10 replies to this topic

[Dallas]

Please post your opinions of this lens here. This topic will be indexed on our LENSES page. Please keep your comments related to your experiences with the lens in question.

[Nikoncam1]

got this lens for use on my D3 and thus far have found it to be a mixed bag as far as image quality is concerned.  at 24mm it's sharpness is perhaps a little above average with darkened corners wide open.  by 50mm sharpness gets better but not  up to my 50mm 1.8.  between 70-85 this lens really shines and comparred side by side to my 70-200vr from 70-85mm the two are VERY close in center sharpness, essentially too close to call....amazing.

build quality is up to par with other plastic bodied Nikon lenses i have and it has a metal as opposed to plastic lens mount like some other low end Nikon lenses but it lacks a rubber gasket around the lens mount to limit debris entry.  auto focus is fast and accurate but sometimes slightly misses in low light.
image quality:
24mm 3.5 stars
50mm 4 stars
70-85mm 4.5 stars

[Bravin Neff]

My feelings echo Nikoncam1's almost exactly. I will add that the darkened corners go away pretty quickly when stopping down.

I think this lens is a great walkaround lens in terms of the price paid. If the world never experienced DX but rather DSLR cameras had always been FX, this lens is the one everyone would have gotten instead of 18-70 DX kit versions. Incidentally, they look and perform the same, albeit with shifted focal lengths.

The bokeh is pretty bad, though.

[Dinosaur_Hotel]

I love(d) this lens.

I shot it professionally as my daily photojournalism lens. It served me great until one shoot when internally it fell apart for no apparent reason.

It was sharp, contrast-y and handled well. For $300 USD new, it's hard to beat.

~ nic

[stenman]

My copy is anything but sharp when compared to the Nikon 17-55mm f2.8 or the 24-70mm f2.8. It may be fine for people photography but for landscape use it fall short by a large degree. It may be a good value for the money but it really is not sharp enough to satisfy me or my clients.

[Westside guy]

I've been using this lens on my D700 (full frame) - it's the one that's generally on my camera while it's in the bag. As long as you are willing to stay a stop or two away from the maximum aperture, it performs very well. Wide open center performance is still rather good, but gets softer as you move toward the corners. Performance improves as you move away from 24mm - I probably wouldn't rely on this as my main wide-angle option (it's not bad; but there are certainly much better lenses at 24mm).

I think it's unrealistic to expect a non-pro lens to match pro glass at all apertures and focal lengths - so none of what I wrote should be considered a criticism. As long as you understand this lens' strengths and weaknesses, it will reward you with great images.

• How long have you used the item? I've owned this lens for about five or six months.
• What did you specifically buy it for? I wanted a good quality, lower-weight walk-around lens.
• Has the lens lived up to your expectations? Yes.
• Would you recommend the item to others? I would certainly recommend this lens, but I'd want to be sure they understood its strengths and weaknesses.

[muralin]

I tested the 24-85 against the 18-200 (in the range covered by both). any aperture wider than 6.3, the 24-85 is not sharp and consistently worse than my 18-200 throughout the range. Pretty disappointing. it seems to be quite sharp and better than 18-200 between f8 & f16. My tests were done on the D300. I'll be getting my D700 next week.

i may end up biting the bullet and get the 24-70 after I save a few more $s.

[vague_logic]

After reading some good reviews, I took a gamble and bought a secondhand one through ebay to use with my D700. It's certainly good value for money, light weight and fast focussing. Mine is soft just on the left hand side at large apertures though you need to magnify to see that. I've used it for professional work though now it only goes out for day trips etc. when I want the minimum to carry. It has good contrast and images appear sharp. I did some tests recently with all my lenses that covered 70mm (24-85G, 35-70D and 70-210) and discovered an interesting thing; superficially the 24-85G's images looked best however, both the others resolved more detail. The subject was a large ceramic vase from about 1.7m, both the 35-70 and 70-210 revealed the surface cracks in the glaze the 24-85 did not. Lighting and camera body and settings were the same for all shots. Not scientific I know but, as a consequence I use the 35-70 more often and gain any contrast increase required in post. You can always give up detail but you can never put in what you havn't got.

[zepirate]

I use this as a general walk-about lens on the D300.  It has produced some very nice pics, in my opinion.  I've no particular objections on it.  Good value for money I believe. For serious work however, I  normally use the 24-70.

[Nikon Bob]

I bought this lens used and just got back from a one month road trip. For taking holiday snaps it fills the bill very well on my D700. Sharpness was never a problem at any aperture I used it at, focus was snappy and accurate and any distortion (it does have distortion) was taken care of in PP in NX2 capture as were any darkened corners. For a lightweight consumer travel lens in this class of lens it is a good one in my book. No regrets getting it.

Bob

[ozone]

Great value lens, that is sharp and contrasty in the center at all focal-lenghts and apertures. The rest of the image is so-so...

 

I had multiple samples over the years, and sample variation was rampant! Typically one side would be "mushier" than the other.

 

I recently got myself a 24-70 and don't look back. Suddenly I have zoom that is sharper than all of the primes in the same focal-lenghts! Inspiring!