I've had mine for a few days and so far I must admit I'm a bit disappointed. I have the previous non-VR 24-85 AFS as a direct comparison and have shot them with the D800.
At 24mm and wide open the VR is clearly better all over as it has more contrast but stopped down it never gets fully sharp in the far edges and corners and is about equal to the non-VR version.
At 50mm it's pretty sharp in the center wide open (as is the non-VR) and is excellent across the frame stopped down.
At 85mm the non-VR is actually sharper in the center (both with excellent contrast), but the VR is sharper in the edges/corners by a bit. Stopped down neither really gets sharp across the frame.
When I talk about sharpness - sure it's not sharp at 36MP resolution, but it's also not sharp at 12MP either.
The non-VR version appears to have correct exposure while the VR version appears too dark - NX2 shows about a .75 EV difference, which is too much to overlook.
Anyone else have any experiences so far with this lens - good or bad?
I've had three of these lenses. The first had a rouch scratchy zoom ring. The next seemed to be decentered (smeared 20-30% left side). The third behaved exactly the same as the second.
In all cases I found the images tended to be darker than exact same picture with the 24-120. I don't know what causes that.
It seems to me that the lens was very sharp in the center, even wide open and the VR works very well. However, the edge and corner performance was not acceptable in the samples I had so I don't own this lens now. That said, the 24-120 is so much bigger and heavier that for some situations I can see using the 24-85 and cropping to effectively make it a 28-105 lens.
I am sure others have different opinions and findings. Please don't attack me.
Agreed, not impressed with the lens. Whatever failings a budget zoom has at wider apertures, it must be sharp corner-corner at stopped down apertures. The DX zooms meet this requirement but the 24-85 FF does not, so IMO the lens performance is too compromised even at its "budget" price.
I just got done testing the AFS VR against the AFS version and my 50/1.8G all at 50mm and f/5.6. Mounted on my D800 I set the lens front face down on my light table in exactly the same spot and made exposures in A-mode. The non-VR and the 50G give exactly the same exposure/density. The VR version is about 0.75 to 1 stop darker as shown by the preview and the histogram even thought the shutter speed was the same as the non-VR 24-85 AFS.
John,
bad that your copy isn't up to your expectations.
I had to return my first copy as well - it was decentered.
The second copy is fine.
wrt to the 2 previous versions: the new VR lens is significantly better than both.
I might keep the lens for the VR alone. I'm getting images without visible shake at 100% pixel view down to 1/6 @ 50mm. The lens might not be a landscape star but for indoor shooting in DOF-limited situations where corner sharpness isn't critical the lens has a role.
Mine just got sent back to B&H (they are great!) and should get another copy in two weeks or so. In the mean time I'll use the 24-85AFS or 28-1053.5-4.5D. I also can get by with my 17-35/2.8AFS, 50/1.8G and 105/2.5 AIS to cover the 24-85-ish range.
I hope this doesn't turn into the journey I had with the 70-300VR - first copy was stunningly sharp -except it was decentered quite a bit at the 300mm end. 2nd copy was just plain soft at all focal lengths and the VR was not working very well. 3rd copy was OK for centering and sharpness so I kept it.
I'm not after absolute perfection, but sometimes I wonder about Nikon QC on their less than professional lenses.
jhinkey wrote:
I just got done testing the AFS VR against the AFS version and my 50/1.8G all at 50mm and f/5.6. Mounted on my D800 I set the lens front face down on my light table in exactly the same spot and made exposures in A-mode. The non-VR and the 50G give exactly the same exposure/density. The VR version is about 0.75 to 1 stop darker as shown by the preview and the histogram even thought the shutter speed was the same as the non-VR 24-85 AFS.
Unacceptable. It's going back.
John
If the VR version is almost 1 stop darker than the non-VR version then it's really a f5.6 lens, not 4.5.
I'm not too sure about this lens then. Basically it's a FX version of the kit 18-55mm VR in terms of light gathering ability.
Well, I got my second copy and the exposure is better, though still seems to give darker images even at the same aperture and shutter speed.
As far as sharpness goes it really is just marginally better than the non-VR version. Some places it's better, other places it's not. As for contrast it seems noticeably better. It does have a slightly different color rendering, though I'm not sure I can characterize it by saying it's warmer or cooler. Just different - perhaps due to the increased contrast.
So, to sum it up, the new AFS version has VR, slightly better build, a bit more contrast, but approximately the same sharpness (overall) compared to the non-VR version. Not sure it's worth the extra expense, but I've bought it and the non-VR will be sold.
I will not use this lens for any landscape attempts as the lack of adequate sharpness when stopped down takes that use away (as did the non-VR version).
