I recently got the new Nikkor 24-85 AF-d f/2.8-4 zoom. I'd like to hear from anyone else owning/using this lens, to compare notes and thoughts.

I previously owned the Nikkor 24-120 f/3.5-5.6 and was not completely satisfied with that lens' slow speed, loose zooming action and poor manual focus ring feel. I also found myself using the 24-120 mostly at focal lengths from 24-85, and found the results quite poor at the longer end unless it was stopped down considerably. I still needed an all-purpose travel lens to cover a variety of favorite focal lengths, so I got this lens to see if/how it was improved from the earlier 24-120.

From all initial results it looks like a really good lens. Build quality and finish are very good. It has the same look and finish as the recent AFS lenses. No more loose zooming action, it holds its zoom position solidly and does not collapse of its own weight like the 24-120 did. The manual focus ring feel is quite smooth and with just the right amount of resistance, more like the older MF lenses and some of the better AF lenses. It comes with its own hood which seems to shade the lens pretty well across its zooming range. Size, weight and price are about the same as the earlier 24-120. And it certainly is brighter in the viewfinder.

I have not done any extensive testing of the optical quality of this new lens, but after a few rolls it looks like it can produce outstanding images at all focal lengths when stopped down a couple of stops. I have not really looked at things like distortion and light fall off yet. Surprisingly, it seems just as good or better at the long end than other similar Nikon zooms I've used. And the macro capability is just amazing.

Anyone have any thoughts they want to share on this new lens?

-- Sergio Ortega (s.ortega@worldnet.att.net), January 18, 2001

Answers

I haven't seen one myselft, but you might want to check these sites out:

Nikonlinks.com has a review at: http://www.nikonlinks.com/zoom_lens_reviews.htm#24-85(Kopitnik).< br> Bjørn Rørslett has added it to his zoom table here: http://www.foto.no/niko n/lens_zoom.html.

-- Geoffrey S. Kane (grendel.nauticom@verizon.net), January 18, 2001.

Sergio,

I have the 24-120, shot about 12 rolls of film and put it in the closet and went back to my AIS primes. I won't believe any of those Popular Photography advertisements... uh, I mean lens "tests". I felt violated after falling for that test.

I participate in a Nikon site and a person there has been using the 24-85. He had a disheartening experience before his first roll of film... the camera on a tripod fell over (tipped not dropped) from about two feet onto carpet and the lens buckled. He had posted a photo... the lens was bent at a 45 degree angle. I have fully dropped my F3 and metal Nikkors onto concrete, and other than a scratch or scuff on the external area, the camera continued to function. I wore out three prime auto focus Nikkors, so I will be sticking with my AIS for a while.

You can read the review of the 24-85 and see photos at:

http://www.nikonians.com/cgi-bin/dcforum/dcboard.cgi? az=read_count&om=90&forum=DCForumID6&omm=0&auto_sense=on

-- Al Smith (smith58@msn.com), January 19, 2001.

Sergio,

Sorry, I made a mistake with the thread address. Go here for the 24- 85 review. When you click on the thread entries, the photos will load if there is one there... wait a couple of seconds.

http://www.nikonians.com/cgi-bin/dcforum/dcboard.cgi? az=show_thread&omm=4&om=90&forum=DCForumID6

-- Al Smith (smith58@msn.com), January 19, 2001.

Sergio,

I don't know why, but the link is not going deep enough into the archive. When the screen comes up, go to "Nikon products", which will bring up a second menu... go to "Nikkors", then scroll through until you see 24-85 test from BJ Nickles.

Sorry for the problems.

-- Al Smith (smith58@msn.com), January 19, 2001.

Thanks to Geoffrey and Al for their excellent leads.

I read the various lens tests and reviewed the many threads on the Nikon users site. Very interesting stuff. Anyone interested in this lens should definitely look at these sites.

And anyone curious to see what happens to a polycarbonate Nikkor zoom lens when it's dropped on its face should not miss that sad sight. The things some folks do to their equipment!

Some comments:

I find Mr. Kopitnik's negative comparison of the new Nikkor 24-85 f/2.8-4...wide open, no less...to his 24 f/2.0, 35 f/1.4 and 85 f/1.4 Nikkor prime lenses a bit perplexing. Nikon makes a number of prime lenses that perform very well at maximum aperture, and Mr. Kopitnik obviously owns three of them. These three lenses are probably the best lenses Nikon produces for wide open, available light photography, particularly the 35 1.4 and 85 1.4 lenses. I'm not sure what else he expected to discover. It never occurred to me to compare the 24-85 to my Leica Summicrons or Elmarit lenses wide open. Hmm...I wonder what I'd find?

Rorslett's test site is also quite good. He essentially gives the 24-85 high marks, and agrees with Kopitnik's findings of distortion at both ends of the focal length range and significant optical improvement when stopped down a couple of stops. That's basically what I've discovered so far, and what I've come to expect with most Nikkor zooms and extreme wide angle primes.

