... last only 2 weeks.
Not all that glitters is gold so they said, and I thought I couldn't go wrong with a Nikkor. I used to pride myself on having steady hands but I was wondering if the 24-85 is too heavy over the threshold? It's clumsy and bulky to say the least but I couldn't get a good focus for over a hundred shots or so over the weekend. So enough is enough and I put the camera on a tripod and the result is confirmed.
See it again at 100% crop and this was from a tripod shot. No wonder I couldn't get decent sharpness with hand held. Lucky enough the weekend shots was a volunteer job and there won't be much large size prints.
The result repeats to F/4.0 and then sharpness starts to kick in. It becomes acceptable only at F/5.6 and very sharp at F/8.0. This is from a wide aperture (2.8-4.0) lens that costs me $975! So now it's on its way back to Nikon. I should have believe Ken Rockwell over this one... (well the guy has to be right sometime in his life ).
They let me test another copy of 24-85 macro and the result was starky different to my copy but I started to have second thought about this bulky lens so I accept shop credit instead. Thanks for your interest.
Ironically Tim you picked up the wrong 24-85mm the much cheaper Nikkor 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5 IF-ED AF-S was an exceptionally sharp lens and the price was great it was somewhere around $300 but sadly they don't make them any more. Why not try the 16-85mm Nikon?
I thought about who I am... and realized I was an
unformed, unreconciled imagery, without "GOD"
r3g; Yes I got a bad unit and the other unit I tested in the shop was starker sharper even at F/2.8. I didn't exchange it for a good copy because of the reason below.
XaiLo; I chose this 24-85 because it has macro function (1:2) and wide aperture so I can use it as portrait lens and it can double up as a make-do macro lens.
I have a few bookings coming up in the next few months including a wedding so I started to look for 2 more lenses and camera. The camera part is easy but the lens proves a more challenging. I also plan to buy a wide angle and a medium range (about from 24-100) zoom lens to complement the 18-50 Sigma. That's to be used on 2 cameras.
Last month I got a 28-105 macro and it was great but it locked itself electronically at 75 mm focal length despite what focal it was set physically; so I sent it back to the seller. My wife said with serious shooting coming up I shouldn't be fooling around with cheap ebay lenses and she was right and spent $975 on this bad brand new Nikkor copy. Last night I won another ebay auction for another 28-105 macro, that was the reason why I chose to accept shop credit instead of another 24-85. I might use the credit for a Tamron wide angle 11-18.
With the ebayed 28-105 still in transit I'm back to square one. Hopefully it's a good copy and that will save me a small fortune. I still have 2 months to decide which lens I should use on my credit.
tim, why arent you lookng at a 17-55/2.8 or 28-70/2.8 ? the gigs you got coming up will more than make up for the extra cost and their performance is perfect.
how many gigs have you got ? btw. maybe lens rental would be an option till you got the money coming back from those to buy something better.
if you want to be "serious" then buy serious gold ring glass, of which the 24-85 is not.
D800e l D60 IR l 16-35 f4 l 24-120 f4 l 24G l 50G l 60G l 85G l 105VR l 300VR lXE-1 l 18R l 35R flickr
I already have Sigma 18-50 which is perfect but needs another longer lens to fit on the 2nd camera. 28-70 is the Tamron; right?
I have 2 sessions of preschool shootings and a wedding in the next few months. Just missed out one wedding because I advitised myself a little too slow. I have a few expressing interests with graduation shots and digital album package I design; something the campus professionals don't do. The gigs are mainly half volunteer in fund raising functions in non-profit orgs. I get some expense back but that's where I get my works seen, be known and make contacts and they pay for the prints and posters I design.
In short the bookings won't make me rich but they are vital stage when I first start to go commercial. It's early stage but I'm building base for the future.
On paper at least, the 24-85 F/2.8-4.0 looks good. Wide aperture, fast focusing and all that....
I already have Sigma 18-50 which is perfect but needs another longer lens to fit on the 2nd camera. 28-70 is the Tamron; right?
not sure why you wouldnt have the 18-50 on one camera and the 50-150 on the other. imo, having 2 bodies and running 2 focal lengths so close is a waste. the 28-70 i meant is the nikkor. (used)
i thought the lens was to replacde the siggie. if you really like the sigma, i;d be more inclined to run the 50-150. if thats too big, pick up a longish prime liek an 85/1.8 or 105/2.8VR
On paper at least, the 24-85 F/2.8-4.0 looks good. Wide aperture, fast focusing and all that....
i agree, its pretty good, but at the end of the day its still only a consumer grade lens of fairly old desgin and a limited aperture. its not an afs though is it ? i thought it was just an AF lens ??
Do you know of any lens rental place rooz?
cwphoto now rents out nikkor glass.
D800e l D60 IR l 16-35 f4 l 24-120 f4 l 24G l 50G l 60G l 85G l 105VR l 300VR lXE-1 l 18R l 35R flickr
The Sigma 50-150 is almost useless for indoors reception. It might be okay if you are a guest trying to steal a shot but as the main photographer you will have to step much further back and then there will be lots of obstacle in between. And the bounce flash will be out of range. That's not to mention its weight... adding the speedlight you can't make use of its longer focal length; thus defeating its real purpose of a longer lens. I don't know what to do with it at this stage. I hope I will take up sports photography one day then will find a good use for it.
I think you are right, the 24-85 I bought was AF.
I see the only 28-70 still on sale is the Tamron or Sigma. As for the Nikkor, I start to think if it's really worth it to pay for something that only pixel peeper will notice the difference in quality; especially after my recent experience.
Thanks for your reply.
tim, the nikkor 28-70/2.8 and 24-70/2.8 is more than a pixel peeping difference. the difference is tangible even at full size, let alone crops. one day lets meet up and you can shoot with my 24-70 for a while.
i can only suggest what i've seen at weddings and other shooters use. most people that run 2 bodies use different focal lengths on each body. so for example...a regular and a tele, or a regular and a WA or a regular and a long large aperture prime. it just allows you to go for different angles and different sorts of shots without changing lens'.
D800e l D60 IR l 16-35 f4 l 24-120 f4 l 24G l 50G l 60G l 85G l 105VR l 300VR lXE-1 l 18R l 35R flickr
Reply With Quote
). 
Why not try the 16-85mm Nikon? 
Originally Posted by tim11
