Nikon zoom lens looks good corner-to-corner

Discussion in 'Nikon' started by sheepdog 2007, Oct 10, 2007.

  1. The 24-85 "consumer" grade Nikkor is. IMHO, a better lens than you
    might expect for its modest price. Here's a sample, and this page is a
    format I'm thinking of using for future real world examinations of
    amateur-price-range equipment. Not everyone needs or can afford
    five-grand cameras and two-grand optics.

    Rockwell and Hogan write reviews that are worth reading, but I also
    like to see walking-around grab shots made with natural light and no
    tripod, the way most of my photos are taken.

    In the interest of honest disclosure, I took several frames and this
    was the sharpest. I'm not as steady as I was a few decades ago
    (hand-held @ 1/40sec).

    http://web.mac.com/olddognewtrick/iWeb/Site/cool-weather-at-last.html
     
    sheepdog 2007, Oct 10, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. The Nikkor 24-85mm f3.5-4.5 is even good to the corners
    on full-frame (film), and is one of the better zooms out there.
    I "raced" it on film against the Nikkor 24mm f2.8 AF, 35mm
    f2 AF, 50mm f1.4 AF, and 85mm f1.8 AF (all at the same
    stop, but I can't remember if f4 or f5.6 - but likely the latter).
    At the short end, the zoom held its own against the very good
    24mm, was slightly behind the very fine 35mm, noticeably
    behind the excellent 50mm, and very noticeably behind the
    superb 85mm - BUT, the zoom was consistent in its level of
    performance from 24mm to 85mm, and also performed well
    at close focus.This is an unusually high level of performance
    from a fairly inexpensive zoom. Unfortunately, the zoom range
    is more interesting on film cameras than on digital ones, but
    it is still a usable range with digital. BTW, you may find my
    Nikkor evaluation list interesting, and it has URLs for other
    review sites - at www.donferrario.com/ruether/slemn.html.
     
    David Ruether, Oct 10, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. I have read many of your reviews and find all your technical writing to
    be enlightening and accessible. Your site is one of the more valuable
    resources I've learned about by reading rpd, rpdss, rpe35, and the
    other photo newsgroups. This education makes it worth my while to wade
    through the flames. Are you making any money from web pages? I do the
    iWeb thing strictly for diversion.
     
    sheepdog 2007, Oct 10, 2007
    #3
  4. Thanks for the comments. I make no money from my web page
    (except sometimes from the sale of my no longer needed items
    listed on the site), since there is no external advertising on it. The
    site used to be on server space offered free by other people,
    but in the last few years I've had to pay a fixed small yearly sum
    to keep it running. It started with "Subjective Lens Evaluations
    (Mostly Nikkors)", which first appeared on other websites in
    1995, but on my own new site in 1996. Unfortunately, with the
    loss of server space, I've also lost my URL three times and have
    had to reestablish it (it is currently listed on google more with the
    wrong URL than with the right one). For me, the site is a place
    to show photographs, to offer photo and video gear reviews and
    comparisons, to place articles on anything I want to write about
    (there are articles on seeing and lens perspectives, etc.), and to
    have a location for copies of my 16,000 or so NG posts (there
    is also a "silly" restaurant menu on the site, and a just plain weird
    page - in addition to my MIDI/mp3s). I spend FAR too much
    time working on the site (and it just went through a major redo,
    which is unfortunately mostly invisible...;-). One of these days,
    it will be finished (NOT! 8^).
     
    David Ruether, Oct 11, 2007
    #4
  5. sheepdog 2007

    RichA Guest

    No point in buying it. It isn't as good as the 18-70mm kit lens and
    it isn't wide enough.
     
    RichA, Oct 11, 2007
    #5
  6. sheepdog 2007

    Robert Brace Guest

    RichA:
    And your personal use experience enables you to give meaningful
    comparisons of these two Nikkors just how?
    Mentioned on the off chance someone might start to believe you.
    Bob
     
    Robert Brace, Oct 11, 2007
    #6
  7. sheepdog 2007

    RichA Guest

    As a matter of fact, yes. I had the opportunity to use both lenses
    (and the 28-105) for a week. The old D lenses are not a good choice
    for a digital sensor.
    I sold both on Ebay for a friend once the test was done.
    The only reason people might want to stick with them is if they plan
    to get a FF sensor D3, and if they do that, it's likely they'll get
    better lenses anyway.
     
    RichA, Oct 11, 2007
    #7
  8. So you're referring to the older f/2.8-4 then? This is the 24-85mm
    f/3.5-4.5 IF-ED AF-S, which I find much better in every way except for
    maximum aperture. And even that is a wash, as the older lens wasn't
    very good wide open.
    Yes, if you actually need a five grand body you would probably not
    consider a $250 lens.
     
    sheepdog 2007, Oct 11, 2007
    #8
  9. Ken Rockwell ? mouhahahaha
     
    Yvon Travailler, Oct 18, 2007
    #9
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.