nikon 24-85 vr on a d800

J

jcdavo

Messages
22
Name
john
Edit My Images
No
I have just bought a Nikon d800 and was woundering is the nikon 24-85vr afs g a good enough lens for it r would i need to change to a 24-70
 
I have the 24-85 (pleased with it on my D810) and had the 24-70 (rather a hefty beast to carry) when I used a D700.
If you have the 24-85 I suggest to stick with for a while. Cannot see you being disappointed.
 
thanks arclight for the reply, i was reading some articles about the d800 while i have been waiting for it to arrive and most say that if you use lower end glass you would notice every imperfection in the lens and after buying the cam i didnt really want to start changing glass as well. Curently i have Nikon 50mm 1.8d, Sigma 105 macro (non is) , sigma 70-200 2.8 apo and the nikon 24-85. I think the 2 primes will be ok but will probable need to change the sigma as it again is one of the older 70-200d models.
 
Assuming the 24-85mm VR and non-VR are the same I found it a disappointing lens, if you've got nothing else or you want a really cheap small lightweight zoom OK it does that job.
 
i think the IQ on the newer AF-S NIKKOR 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5G ED VR is a lot better than the older model
 
I think that the image quality obtainable with lenses is such that it is very rare to be able to demonstrably show that a particular lens is dramatically better than another of the same focal length/range. Most of us would admit that we probably do not get get the maximum quality obtainable and, therefore, it is worth striving to improve on that before splashing out on a diffeent lens.
 
A £2000 lens won't do any better than a £200 one, it's down to you not the lens, gear envy more than need is why many want these expensive lenses, your often paying for greater build quality more than optic quality,pros know what and why they need a lens most others have no idea.Not all of course but not all cases do you get what you pay for
 
Last edited:
Unless you have more money than sense
 
Last edited:
arclight said:
I think that the image quality obtainable with lenses is such that it is very rare to be able to demonstrably show that a particular lens is dramatically better than another of the same focal length/range. Most of us would admit that we probably do not get get the maximum quality obtainable and, therefore, it is worth striving to improve on that before splashing out on a diffeent lens.
Click to expand...

I get your point but I certainly wouldn't agree when talking about the non-VR version of this lens, pretty certain a Canon 24-105mm walks all over it and I'll assume the same is true for a Nikon 24-120mm f/4.

In terms of choices there's a ton in this range, 24-85, 24-120 f/3.5-5.6, 24-120 f/4, 24-70 f/2.8 from several brands and based on using the non-VR 24-85mm it's not a lens I'd want to use again.
 
The new 24-85 VR came out as a kit lens for the D600 so it's designed with high res FX sensors in mind. I know a few people who use them on D800 etc with no complaints (landscapes).
 
petert said:
Do you earn from it?
Click to expand...
Yes, but thats besides the point, you made a 100% incorrect silly sweeping statement and then you go onto suggest those who dont use it professionally have more money that sense, i dont need the actual model car i drive (i bought it with the proceeds of the sale of the 400mm lens) , heck most of us only need a Nissan Micra to go about our daily business but do most of us drive Nissan Micras, people make their choices based on what they can afford, what they want, and what they need, not just the latter
 
All this fx dx lenses is a lot of nonsense designed by nikon and canon equivalents, they will all work just as well on any camera, just with nikon some lenses won't auto on d3/5000 series, all you have to consider is crop factor
 
Gary Coyle said:
Yes, but thats besides the point, you made a 100% incorrect silly sweeping statement and then you go onto suggest those who dont use it professionally have more money that sense, i dont need the actual model car i drive (i bought it with the proceeds of the sale of the 400mm lens) , heck most of us only need a Nissan Micra to go about our daily business but do most of us drive Nissan Micras, people make their choices based on what they can afford, what they want, and what they need, not just the latter
Click to expand...
I think you've just clarified my point :)) I've seen too many people with expensive kit and still take crap pictures. Some go on about this lens, that lens when most the time there's little or no difference and will all do the same thing if used properly
 
Last edited:
petert said:
All this fx dx lenses is a lot of nonsense designed by nikon and canon equivalents, they will all work just as well on any camera, just with nikon some lenses won't auto on d3/5000 series, all you have to consider is crop factor
Click to expand...
You genuinely dont have a clue about Nikon DX designated or FX designated lenses do you

How on earth can you first say "they will all work just as well on any camera," yet then go onto say "some lenses won't auto on d3/5000 series, all you have to consider is crop factor" there's 2 reasons from yourself which contradict your opening statement.
 
Last edited:
petert said:
I think you've just clarified my point :)) I've seen too many people with expensive kit and still take crap pictures. Some go on about this lens, that lens when most the time there's little or no difference and will all do the same thing if used properly
Click to expand...
Well i cant disagree on the highlighted point you make but can with the rest.
 
No actually I'm saying it doesn't matter whether it's a dx or fx and simply pointing out that the entry levels won't take lenses without motors in them,some people rule out dx lenses on FF which is ridiculous
 
Last edited:
petert said:
No actually I'm saying it doesn't matter whether it's a dx or fx and simply pointing out that the entry levels won't take lenses without motors in them,some people rule out dx lenses on FF which is ridiculous
Click to expand...

It does matter if a lens is DX or FX however as this thread is about a 24-85 (FX Lens) on an FX Camera (D800) I'm not sure what the point is?
 
Their is a problem when using DX lens on FF camera ...... it will work but their are 2 problem. Either you use the crop mode within the camera to make it work nicely but reduce pixel or you settle with the virgnette .....
 
Sorry have to disagree results I've seen cut out the vignette,you get centre sharpness where it matters
 
jcdavo said:
Wish I'd never asked about the 24- 85 now
Click to expand...

Back on topic! The 24-85 is a decent lens, its not amazing but compared to the Nikon 24-70 f2.8 its A) Much much cheaper B) Much smaller and lighter and C) Has VR built in.
I tried one on my D600 I had before and thought it was fine, would probably have been my choice as a lightweight travel zoom actually and optically I didn't see much wrong with it.

A better choice on the D800 would be the newer 24-120 f4 VR, its larger and a bit heavier but I've tried my new one over the weekend v the Tamron 24-70 f2.8 VC and not found much of any difference in IQ.
 
I'm still considering the 24-120 f4 or this lens for my D3/D700. Need a light weight lens for travel instead of my work horse Nikon 28-70 f2.8
 
badboy1984 said:
I'm still considering the 24-120 f4 or this lens for my D3/D700. Need a light weight lens for travel instead of my work horse Nikon 28-70 f2.8
Click to expand...

I bought a D750 with the 24-120 and I've been trying to decide between that and my existing Tamron.

There's not a lot in it size or weight wise, the 24-120 is a hefty lens quite a bit hugger and heavier than the 24-85
 
Either of those lens will be massively lighter then my Nikon 28-70 f2.8. The nikon 28-70 f2.8 is even heavier then the 24-70 f2.8.

Their is a reason why the 28-70 f2.8 is called the beast.
 
badboy1984 said:
My opinion on this problem is why spend the extra time cropping where you can get it right first with a FX lens.
Click to expand...
And you end up with the correct FOV as the lens intended, no point in shooting with a 24mm lens with bad vignette then have to crop to get rid of Vignette and end up with what a 50mm lens would have seen and also lose half your pixels
 
Last edited:
Gary Coyle said:
And you end up with the correct FOV as the lens intended, no point in shooting with a 24mm lens with bad vignette then have to crop to get rid of Vignette and end up with what a 50mm lens would have seen and also lose half your pixels
Click to expand...

It also make framing the shot alot more pain because virgnette needs to be consider. Just use FX lens and all the problem will go.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top