I have also found that the 24-85 benefits more from stopping down at the wide end than at the long end. This, surprisingly, runs contrary to my experience with other Nikkor zooms I've used, particularly the 24-120 which was quite poor at focal lengths longer than 85 or so.

I have not explored the Macro capabilities fully yet. There's an interesting comparison with images of the new 24-85's macro capabilities to the Nikkor 60 Macro at f/5.6 in the Nikon users threads. I suppose if one wants to evaluate a consumer zoom's macro capabilities it's best to compare it to the sharpest Nikkor macro around. No surprise as to the results on that test.

Any other comments would be appreciated. Thanks again, Sergio.

-- Sergio Ortega (s.ortega@worldnet.att.net), January 19, 2001.

Sergio,

Thanks for your interpretations. When I came off as negative against the 24-120, it was precisely because I know how good a lens can be. I use the Nikkor 24mm f/2.8, the 35mm f/1.4 and the 105mm f/2.5 as my standard walking around kit.... how can I simply forget the fantastic results that they have given me? I can't! I won't even mention comparisons to Leica... apples and oranges.

I really tried to like the lens, especially after spending the money, but the lens at two stops down can't come close to my primes wide open. If I never had any good glass, I might think it is great, but it is definitely aimed at people that weren't alive when Nikon was king. The good thing is my real metal Nikkors will last the rest of my life... whether I drop them now and again or not.

-- Al Smith (smith58@msn.com), January 19, 2001.

I owned the 24-120, and now own the 24-85. When I got the lens, I immediately ripped a few rolls of E6 behind it to make sure that everything worked. I shoot pretty much the same things as test subjects, more out of habit than any idea that I'm doing "serious" testing. Subjects include clear blue sky, a rectilinear window grate that I can shoot from dead center, a brick wall, some stucco, a newspaper page, and backlit flowers.

Withthe 24-85 I saw moustache distortion at 24mm, barrel at 28mm, and pincushion at 70 and 80mm. The corners are soft at 1:2 until well stopped-down. Flare control is good as long as you take care to shade the bit where the hood is cut out. I think the 24-85 has less field curvature than the 24-120; it's as sharp edge-to-edge one stop down as the 24-120 was two stops down. I think it's adequately sharp; stock prices from the financial pages were perfectly legible at 15 feet at all focal lengths wide open (E100, read with an 8x Schneider loupe).

I prefer the 24-85 to the 24-120 because of the speed, the close-focusing, and the astonishingly fast focusing. I also think the hood provides, for the most part, better coverage (the 24-120's hood was pretty useless). The lens feels better in the hand than the 24-120.

Beyond that, the purpose of a zoom is convenience. I think comparing it to primes is an exercise in futility (I also own the 24/2, 28/2, 50/1.4, and 85/1.8). My 28/2 faster, has less distortion, and is smaller. But it won't give me 24mm or 85mm with a twist of the wrist.

-- John Kuraoka (john@kuraoka.com), January 19, 2001.

I think you may have misunderstood, Larry Kopitnik's review, Sergio. I understood it to be a comparison between the AF 24-85mm f/2.8-4D and the AF 35-70mm f/2.8D ... between two standard zooms.

The significance of the 24mm f/2, 35mm f/1.4 and AF 85mm f/1.4D, if I've understood him correctly, is that they make up his favourite 3-lens set. When he wants the convenience of a single lens, he finds the 35-70mm very little of a compromise in quality, but rather restrictive in zoom range.

What he was hoping was that the new 24-85mm zoom -- which exactly covers his favourite focal lengths -- would eliminate the restriction in zoom range, while requiring little (if any) further compromise in quality.

And what he found, if I understand him aright, is that the price in terms of lens quality is more than he is willing to pay for the convenience. So he will continue to use the 35-70mm zoom when he wants the convenience of a single lens.

I wasn't surprised by this conclusion -- for some time there has been a rule of thumb that really good zoom lenses cannot have a zoom range much in excess of 2.5x -- but I found Larry's writing up his first-hand experience to be very helpful.

Later,

Dr Owl

-- John Owlett (owl@postmaster.co.uk), January 20, 2001.

Dr. Owl,

I don't entirely disagree with your observations. Without giving too much importance to lens reviews, either in Popular Photography or any other source, I found Kopitnik's review quite well written, fair and comprehensive. But, I'm not so sure I misunderstood him or the intent of his comparison.

Kopitnik does state that he wanted one lens that would cover the focal lengths he shoots most: 24mm through 85mm. So I took him at his word and assumed he was looking at this new lens as a do-everything substitute lens for those situations when he did want the weight or need the speed of his three fast primes.

You're correct, he does clearly state his intention was to replace the rather limited 35-70 zoom, not the three primes. And many of his observations were made with his current 35-70 zoom in mind, as well as his old 24-120 Nikkor.

