Nikon 24-85mm F2.8 ? Nikon 28mm F1.8 ?

NeilMc

NeilMc

Messages
302
Name
Neil
Edit My Images
No
Guys got some cash burning a hole in my pocket and am considering one of the above lenses to pop on my spare body.

I do a lot of music photography and I was attracted to the 28mm F1.8 as it will be ideal in the smaller venues and its fast at F1.8

I currently use a 17-55 on my D7000 all the time and love it, so the 24-85 F2.8 seems a nice option to give me a little more reach in the slightly larger venues I shoot.

Havent seen great reviews on either, but would prefer genuine feedback rather than magazine fluff.

Anyone got either of these lenses ?

How do you get on with them ?

Any feedback greatfully received.

Cheers

Neil
 
How about getting a 85/1.8 and use that for the long shots while your 17-55 does the bulk of your work? Neither of the lenses you suggested gives much of an advantage over your 17-55 - the 28 will feel like a 42 and most of the range on the 24-85 is covered by the 17-55. Additionally it sounds like you want the reach of the 24-85 so why not just get the 85/1.8 and enjoy the extra reach you get with the 24-85 with the speed of the 28/1.8? :)
 
Hmmm, interesting thoughts there Lloyd.

I currently have a 35mm F1.8 on my back up body and its fine, I was just attracted to the 28mm F1.8 because of the better quality glass etc


Really what I should do is save up a bit longer for a 24-70 F2.8 and then use that in the larger venues and keep the 17-55 for the smaller venues as I do now.

But it was just exploring some of the alternative, lesser cost, have today, options :) rather than wait 6 months to get the rest of the cash together for the 24-70
 
There's not enough difference between 24-70 and 17-55 - the best advice here is get an 85mm prime, so both are useful at the same gig. The 85mm will destroy any of the lenses you're thinking on, in terms of image quality.

That 24-70 you're looking at is f/4 at 70mm btw. You'll have to bump your ISO for bad lighting.

The 85mm prime will be 1.8, 2, 2.8, 4 - whatever you wish. It'll be sharper. It's cheap as chips for what you get. I think you'd be mad to get the other zoom.
 
Last edited:
More interesting feedback guys.

So Keith you're saying the classic Nikon 24-70mm F2.8 lens is actually not F2.8 all through the range ?

And surely if you have 55mm on a DX body is equivilent to 82.5mm is real terms and a 70mm on a DX body will be 105mm in real terms

Surely that is a bit more reach in a smaller venue.
 
Has anyone actually used the 28mm F1.8 ??

I did think about selling my 35mm F1.8 and a nifty fifty and replacing it with the 28mm F1.8 N

The review I read only gave it 7/10 but said optically it was very good.

Just wondered if anyone had any 'real world' experience
 
NeilMc said:
So Keith you're saying the classic Nikon 24-70mm F2.8 lens is actually not F2.8 all through the range ?
Click to expand...

I think he was referring to the 24-85 which is f/2.8 to f/4. A daft lens to get when you already have the awesome 17-55.
 
NeilMc said:
Has anyone actually used the 28mm F1.8 ??

I did think about selling my 35mm F1.8 and a nifty fifty and replacing it with the 28mm F1.8 N

The review I read only gave it 7/10 but said optically it was very good.

Just wondered if anyone had any 'real world' experience
Click to expand...

I got one recently off Ebay, have only done some preliminary tests but am very impressed with it, very sharp right from f/1.8 and plenty of contrast. I used to have the 24mm 1.4, and this 28mm (at a quarter of the price!) fills that gap very nicely - far better than you'd expect for the money and not a million miles away from the 24/1.4 in terms of image quality. One other advantage is it's far lighter too - the 24/1.4 was quite a considerable chunk of glass.
 
NeilMc said:
More interesting feedback guys.

So Keith you're saying the classic Nikon 24-70mm F2.8 lens is actually not F2.8 all through the range ?

And surely if you have 55mm on a DX body is equivilent to 82.5mm is real terms and a 70mm on a DX body will be 105mm in real terms

Surely that is a bit more reach in a smaller venue.
Click to expand...


It's not, it says right there on the linked articles/posts about it. F/2.8 - 4, meaning it stops down as you zoom.

The difference between 55mm and 70mm is not the point, outside of that what't the point? When you can have an 85mm, which is brighter, better quality and cheaper and also reaches further! You'd be crazy [IMHO] not to get the 85mm. I don't know why you're convincing yourself that this slightly longer zoom is the best option.
 
I have the Nikon 24-85 f2.8-4 D lens, been using it with a D600 and a D800.

It is a good everyday zoom lens in the lower price range. The sharpness is sufficient, CA not bad, at the 24mm end there is quite a bit of distortion, but above that it is ok, it focusses fast enough, it is silent, vignetting is quite noticeable but I think comparable to similar zooms.

The image quality is good, only sometimes when you shoot into the sun for example and the sun is part of the image, I've seen nicer representations of the sun in such circumstances.

All in all, considering the price, a good everyday zoom. To put the 24-85 f2.8-4 D into relation, you can compare it to Nikon's 24-70mm 2.8, which is considered an excellent top-range zoom, and that 24-70 for example scores 15 for resolution on Dxomark, as compared to the 12 of the 24-85 f2.8-4; this considered (and the price delta), the 24-85 F2.8-4 is not bad at all.

That said, the sharpness of the Sigma 35mm 1.4 HSM prime lens was measured to be 23, that's almost twice as sharp. This may not be so important on a 'starter-kit' type of camera, but on a D800 for example, it does make a difference. Also the Sigma has much less distortion, vignetting and CA. The difference in image quality is pretty impressive, on a D800.

Depending on your photographic requirements, for the best image quality you'd probably have to get two primes, like the above mentioned 35 and then one of the 85s, some of which also have breathtaking sharpness and IQ at a decent price (the Sigma costs less than 800 Euros, street price).

On the other hand, a zoom has its advantages too, but maybe you should have a look at the Tamron 24-70 mm zoom. Itis a lot sharper than the Nikon, and has gotten quite good reviews. The best is to go test it in a shop, if you can.
 
thank you AchimT thats what I was looking for, a real persons honest review of a piece of kit they own and use.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top