in the case of 24-85 VR as its variable aperture range is relatively slim. Build quality and mechanics does not relate to optical performance at all. I concur with the nano coating, which must make a difference (for the exorbitant price difference with non-nano variants).

        • Marko J.

          “…Well, I meant “optically superior”

          You may have meant it but you certainly didn’t state it.

          Now you’re just re-regurgitating what you think you should have said in the first place.

          • TR_T-Rex

            Of course not. As DxO Mark only evaluates optical performance, if I post a comment about their review on a particular lens and compare their results with someone else’s, then you should have “reasonably” assumed I must have talked about
            “optical performance”. Moreover I stated that Nasim had compared two lenses only at 24mm. Based on these if you think that I was interested in these lenses’ mechanics, build quality, etc, then you are not “reasonable”.

      • Micah Goldstein

        Ok, lets explain “nano-coating”, and why it’s not what you think it is: it is not to remove flare from existing designs. It is used to enable designs that would otherwise flare horribly. It’s actually a salvaging technique for designs that are otherwise unworkable.

        The only exception is the 200/2VR. And in that case, I’m not convinced it made a whole lot of difference, it just didn’t hurt and might help sales.

        Nano-coating is a dubious selling point.

        • Neil

          A rather provocative statement. I’d be interested to see some documentation to support that argument.

          • Emily Fernandez

            If you’ve been reading his other posts in the past you would have noticed that he’s full of statements like those, unfounded and subjective.

            • Micah Goldstein

              You’re reading the comments section of a rumor website for hard objective data? Methinks you don’t understand how the internet works.

              But go ahead and prove me wrong. I like to learn.

          • Micah Goldstein

            A picture is worth a thousand words–compare the images from the two different versions of the 200/2VR.

            • Neil

              That’s not close to an objective measurement of the benefits of nano, or lack thereof, of nano coating. Perhaps if someone did repeated identical shots using those two versions (or the 200-400 which shares identical design between non-nano and nano) where nano is reputed to help we might begin to have some evidence one way or the other.

            • Micah Goldstein

              I’m trying to point out how silly the claims of the OP are. He/she says that DX0 should have some sort of metric that shows the advantage of the nano-coating, and that without that measurement being included, their tests are meaningless.

              That’s just not true. It was like saying “you didn’t measure for the ED elements”. Or saying of a car race “you didn’t add seconds for the turbo”. Either a car wins a race or it doesn’t. Either a lens takes good pictures or it doesn’t. Just like stickers on a car don’t had horsepower, letters on a lens don’t make pictures better.

            • Totally agree with your comments about the picture quality is all that matters, but there are plenty of things DxO doesn’t test for including bokeh quality, resistance to flare, loca, coma, etc. as well as ergonomics. Doesn’t devalue their test results, but you need to bear the limitations in mind.

            • Micah Goldstein

              You can get all that from other sources who are just supported by advertising. DX0 is supported by the software they’re trying to sell. They are less concerned with comparing things than they are with building trust and a name for their software.

              Their numbers have never been very useful to me. At best they agree with things you can read elsewhere, at worst they feed measurbational obsessions in differences that aren’t photographically meaningful.

            • JakeB

              “…I’m trying to point out how silly the claims of the OP are. He/she says that DX0 should have some sort of metric that shows the advantage of the nano-coating, and that without that measurement being included, their tests are meaningless….”

              He never stated that, you may want to re-read his post again, this time carefully. And yes he makes a good point regarding the differences between the two lenses, sorry but you seem to have missed it, not him

            • Ronnie Perlman

              Not quite. Nasim Mansurov among others did compare the two lenses for flare resistance and found the 24-120 came out better. Not sure why is this so hard to comprehend for you. That big letter on the lens barrel you mention does mean something and it works in real life. Stop bagging the lens you haven’t tried yourself or used for longer period in different situations.

              You either have problems reading and understanding or you’re a totally ignorant person.

        • JakeB

          Mister know-it-all, the fact you fail to see any advantages of the Nano-coating on Nikon lenses doesn’t necessary mean it should be discounted to “dubious selling point” by the rest.

    • Emmett

      Haha! Nasim Mansurovs is this year’s Ken Rockwell. He’s just some dude with a website. He’s not even a good photographer (just like ol’ Ken). He has no clue what he’s talking about.

      • desmo

        most people would disagree with your criitcism of Nasim
        his reviews are well written, and his testing is more controlled than DXO
        he provides you “just the facts” he doesn’t input his own bias into the results
        I’d bet his images are better than yours

  • Guest

    I have the 24-85 VR and have tried and returned the 24-70 f/2.8. I liked the 24-85 better because the sharpness is almost identical. But I’ve got 70-85mm plus the VR for video. I also saved myself $1300 for a couple of primes.

