Nikon 24-85mm f/2.8-4D IF
Posted 13 March 2010 - 08:10
Please follow the guidelines for these threads (found in the stickies) and note that any posts not conforming with those guidelines may be removed without notice.
Fotozones.com - non-commercial forum all about mirrorless camera systems
We have 2 suites available for our Ultimate Big 5 Safari at Sabi Sabi this August. Contact me for details!
Posted 13 March 2010 - 13:00
Later on I had a similar experience when I took some indoor photos with the new 24-70 and my old Sigma 12-24. This resulted in purchasing the excellent 14-24/2.8G. I still have the Sigma though. The additional 2 mm on the wide end makes a difference in some situations (when using a DX sensor). I have not used the Sigma with my D3 ever since. It is soft in the corners. Stopping down to f8 helps a little.
Anyway I liked the macro capability and the "extra" 15 mm on the longer end compared with the 24-70.
D3s, D3, D200, D70
FX: Nikon 14-24/2.8G, 24-70/2.8G, 28/1.8G, 70-200/2.8G VR, 300/2.8G VR, 60/2.8D+105/2.8D micro, 85/1.4D, 16/2.8D, 50/1.4G, 500/8 reflex C, Sigma 12-24 EX, 150/2.8 OS EX...
TC: TC-14 E II, TC-17 E II, TC-20 E III
DX: 10.5/2.8, 18-70, 18-200
3*SB800's, R1C1 kit with 3*SB-R200...
Posted 13 March 2010 - 20:28
Posted 05 April 2010 - 11:52
Posted 05 July 2010 - 18:29
Posted 01 October 2010 - 09:18
Indeed, on a 6mp DX sensor, the results were always appreciable and the contrast was good.
For this reason I did not sold it when I coupled it with a VR 24-120 (more helpful for my needs).
So, after some years of intense usage, I left it for a long time in a drawer, except for some high mountains hiking where I used it thanks to its relatively low weight and small dimensions.
Only one years ago, I decided to make some deep test comparing it with the VR 24-120 on a 12mp camera (D300)
The purpose of this was: 'Do I need a 24-70 2,8 or the overall quality of the 24-85 is enough for my needs?' The reason of this silly question was: as both the two lenses are not stabilized (that is one of my 'must') if the quality would be good, the 24-85 would be enough for my 'high quality needs'
The results were a real surprise!
Unfortunately on a 12mp camera at 2,8 full wide, the 24-85 is really a bad performer, especially in the corners/edges (widely worse than the VR 24-120) stopping down to 4-5,6 the situation becomes good in the centre but not acceptable in the corners/edges.
Stopped to f8 it becomes good/very-good in the centre and acceptable in the corners/edges, quite better than the VR 24-120 at least in the centre.
That was a real surprise, it was predicted to me as a good performance lens (lightweight but close to professional needs) but this was not true.
At the end I sold it right away and I happily bought the 24-70 f2,8.
Conclusion: good in the centre but insufficient at the edges unless you stop to f8.
Good colour rendition
Appreciable for hiking purposes the macro function.
Good if used on a DX 6mp camera, it shows its weak point of the insufficient definition in the corner/edges on more mp SLR.
I do not care about distortion.
As the sharpness is quite low at the edges, the CA is not an issue (I have no idea of it)
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users