NIKON 24-85mm F/3.5-4.5G ED VR AF-S Nikkor Lens - White Box (New) (Bulk Packaging)

Comment

When Nikon released this lens, most of the websites called it a nice consumer-grade lens, but a lens that was unsuitable for a D800/D800E. For Nikon since the mid-2000s, FX zoom lenses have been notorious for their compromises. The pro-grade zoom lenses like the 14-24mm, 24-70mm, and 70-200mm are huge bulky beasts that weigh a ton, dont easily fit into a compact carrying case, and cost a minor fortune (somewhat north of $2000 each). Lesser lenses like the 16-35mm and 24-120mm are slower--f4 instead of f2.8--, provide noticeably inferior IQ (but still quite good), for about 40% off--still north of $1000--, and are still quite bulky. In many cases it was hard to rationalize stepping down to one of these mid-grade lenses when getting a good-quality used pro-grade alternative could be had for just $500-$600 more. Now, enter the 24-85mm at $600. It weighs comparatively little, and its size (and, unfortunately, feel) are reminiscent more of a cheap DX kit lens than the built-like-a-tank FX zooms Nikon had been releasing. So, is this lens essentially an FX version of the DX kit lenses, or could it actually be something rather special? My answer to both question is, definitely "yes." It is almost certainly slated to be the kit lens for the forthcoming "affordable" D600 FX camera, and "yes" it is indeed special. In this review, I focus on the IQ. Others have covered the feel and ergonomics, so I have little to add to what they have said. Instead I tested this lens against four other lenses: the 14-24mm, the 28mm 1.8G, the 50mm 1.8G, and the 85mm 1.8G. My test camera was the D800E. I took all test shots hand-held. Therefore, if you want a scientifically verifiable test, look to the professional reviewers. I was particularly concerned about how well this lens performed under 35mm because I knew there would be times when I did not want to carry the big hulking 14-24mm with me, but I still wanted wide coverage. If this lens was good enough under 35mm, I could care less if it worked at 50mm or above because I have prime lenses covering that range. Okay on to the review. 24mm: The 2485 starts at f3.5. The 1424 is faster starting at f2.8. This is just a 2/3 stop difference, so really no big deal. I was truly amazed at what I observed. The 2485 is sharp wide open. In the center of the frame, these lenses are neck and neck. Many say that the 1424 is weakest at 24mm, so that may explain why the 2485 kept up. Regardless, in the center of the frame there was little difference. In fact the 2485 was sharper in some regions close to the center. The edges were a different story. the 2485 is noticeably softer on the edges. Frankly, you have to get something for spending those pro-level dollars! Another thing I noticed is that the 2485 seemed sharper at distance. I dont think the lens is better, rather I think that I see the VR kicking in eliminating shake that becomes apparent only when magnified by (relatively) great distance. Overall, the 2485 performs nicely at this focal length. 28mm: Pretty much the same result as at 24mm. Some important observations: the 2485 wide open is now f3.8 versus the 28mm at f1.8. This is now a much more significant 2 stop difference. This might matter to you. Also, the 28mm has a region of softness part-way to the edge that corresponds to the DX edge. Its not bad, but the 2485 is sharper in this area. So, you must trade edge softness for mid-sensor softness plus slower speed versus a quite fast lens. I dont really need a fast (faster than f2.8) wide angle lens, so the 28mm went back. 50mm: Here, the 2485 is really losing ground on the speed frontier. Wide open, it is now f4.2 versus the 50s f1.8. the 2485 is still softer in the corners than the prime, but it is not nearly as noticeable. The 2485 doesnt appear to pick up that much sharpness stopped down. In the center it is just as sharp as the 50mm at f4 and doesnt lose much ground until very close to the edge. At 50mm, the 2485 is quite nice, but it is really too slow to replace the 50mm for all purposes (you will miss the prime shooting inside and in low-light settings). 