Here are some "real world" photos I took today with the 24-85mm VR on the D800, at a variety of focal lengths and apertures. I'm also including a link to the gallery where you can view more images and all at full size 36MP. All were shot raw, some sharpened with two passes of USM (large and small radius).
Those look pretty good to me. This lens may not be "stellar," but for the $$$, size, weight, IQ, VR, decent aperture and useful focal range on FF I think it's a good lens to have. Just me, but I like it thus far.
I really liked the 24-120 I had on the D800. Other then the obvious distortion it was very sharp with good color. I just found it a little bigger then I wanted to haul around after using it almost 100% on a 2 week trip. If the 24-85 is as good as the 24-120 with less distortion at the ends it will do what I want it to. People seem to be expecting an awful lot from a $600 zoom.
rd4tile wrote:
I really liked the 24-120 I had on the D800. Other then the obvious distortion it was very sharp with good color. I just found it a little bigger then I wanted to haul around after using it almost 100% on a 2 week trip. If the 24-85 is as good as the 24-120 with less distortion at the ends it will do what I want it to. People seem to be expecting an awful lot from a $600 zoom.
I was hoping the 24-85mm on the D800 would match the 18-105mm's performance on a D7000 across their respective frames, considering they're nearly identical in pixel densities, but for me the 24-85mm begins falling short 1/3 from the edge of the frame even at f/8.
Interesting, I tried the 18-105 in DX mode on my 800 and didn't find it to be any better then the 16-85. Both were very good but I didn't feel either was up to the color and IQ of the 24-120 (although 36mp vs 16 might have something to do with that.) Only way to really know will be when my 24-85 get's here. I hope it does the job, it certainly fills the bill for a compact FX zoom with VR.
Thanks for sharing snapsy... Funny thing about the 24-120 f4 I couldn't get over, was it seemed the size/position of the zoom & focus rings were reversed. Every time I went to zoom that lens I took it out of focus instead... Is the 24-85 the same layout?
ChrisDM wrote:
Thanks for sharing snapsy... Funny thing about the 24-120 f4 I couldn't get over, was it seemed the size/position of the zoom & focus rings were reversed. Every time I went to zoom that lens I took it out of focus instead... Is the 24-85 the same layout?
Good point Chris, that was another niggle I had with the 24-120, that after using it full time for 2 weeks I still had to think about.
ChrisDM wrote:
Thanks for sharing snapsy... Funny thing about the 24-120 f4 I couldn't get over, was it seemed the size/position of the zoom & focus rings were reversed. Every time I went to zoom that lens I took it out of focus instead... Is the 24-85 the same layout?
Yeah, the zoom ring is about 2.5x the width of the focus ring on the 24-85mm VR. The zoom ring is positioned at the front-element edge of the lens and the focus ring behind it closer to the mount.
Hi guys! I just had a chance to play with the 24-85 VR this weekend after getting it last Dec. I like the IQ coming from this lens so far. But I was worried about my VR not working.
I can't find any difference in my viewfinder. On my other lenses, I can find a significant difference when I turn the VR on of off.
mikesrc wrote:
Get off that target crap. Go shoot some pictures and I think you will find the lens just fine. I have no idea why people buy a good product then do there best to make it look bad. This forum is full of idots like you. Get a life.....
That's a little harsh, but +1 for mikesrc.
Just purchased 24-85 for my D800. Am I supposed to test grids/feel bad?
david debalko wrote:
which 24-85 - the f/3.5-4.5G or the 2.8-4D, has anyone ever tested these 2 lenses against each other.
I have the 24-85/3.5-4.5G AFS and the 24-85/3.5-4.5G AFS VR.
The short of it is the non-VR is better at 85mm while the VR version is better at 24mm.
I was very disappointed that the VR version optically was not really any better than the older non-VR version. They both are OK on a D700 at full resolution, on a D800 they are very lacking in resolution.
That being said, for small prints, etc. they do fine. I have not decided which to keep.
I have tested several samples (at least 3) of the 2.8-4D version and found it clearly inferior to the AFS or AFS VR versions. Contrast, sharpness, etc.
GOVA wrote:
That's a little harsh, but +1 for mikesrc.
Just purchased 24-85 for my D800. Am I supposed to test grids/feel bad?
Which would you trust more in evaluating the safety of an automobile during crashes - post hoc studies evaluating survival rates of all crashes without any qualitative weighting done for the level of injury sustained nor the severity of the crash...or selective experiments done which carefully analyze both? I could show you a 1,000 "real world" photographs, none of which demonstrate the properties of the lens which might be important to you.
GOVA wrote:
That's a little harsh, but +1 for mikesrc.
Just purchased 24-85 for my D800. Am I supposed to test grids/feel bad?
The only "idots" here are the people who have so little imagination that they can't fathom any reason why you might want to objectively test a lens.
Should you shoot in the real world to see if you like it? Sure. Is the benchmark the only measure of a lens? No. Might you still like a lens that benchmarks poorly? Of course.
But to utterly dismiss everyone who wants to test their gear as being stupid or irrelevant is incredibly arrogant. Nobody is telling you that you're stupid for not testing it, so why should you tell anyone that they're stupid for doing so?
GOVA wrote:
That's a little harsh, but +1 for mikesrc.
Just purchased 24-85 for my D800. Am I supposed to test grids/feel bad?
In my opinion everyone should do at least some rudimentary testing of their lenses - especially consumer-oriented-type lenses like the 24-85AFS VR where, let's just say, Nikon's QC is not quite as good as their pro-grade stuff. They'll come that day, especially with the current high MP DSLRs, that you'll want to do a heavy crop to save an image and you may get a surprise due to poor sharpness (especially off-center), poor AF accuracy, flare, etc.
I used to shoot my own test charts, but now I find that there are many suitable outdoor targets that get me 90% of the info I need prior to feeling confident of using a lens (especially on my D800).
Everyone should do what makes them feel comfortable to have confidence in their gear. To "just go shoot" is just silly.
