Nikon zoom lens looks good corner-to-corner

The 24-85 "consumer" grade Nikkor is. IMHO, a better lens than you
might expect for its modest price. Here's a sample, and this page is a
format I'm thinking of using for future real world examinations of
amateur-price-range equipment. Not everyone needs or can afford
five-grand cameras and two-grand optics.

Rockwell and Hogan write reviews that are worth reading, but I also
like to see walking-around grab shots made with natural light and no
tripod, the way most of my photos are taken.

In the interest of honest disclosure, I took several frames and this
was the sharpest. I'm not as steady as I was a few decades ago
(hand-held @ 1/40sec).

http://web.mac.com/olddognewtrick/iW...r-at-last.html
--
Cease then to grieve for your private afflictions, and address
yourselves instead to the safety of the republic

"sheepdog 2007" wrote in message news:2007100916413316807%barking@mailmannet...

The 24-85 "consumer" grade Nikkor is. IMHO, a better lens than you might expect for its modest price. Here's a sample, and this
page is a format I'm thinking of using for future real world examinations of amateur-price-range equipment. Not everyone needs or
can afford five-grand cameras and two-grand optics.

Rockwell and Hogan write reviews that are worth reading, but I also like to see walking-around grab shots made with natural light
and no tripod, the way most of my photos are taken.

In the interest of honest disclosure, I took several frames and this was the sharpest. I'm not as steady as I was a few decades
ago (hand-held @ 1/40sec).

http://web.mac.com/olddognewtrick/iW...r-at-last.html

The Nikkor 24-85mm f3.5-4.5 is even good to the corners
on full-frame (film), and is one of the better zooms out there.
I "raced" it on film against the Nikkor 24mm f2.8 AF, 35mm
f2 AF, 50mm f1.4 AF, and 85mm f1.8 AF (all at the same
stop, but I can't remember if f4 or f5.6 - but likely the latter).
At the short end, the zoom held its own against the very good
24mm, was slightly behind the very fine 35mm, noticeably
behind the excellent 50mm, and very noticeably behind the
superb 85mm - BUT, the zoom was consistent in its level of
performance from 24mm to 85mm, and also performed well
at close focus.This is an unusually high level of performance
from a fairly inexpensive zoom. Unfortunately, the zoom range
is more interesting on film cameras than on digital ones, but
it is still a usable range with digital. BTW, you may find my
Nikkor evaluation list interesting, and it has URLs for other
review sites - at www.donferrario.com/ruether/slemn.html.
--
David Ruether

http://www.donferrario.com/ruether

On 2007-10-10 07:08:53 -0700, "David Ruether" said:



"sheepdog 2007" wrote in message
news:2007100916413316807%barking@mailmannet...

The 24-85 "consumer" grade Nikkor is. IMHO, a better lens than you
might expect for its modest price. Here's a sample, and this page is a
format I'm thinking of using for future real world examinations of
amateur-price-range equipment. Not everyone needs or can afford
five-grand cameras and two-grand optics.

Rockwell and Hogan write reviews that are worth reading, but I also
like to see walking-around grab shots made with natural light and no
tripod, the way most of my photos are taken.

In the interest of honest disclosure, I took several frames and this
was the sharpest. I'm not as steady as I was a few decades ago
(hand-held @ 1/40sec).

http://web.mac.com/olddognewtrick/iW...r-at-last.html

The Nikkor 24-85mm f3.5-4.5 is even good to the corners
on full-frame (film), and is one of the better zooms out there.
I "raced" it on film against the Nikkor 24mm f2.8 AF, 35mm
f2 AF, 50mm f1.4 AF, and 85mm f1.8 AF (all at the same
stop, but I can't remember if f4 or f5.6 - but likely the latter).
At the short end, the zoom held its own against the very good
24mm, was slightly behind the very fine 35mm, noticeably
behind the excellent 50mm, and very noticeably behind the
superb 85mm - BUT, the zoom was consistent in its level of
performance from 24mm to 85mm, and also performed well
at close focus.This is an unusually high level of performance
from a fairly inexpensive zoom. Unfortunately, the zoom range
is more interesting on film cameras than on digital ones, but
it is still a usable range with digital. BTW, you may find my
Nikkor evaluation list interesting, and it has URLs for other
review sites - at www.donferrario.com/ruether/slemn.html.

I have read many of your reviews and find all your technical writing to
be enlightening and accessible. Your site is one of the more valuable
resources I've learned about by reading rpd, rpdss, rpe35, and the
other photo newsgroups. This education makes it worth my while to wade
through the flames. Are you making any money from web pages? I do the
iWeb thing strictly for diversion.
--
Cease then to grieve for your private afflictions, and address
yourselves instead to the safety of the republic

"sheepdog 2007" wrote in message news:2007101007313375249%barking@mailmannet...
On 2007-10-10 07:08:53 -0700, "David Ruether" said:
"sheepdog 2007" wrote in message news:2007100916413316807%barking@mailmannet...