    • Spy Black

      Don’t ever get a new prescription for your glasses…

      • longzoom

        Guest is correct, 24-70 is soft at wide end. 24-85 has a lot of distortions, but very sharp.

        • Spy Black

          Don’t ever get a new prescription for your glasses either…

          • longzoom

            Looks like you do not know, nor understand optics.

          • Eric Calabos

            at just 2P-Mpix difference, maybe lasik eye surgery needed to notice

    • longzoom


  • niknik

    I got mine filthy cheap and still with that “factory smell” from one
    of the many D600 owners dumping it because they think is not good
    At $300 there is really nothing I can complain about.

    At $600, well the distortion is a little bit too much.

    Regardless of the price is a nice lens, with pronounced distortion.

    • Spy Black

      “…with pronounced distortion”
      To put it mildly. That lens wasn’t worth the $300 you paid for it. Distortion isn’t it’s only weak point. Notice that with the exception of the top-ed Nikkor and the Tamron, it’s compared to a bunch of similarly horrible Nikkors, all of them embarrassments that stain the Nikkor heritage.

      • niknik

        I think that $300 is a fair price for it. I wouldn’t pay more than that. Again, at $300 the price-performance relation is good. Is for those cases where you need the flexibility. Btw, I didn’t pay attention to the dxo rating at all -I compared it to my other lenses at home.

        But I can see your point.

      • desmo

        are we to assume your talking about the 24-85vr or the old 24-120 variable aperture
        which was a dog

        • Spy Black

          I’m referring primarily to the 24-85 here, but really all those Nikkors save for the 24-70 are dogs.

  • 1000pictures

    I like the 24-120 f/4 VR for the simple reason that on a D800 it offers 24-180mm with the help of the camera’s crop mode. That is not bad if your doctor just told you to drop a little weight. The lens’ performance is acceptable.

    • RMJ

      And using the crop instead of walking is the way to drop the weight?

      • Neil

        You can’t always walk to where you need to be for frame fillers…

    • Micah Goldstein

      The 24-120/4 is only just on par with the 28-300 in the real world. There is no reason to prefer the 24-120 over it. Unless you need 24mm. Or maybe you if can detect 90g of weight difference. Or maybe if you are a former Canon shooter who needs to be wooed by a 24-105 substitute. But those are all crap reasons.

      • Calibrator

        “detect 90g of weight difference.”

        You can’t?

        • Micah Goldstein

          Not strapped to a single digit D series or D700 or D800 with battery grip, no.

          You can?

          • Calibrator

            Yes – it’s even more uncomfortable! 😉

          • genotypewriter

            Of course he can, I can also.
            So what…

      • I agree wholeheartedly. At least the copy I had was overrated. I’ve now owned every single standard FX zoom that Nikon makes. The 24-120 was the most disappointing. 24-70 best, 24-85 lightest with little compromises and 28-300 most flexible.

        • samthedog

          I think most people could have made those assumptions without owning those lenses.

          • Agree

            Most people make comments without using anything
            Internet is virtual space

            • My comment was based on extensive personal hands-on experience.

            • Ramona Ling

              You then must have had a failed attempt on your ‘extensive personal hands-on experience’

      • longzoom


      • desmo

        24-120 vs 28-300 both are good lenses,
        just as you said no reason for 24-120 is if you need 24mm,
        the same is true for 28-300″ if you need 300mm”
        the only rock I would throw at my copy of the 24-120 f4VR is it ghosts/flares too easily for a lens that is in its price class,
        the image quality is good, but not quite the same class as the other 2 lenses in the f4 trinity,
        the 16-35 and especially the 70 -200 f4 are noticeably cleaner/sharper

        all that said to purport that the 24-85 kit lens is sharper is laughable

        • Ronnie Perlman

          “…the 16-35 … noticeably cleaner/sharper”

          No not really. The 24-120 is as sharp as 16-35 and very close to 70-200 f/4. It depends what focal distance and f-stop you shooting at, though.

          • JakeB

            Agree. I own and exclusively only shoot with the ‘semi-pro f/4 trinity’, and can attest to that. The 24-120 mounted on my D800 is very sharp in most situations.

            • Zivko Radovanovic

              The majority who bag and keep crapping over the 24-120 f/4 never actually owned nor shoot with it and base their statements on Internet reports they read.

          • desmo

            just my copies,

            I usually shoot f4 or f8,

            so I’m not stopping down to find the trade

            off between lens sweetspot and sensor diffraction.

            I would be totally happy with the 24-120 f4’s image quality.

            brought it with me this trip good simple one lens solution on D600

    • Spy Black

      Why would you need the camera’s crop mode when you can just crop it as you please?

      • Micah Goldstein

        One word: buffer

  • outkasted

    Ahhh nothing to see here..keep it moving folks 😛

  • longzoom

    My 28-300 at 300mm, most critical end, BTW. It’s a crop of 100%, handheld.
    Distance to the building was about 1 km. Sorry for quality posted, but take a look at Flickr under my name, for full info and EXIF data. My 70-200+TC14 is not better at its 280mm combined.