85mm: Here there is still edge softness, but it is not nearly as bad as observed at 28mm (perhaps, the new 28mm is one of Nikons sharpest edge-to-edge). Center sharpness between the two lenses is comparable. Here, the benefits of VR are readily apparent. Anytime the shutter speed dropped below 1/100sec, the 2485 typically produced sharper results. Therefore, if you are shooting outside with the 85mm prime, you may want to bring along a tripod for the absolute best results. the 2485 is quite slow. Wide open it is f4.5. However, given the price, Im not unhappy with this value. the 16-35mm and 24-120mm are both constant f4 lenses. This third-stop difference isnt significant in my opinion and is well worth the lower price. Im glad I have the 85mm, an incredible value. However, I know that if I dont have time to switch lenses, I can be confident to get a very good shot by zooming all the way out with my 2485. Color and contrast are very close between all the tested lenses and the 2485. The 2485 in general had more CA (purple fringing) than the other lenses, but nothing that couldnt be easily corrected in post. The 2485 bokeh (quality of background blur) is--not unexpectedly--weak. I was embarrassed to compare it to any of these lenses. It was especially inferior to the 50 and 85mm primes, which have very good to excellent bokeh. Therefore, the 2485 is in my opinion a keeper. It stacks up well against wide-angle prime lenses and isnt too much slower. Zoomed out, it is competitive for overlapping aperture values and can hold you over until you can afford a prime lens. I wish I had the 24120 to compare it to. I suspect the lenses are rather close. In exchange for 35mm less reach, the 2485 is half the price, half a pound lighter, and much more compact. So, yes it is special. It doesnt get 5 stars because it is a variable speed lens, and it does suffer from edge softness. Moreover, if you are a pro and/or you bang your kit around a bit, I wouldnt have high hopes for this lens durability. But the 2485 offers very little else to complain about. I recommend it for any non-pro Nikon FX user who occasionally--or frequently--wants to travel light. I also think that it is an excellent choice as a stopgap lens for anyone who broke their bank buying a D800. This lens will serve you quite well until you can afford to purchase high-quality zoom lenses. UPDATE: 7-23 I was a bit concerned about results at 85mm and how much difference VR made at that FL. So, I retested at some of the focal lengths, but this time making sure that I kept shutter speeds high enough (1/300s or better) to eliminate the effects of VR. I also wanted to look at the effects of stopping the aperture down. In general, I am still extremely impressed with the 2485 performance up to 50mm. Except in the corners, it is really hard to distinguish this lens performance against primes and pro-quality zooms in the 24-30mm range. Moreover, the corners do improve on stopping down. Therefore, if you can shoot at f8 or higher, the uniformity of the results increases significantly. Overall, my impression is that the 2485 seems to be best at almost all FL by stopping down to f8 (Id need to test more to confirm). Still, it is very good wide open with excellent center resolution at most aperture values. I added my Tamron 70-300mm VC lens to the comparison and tested at 70 and 85mm. The Tamron was clearly better than the 2485 at both FLs. In addition the 85mm prime with high shutter speeds was also noticeably sharper. Therefore, the 2485 is good in the 50-85mm range, but not special. If you want peak IQ performance above 50mm, you need to look elsewhere. Now, for most, these differences are only noticeable at high magnification (100% or higher; the D800E looks good up to 300%!). For non-pixel-peepers at normal viewing size (printed or full screen on a 27" monitor) some corner softness is about the only noticeable difference between these lenses, and most of that softness disappears on stopping down to f8 or higher. Therefore, for a walk-around, I still find this lens useful. However, for critical shots when I want to get the best IQ at short-tele fL in good light, I will switch to the 85mm. UPDATE: Mid-Oct Most of the professional review sites have now tested this lens. Their results tend to agree with mine except that they--with one exception--do not observe the strong performance at wide FLs that I did. I suspect that most review sites, in order to be scientific, use test charts and at relatively short distances. My tests were done at about 10-50 meters. Lenses do perform differently at different distances. E.g., the 14-24mm is known to be relatively weak at 24mm when focused to infinity. I suspect that this is part of the reason that the 24-85mm performed better in my test at 24mm. My test results seem to be confirmed by the camera laboratory test (abbreviate laboratory with lab). They are one of the few sites that test lenses at far distance. They concluded that the 24-85mm is as good or better than the 24-120mm at infinity depending on the FL. Thus, for landscape shooting, the 24-85mm may be a secret gem. However, if you plan to shoot interiors--or you really dislike soft corners/edges--, you may be better off using primes or a more expensive zoom.