The 24-85 "consumer" grade Nikkor is. IMHO, a better lens than you might expect for its modest price.
[...]

The Nikkor 24-85mm f3.5-4.5 is even good to the corners
on full-frame (film), and is one of the better zooms out there.
[...]

I have read many of your reviews and find all your technical writing to be enlightening and accessible. Your site is one of the
more valuable resources I've learned about by reading rpd, rpdss, rpe35, and the other photo newsgroups. This education makes it
worth my while to wade through the flames. Are you making any money from web pages? I do the iWeb thing strictly for diversion.

Thanks for the comments. I make no money from my web page
(except sometimes from the sale of my no longer needed items
listed on the site), since there is no external advertising on it. The
site used to be on server space offered free by other people,
but in the last few years I've had to pay a fixed small yearly sum
to keep it running. It started with "Subjective Lens Evaluations
(Mostly Nikkors)", which first appeared on other websites in
1995, but on my own new site in 1996. Unfortunately, with the
loss of server space, I've also lost my URL three times and have
had to reestablish it (it is currently listed on google more with the
wrong URL than with the right one). For me, the site is a place
to show photographs, to offer photo and video gear reviews and
comparisons, to place articles on anything I want to write about
(there are articles on seeing and lens perspectives, etc.), and to
have a location for copies of my 16,000 or so NG posts (there
is also a "silly" restaurant menu on the site, and a just plain weird
page - in addition to my MIDI/mp3s). I spend FAR too much
time working on the site (and it just went through a major redo,
which is unfortunately mostly invisible...;-). One of these days,
it will be finished (NOT! 8^).
--
David Ruether

http://www.donferrario.com/ruether

On Oct 9, 7:41 pm, sheepdog 2007 wrote:
The 24-85 "consumer" grade Nikkor is. IMHO, a better lens than you
might expect for its modest price.

No point in buying it. It isn't as good as the 18-70mm kit lens and
it isn't wide enough.

"RichA" wrote in message
ups.com...
On Oct 9, 7:41 pm, sheepdog 2007 wrote:
The 24-85 "consumer" grade Nikkor is. IMHO, a better lens than you
might expect for its modest price.

No point in buying it. It isn't as good as the 18-70mm kit lens and
it isn't wide enough.

RichA:
And your personal use experience enables you to give meaningful
comparisons of these two Nikkors just how?
Mentioned on the off chance someone might start to believe you.
Bob

On Oct 11, 1:38 pm, "Robert Brace" wrote:
"RichA" wrote in message

ups.com...

On Oct 9, 7:41 pm, sheepdog 2007 wrote:
The 24-85 "consumer" grade Nikkor is. IMHO, a better lens than you
might expect for its modest price.

No point in buying it. It isn't as good as the 18-70mm kit lens and
it isn't wide enough.

RichA:
And your personal use experience enables you to give meaningful
comparisons of these two Nikkors just how?
Mentioned on the off chance someone might start to believe you.
Bob

As a matter of fact, yes. I had the opportunity to use both lenses
(and the 28-105) for a week. The old D lenses are not a good choice
for a digital sensor.
I sold both on Ebay for a friend once the test was done.
The only reason people might want to stick with them is if they plan
to get a FF sensor D3, and if they do that, it's likely they'll get
better lenses anyway.

On 2007-10-11 12:26:10 -0700, RichA said:

On Oct 11, 1:38 pm, "Robert Brace" wrote:
"RichA" wrote in message

ups.com...

On Oct 9, 7:41 pm, sheepdog 2007 wrote:
The 24-85 "consumer" grade Nikkor is. IMHO, a better lens than you
might expect for its modest price.

No point in buying it. It isn't as good as the 18-70mm kit lens and
it isn't wide enough.

RichA:
And your personal use experience enables you to give meaningful
comparisons of these two Nikkors just how?
Mentioned on the off chance someone might start to believe you.
Bob

As a matter of fact, yes. I had the opportunity to use both lenses
(and the 28-105) for a week. The old D lenses are not a good choice
for a digital sensor.

So you're referring to the older f/2.8-4 then? This is the 24-85mm
f/3.5-4.5 IF-ED AF-S, which I find much better in every way except for
maximum aperture. And even that is a wash, as the older lens wasn't
very good wide open.

I sold both on Ebay for a friend once the test was done.
The only reason people might want to stick with them is if they plan
to get a FF sensor D3, and if they do that, it's likely they'll get
better lenses anyway.

Yes, if you actually need a five grand body you would probably not
consider a $250 lens.
--
Cease then to grieve for your private afflictions, and address
yourselves instead to the safety of the republic

Ken Rockwell ? mouhahahaha