    • Spy Black

      Not for nuthin’, but even at that limited resolution you can see that lens sucks.

      • longzoom

        Look at Flickr first, your 24-120 really sucks!

        • Spy Black

          I don’t have a 24-120, and it’s obvious that image quality sucks. But if you insist, how ’bout a link? A search for your name on flickr turns up a million disparate hits.

          • longzoom

            You can count every curtains in the window down right on this crop, or the bell on the bike. It’s obvious that this consumer 10X zoom is the best in its class today. My 24-120 is softer at widest setting, and softer at 85 mm – about it. To be honest, 24-120 is not bad glass, but I, personally, can’t call it “pro” lens.

            • Spy Black

              OK, maybe I’m being too harsh here. This is after all handheld, so it may be better than this. Ultimately if the lens serves your purpose then that’s all that matters. I at least would like to know what f and shutter settings you are shooting at.

              These lenses are not my cup of tea, so to speak, but if you’re happy with it, don’t worry about what anyone else may think about it.

            • longzoom

              Glad to support civilized talk. 1/1000, ISO 400, F8.

          • No longer Pablo Ricasso

            No, he’s right. I think you missed that it’s a 100% crop. I said it the first time I saw the sample photos. The 28 – 300 is an amazing lens and the 24 – 85 is a big question mark. At first I thought they were showing me pictures of a tamron/tokina 28-85 that was made in the 70s. And then I noticed that the distortion was worse. No comment on the 24-120 but if the 28 – 300 will do that then carry it with a 20 or a 24 and be glad.

  • fishnose

    I have the 24-120 as a very convenient general lens on my D800. Does an excellent job. No serious drawbacks other than a little larger aperture would have been nice. A little distortion, sure. And some chr aberration. Both are very neatly fixed in RAW. The results I get are much appreciated by my customers. NEVER has anyone EVER complained about image quality. Not even close.

    When I need fast and long I put on my 70-200 VRII and it does an even better job, gets the same ooh’s and aah’s when I show the results.

    So – now tell me, dear pixel peepers – am I a complete idiot because I can’t see what on earth you’re on about when you crap all over the 24-120?

    Answer – no! I live in the REAL WORLD and take REAL PICTURES and get really good results with my wonderful D800 and my lovely lenses!

    So much bullshit is written here, it totally gets on my tits. Get over it, those of you who can only complain – and you think you’re so bloody cool because you do.

    • umeshrw

      Our results are always appreciated by customer. The question is ‘ Do they satisfy us?’
      Btw I do agree that 24-120 is very sharp.

      • desmo

        to rate the kit lens as slightly sharper than the 24-120 vr f4 is more DXO buffoonery.
        why people place any value in their results is hard to believe.
        once again teir testing is more subjective tha objective
        or scientific

        • Jack

          More subjective than objective? Wow, I’ve heard a lot of garbage in here but this tops it. The reason ppl complain about DXO is because it’s actually very objective, which often times contradicts their own subjective opinions. p.s. with the 24-120 it all comes down to what you use it for. If you’re a hobbyist or doing portraiture for mostly digital media then, by all means, go for it. For weddings, it’s generally too slow for me. But if I’m doing shoots for a magazine or a high-end customer, I wouldn’t touch that thing even with a long stick.

          • Kary Yu Ling

            “But if I’m doing shoots for a magazine or a high-end customer, I wouldn’t touch that thing even with a long stick.”

            Luckily for all of us you don’t.
            So stop crapping on something you don’t and most likely you never do.

          • desmo

            if you understood how DXO tests they come up with an average for the whole frame(anyone can average any way they choose(subjective))
            then they average for every fstop (more subjective) then they average for every focal length(more and more subjective)
            and thats just the mpix score
            then they repeat this for their other parameters
            so in the end
            “figures don’t lie,
            but Liars figure”
            or should we say average

            if you want science and engineering use Nikon’s MTF plot

            if you want black art ,smoke magic and mirrors
            use DXO

            • jake

              Nikon MTF is not really good, you cannot see reality in that , it just show you how good a lens should be if you get a good copy.

            • desmo

              as if dxo tests every copy
              don’t get any on you

      • jake

        if you think that convenient f4VR is so sharp, you just do not know any really sharp lens , if you ever shot a really good lens , you just do not like the 24-120f4VR lens.
        it is not at all sharp, it is actually as lousy as the Canon EF24-105f4LISUSM lens or Sony SAM28-75mmf2.8D lens.

        if you do not want to get a big heavy f2.8G zoom , then just get the kit zoom ,which is just as good as the overpriced f4 24-120f4Vr or 16-35f4VR.
        also , the 70-200f4VR is not as good as the 70-200mmf2.8GEDVR2 lens.