Show more

Comment

I purchased this lens because it was recommended by angry photographer on you tube. I have to say his recommendation was spot on. His comments were basically, this is the sharpest mid-range zoom. Meaning for this price you wont find a sharper lens than this within this focal length range. I shot a few landscapes with this, i know its not a lens I would normally use for landscapes. I have a Tokina 11-16mm that I normally use, but i just wanted to test it out. They came out sharper than my Tokina which i was very impressed with. Ive tried a few portrait shots and again, very sharp. Overall Im very happy with it. I was shooting it on a D7000. Ive uploaded some images. Of course amazon probably compresses the images so they obviously wont be as good as raw. the images are HDR, 3 bracketed shots stacked in Photomatix.

Show more

Comment

This has been a great all-purpose lens for me- photography has always been a love/hobby and occasionally Id take pictures for others when asked. Im just starting to grow a small business & delving into shooting a few weddings/smaller scale functions for family friends when asked (I am by no means a professional wedding photographer at this point but am learning & growing through practice & study) having typically stuck mainly to outdoor family sessions, children etc before, I have a Nikon D610, a zoom lens (70-300) & portrait lens (50mm) but needed something that would work for group shots and a wider angle, shots of the ceremony etc while Im still building my business and working up to afford a wider array of lenses- I really didnt know whether weddings would be something Id want to pursue more of so I didnt want to invest a lot (yet) in a lens that I wouldnt technically "need" much outside of that function (Id love a 24-120mm but just cant afford it yet)- this lens is useful for anything from just pictures of my own family/kids events and I ended up using it throughout the wedding day on the 3 weddings Ive shot so far. It works well on auto as well for fast focusing when you dont have time to do a bunch of manual adjusting in a fast paced event. It even did well with lower light action shots of the reception. Id still consider myself an amateur but this lens is working well for an assortment of different pictures both personal and for my small business use.

Show more

Comment

WOW this is the most versatile lens in my bag. I have a f/2.8 version that is a wonderful lens but it is bigger and heavier. This lens is much lighter and a lot more fun to use. It is one of those lenses that hardly ever comes off the camera body to be replaced by a macro, wide, or telephoto. I highly recommend it as a starter lens and wish Id had it when I started.

Show more

Comment

All-around I think this is a excellent general purpose lens. Its optically pretty sharp, functions very well mechanically, not heavy, and easy to use. Ive gotten some night sky Milky Way shots with it, wide open, that Im very happy with. The stars at the corners of the frame on my FX camera look as good as the stars near the center of the frame.

Show more

Comment

I was looking for a zoom lens to take on an upcoming trip to Washington, DC that would be great in a multitude of settings without compromising the photo quality and this lens far exceeded my expectations. Its not a replacement for a prime lens on portrait or wide angle photography, but it is a perfect travel companion when you only want to take one lens along instead of an arsenal of primes. It is lightweight for a zoom lens and fits perfectly in my small camera bag. A great travel lens for sure!!

Show more

Comment

Its pretty difficult to make a zoom that covers both wide angle and telephoto and is good at both. The Nikon 24-70 does this, for $1800 and by limiting the range to 70mm. The other options that come to mind (Ive owned them all) are the Nikon 24-120, Canon 24-70 and Canon 24-105. With the exception of the Nikon 24-70 which big, heavy, expensive and limited in range, the main strength of these lenses is convenience, which is a polite way of saying theyre good but not stellar. The situation with this new Nikon 24-85 is much the same--but for far less money(!) Im pleased with this lens. Using a D700, its good at all focal lengths. Theres no need to stop down at 85mm but at 24mm things definitely improve starting around 5.6. I found f/7.1 looked the best to me. A few things to note. The front element is really exposed so if you dont have anything 72mm laying around, Id suggest getting a filter asap. The rear element is out there too, but I guess well just have to be careful there. Zooming is a little stiff (I have 2 of these lenses, both the same). This seems to be because the "gearing" of the zoom is such that going from 24mm to 35mm is just a few degrees of turn so this adjustment is a little coarse. All that stuff is minor, but you should know that like all other wide-tele zooms there is a lot of distortion at both ends. A lot. I dont know if Nikon has provided any corrections for this yet. Anyway, if you shoot a sunset, it wont matter. But if you shoot a sunset through a window, Id try to set the lens around 28-30mm which seems to be where it switches from barrel to pincushion. The VR works well, although it seems to take a little longer to engage than with the 16-35VR. So thats why no 5 stars. But I like this lens a lot and it will see a lot of use. If Nikon plans to use this in a kit with a future FX SLR, it would be a great choice for an all-purpose walk around lens. OTOH, if you are using a D800 with the mirror up, trying to get that last little bit of detail, this lens should be fine but it wont get everything the D800 is capable of capturing. FYI, except for the caps, its made in China and yes, the lens mount is metal. Comments that it was plastic were made by people who had never seen the lens but noticed the rubber gasket shown in photos that covers the outside edge of the mount. A nice touch is that the lens has a large raised white dot for lens mounting alignment. Another very good sign is that the two lenses I have are nearly identical in performance and neither has a bad side or a bad corner. Well done, Nikon.

Show more

Comment

This is a standard mid-range zoom, covering the most commonly needed focal lengths, with reasonable but not spectacular ergonomics and build quality, decent image quality, and a moderately slow aperture. Its also one of the smallest and lightest zooms to cover these focal lengths on a Nikon full-frame camera with most of todays modern lens features, like fast silent autofocus and vibration reduction (stabilization). If youre not overly picky about the quality of your images, you want this focal length coverage, and you can live with the slow aperture, just buy this lens and be done with it. Youll be quite happy with it. If you are really picky about image quality, or want a faster aperture, or weather sealing, or solid metal build, then this is not the lens for you. For significantly better quality youll need to step up to the 24-70 f/2.8 zoom, which is more than three times as expensive and a lot bigger and heavier, or youll need to use primes and switch lenses (a combination of the 28 f/1.8, 50 f/1.8, and 85 f/1.8 is a very popular combo these days -- but together, about as expensive as the 24-70, and there are many more expensive prime lenses to consider too). Compared to the 24-70 f/2.8, the 24-85 has more distortion, is not as sharp in the center, has a slower aperture, lesser build quality, and does not have as good image quality in the corners. I have personal experience using both lenses. I have heard that image quality and build of the 24-85 are about equal to the 24-120 f/4, the difference of course being the wider zoom range, constant f/4 aperture, and higher price on the 24-120. Theres also the 28-300, for an even wider range and a bigger compromise in image quality. In this range I usually use the 24-70 f/2.8, although I wish it were smaller and lighter like this one!

Show more

Comment

Amazingly sharp, lighter than the pro level, and fast. A nice travel lens when you don’t need 2.8. Several favorable reviews (Thom, Nasim, Ken) prompted me to give this lens a try, and with Amazons’ terrific return policy I had nothing to lose. Using it with a Nikon DF, and D500 where it has a 36-120ish range.

Show more

Comment

I was like many folks who wanted a good mid range zoom for the newest breed of Nikon FX cameras but felt the 24-70 to expensive,big and no VR, the 24-120 overpriced relative to the expected quality, and the remaining kit lenses not up to current standards. I have the D800 and thought I would give the 24-85 a test. I am so glad I did. I already owned the 24mm f2.8 prime, the 50 mm f1.8 prime, the 14-24 f2.8 and the 70-200 f2.8 so I did some sharpness tests using all of the above. The results were surprising to say the least. At 24mm focal length, this lens out performed the 14-24 and the 24mm F2.8 in the center and in the corners. The 24-85 was sharp in the center at F4 and by F8 the corners also became sharp. Yes, this lens has barrel distortion but that can be corrected for. Very low CAs, and not much flare. Color saturation very good as well. At 50mm focal length this lens performed very well against the 50mm f1.8. Though not ever quite catching up to this prime lens, by f8 it got very close. At 70mm performance was down when compared to the 70-200 F2.8 but still pretty good considering the price difference between this lens and the 70-200. If you are careful in setting your aperture, you will get very sharp results with the D800. Adding the VR into the mix makes this lens a keeper. I will be selling the 24mm F2.8 on Ebay! I travel extensively, and the light weight of this lens will be greatly appreciated. The VR will more than make up for the smaller apertures and frankly, large apertures are far more useful on telephoto lenses where backgrounds often need to be out of focus. I never saw a great need for f2.8 on wide angle lenses. My experience says go for VR to get sharper photos under trying conditions. Sharpness is the one thing you cannot fix in post processing. Get this lens!

Show more