        I personally consider all the 3 f4VR zooms are quite lousy.

        • Roscoe Tanner

          “..then just get the kit zoom ,which is just as good as the overpriced f4 24-120f4Vr or 16-35f4VR….”

          What a load of crock. You clearly know very little about lenses, especially the ones you’re talking about.

          I doubt you even use your camera, instead your face is glued to computer monitor reading internet reviews and crapping over topics and products you clearly know nothing about.

  • Eric Calabos

    I hate to see that 30um CA in 24-70
    a big shame for a high end lens

  • alvin

    nice to see that all of those 36mp are wasted in the optical empty space of diffraction or . ..duh..void volume of universe…ahah! even on expensive lenses 😀 I’d like to see the D800e results…from a couple of lenses tested..the perceived sharpness goes up at least 20% ..

  • Can’t Believe It

    The big problem with the 24-120 and to a lesser extent the 24-85 is that there’s no reasonably priced next step if you want a telephoto lens with VR.

    It’s silly to buy a 70-200 because of the focal length overlap and the problem with breathing, and the only other modern medium telephotos with VR are the 200 f/2 which is $5,400 or the 300 f/2.8 which is close to $6,000.

    So really, if you try to save money by buying either the 24-120 or the 24-85, you’re going to go broke trying to get to longer focal lengths.

  • John

    DXO is really out to lunch on the 24-84VR, vs. 24-85non-VR, and the 24-85D.
    My experience is opposite to theirs and is perfectly the same as the test results from
    Perhaps they need to get out of the lens rating business . . .

  • Deep_Lurker

    I’m thinking of getting the 24-85mm VR for use with a DX body (D7100 or D400). I’ve read that the 24-85mm is sharp in the center but soft at the edges and corners – and DX would negate the edge-and-corner problem. I’d also lose the wide angle below 24mm, but I don’t care about that. I’m not one of Thom Hogan’s Wide Angle Warlocks, and I’d much much rather have the mm above 55mm. No 17-55 f/2.8 for me. (Nor is the pre-announced Sigma 18-35 f/1.8DX for me, despite how interesting it sounds. But if Sigma comes out with a 35-70mm f/1.8 DX companion lens…)

    • desmo

      get 16-85vr dx lens more appropriate to DX

  • Bihi

    Now let us wait and see how Dxo compares the new 18-35 to the 16-35, and the new 80-400 to 70-200 f/2.8&4


    I have used my 24-120 f/4 lens for two years now. I love it. I do lots of landscapes and also some events, and the lens is amazing. I also own the 70-200 f/2.8 VR2 and 24-70 f/2.8, but prefer the 24-120, on my D700 and D800.

  • jake

    my personal evaluation was quite right this time,I was quite sure the 24-85VR kit lens came with my D600 was sharper than my 3y/o 24-120f4VR albeit at the cost of a bit less interesting focal range and Lo-CA..
    I knew the cheap kit resolves actually better than the expensive convenient zoom the 24-120f4GEDVR lens.
    I also feel my new AFS18-35mm zoom is actually sharper than my almost 3y/o AFS16-35mmf4VR.
    so, imho , those f4 VR series lenses are all overpriced , they were built a bit better than the kit lens but not really good in any way, and optically they were worse then the cheap variable aperture zooms or at best equal.

    so if you shoot D800 or D800E or even D600 and need a zoom in this range , basically only one realistic choice for you is the huge bulky AFS24-70f2.8GED lens.
    but for walk around casual shooting the kit lens just do it fine and the kit lens is actually better than the overpriced 24-120mmf4VR.

    the f4 24-120mmGVR and the 70-200f4VR are both extremely overpriced , they should be a bit lighter in weight and on your wallet.

  • Phonton

    DxO are totally useless!!! I said this before and I’ll say it again: Nikon 24-85mm F/3.5-4.5 as much as I want to like it is absolute garbage and a total waste of your money and I’ve got pictures to prove it (see below). I went to test out D600 and tried it with the aforementioned kit lens and then my own Nikon 24-70mm F/2.8, judge for yourselves folks, I won’t even tell you which is which, it’s so obvious, but if you wonna check yourselves look at the metadata (F/2.8 is the giveaway 🙂

  • MB

    Two low cost Nikon FX lenses, this 24-85 VR and good old 70-300 VR, though not top performers are very nice lens to have.
    I tried new 70-200 f/4 and it is visibly much better than 70-300 VR but it is much heavier and way more expensive.
    I tried new 24-120 VR and I really do not see how it deserves this pro designation no matter what mister Mansurov says.
    At the end of the day 24-85 VR and 70-300 VR are excellent walk around combo, light and portable, very good IQ … and for the best IQ you really should have couple of primes ready.

  • Back to top