However, he does compare the new 24-85 zoom to his three prime lenses in the area of aperture/exposure accuracy at the extreme ends of the 24-85 range. He compares the focal range accuracy at 24mm and 85mm to his two fast primes. And he also evaluates the zoom's close-focussing focal length accuracy at 85mm to his 85 f/1.4.

Furthermore, he evaluates the 24-85's distortion at both the 24mm and 85mm ends of the zoom's range, something he is unable to do with the 35-70 since it affords such a limited focal length range. He compares the distortion to his old 24-120 zoom and, I would guess, his three current primes as well.

He also peformed the sharpness tests--wide open--at 24mm, 28mm, 35mm, and on up to 85mm. I would also guess he had in mind the wide open capabilities of his three primes as a point of reference. Perhaps I misinterpreted that, or assumed too much.

In the end he concludes that the new Nikkor is not of sufficient quality to persuade him to replace the 35-70, much less his three primes. That's what I found surprising: that he really expected this new Nikkor consumer zoom to outperform either his 35-70 or his current optical benchmarks for the three focal lengths he utilizes most.

I part ways with Kopitnik when he states that the new 24-85 is incapable of producing any sharp images wide open. It's not going to set the standard for sharpness at maximum aperture, but it's not all that bad. I do agree with Kopitnik, my initial experience reveals that, as with all Nikkor zooms in this price range/focal length range, it performs much better closed down a couple of stops from maximum aperture. At these apertures it yields excellent results throughout the entire focal range. And I also do not find the distortion any worse than any other similar zoom I've used.

Wide open images made with the new Nikkor 24-85 zoom will not match the results of similar images made with excellent prime lenses, or good quality zooms with a more limited range. But, for those times when a single lens with a wide focal length range for general photography is needed, I think the new 24-85 will do just fine.

-- Sergio Ortega (s.ortega@worldnet.att.net), January 22, 2001.

Thank you for the thoughtful response, Sergio.

As so often happens with such a thoughtful response, which continues a debate without turning it into an argument, the area of disagreement reduces in size ... though in this case doesn't disappear completely. May I summarize my understanding so far?

You, I and -- as far as we can tell -- Larry Kopitnik perceive four bands of lens quality here:

• (A) Prime lenses such as the 24mm f/2, the 35mm f/1.4, and 85mm f/1.4D.
• (B) Good quality zooms with a limited range, such as the 35-70mm f/2.8D.
• (C) Good quality zooms with an extended range, such as the 24-85mm f/2.8-4D.
• (D) Mid-price consumer zooms, such as the 24-120mm f/3.5-5.6D.

"Sharpness" is an elusive term. Neither resolution, nor contrast, nor even MTF captures it completely. People will often agree over statements like "lens X is sharper than lens Y", but rarely agree over statements like "lens X is really sharp", let alone statements like "band (C) lenses are sharp enough for critical amateur use".

What I understand Larry to be saying is that band (B) is close enough to band (A) that he is sometimes willing to use a band (B) zoom rather than carry three band (A) primes. Band (C) lenses,on the other hand, are just not sharp enough for him, though he had hoped they might be.

What I understand you to be saying is that band (C) lenses ARE good enough for your critical use, in a way that a band (D) lens was not. But hoping that band (C) lenses will be really close to band (B) lenses, let alone band (A) primes, is doomed to disappointment.

(I also suspect you of thinking that there is a band (A+) containing Leitz Summicron and Elmarit lenses. :-)

If my understanding is correct, then the debate is over. Your expectations of sharpness are unique to you, and will not be the same as Larry's or mine -- Larry's are not persnickety; yours are not lax -- we are just all different. We all set our own expectations, based on the circumstances in which we shoot, the purposes for which we shall use the pictures, the expectation of others (such as family or clients), and how badly we suffer from softlensophobia.

Softlensophobia, a common affliction amongst photographers, is word I coined (alongside the handle "Dr Owl") in a spoof post to the Nikon Mailing List. Softlensophobia sufferers can be identified by

• Possessing a high-magnification loupe for studying negatives ("going loupy" is a common part of the syndrome).
• Yelping in pain when people say that their compact cameras are "tack sharp".
• Fainting when a shop assistant says "Well, with Nikon and Canon you're just paying for the name -- all lenses are the same nowadays."
• Frequently checking that the prints on the wall are straight.
• Obsessively hiding away receipts, so that no spouse can find out how much has been spent on a lens.

I'm a sufferer myself. I know that many people are perfectly happy with the band (E) zooms that are packaged with consumer SLR bodies, but I'd never be able to buy one for myself. And I cannot help feeling that most amateurs would notice the improvement in going to a band (D) lens like a 28-105mm zoom from either Canon or Nikon.

Later,

Dr Owl

-- John Owlett (owl@postmaster.co.uk), January 23, 2001.

I am hoping to take a different approach to the 24-120 replacement. I am not about to knock this lens as so many others do as I find it a good travel lens & sharp when stopped down. Its main fault for my purposes is the lack of control when having to stop down to achieve good image quality. For scenics this is no problem but for portraits it is. Solution! I am considering a Tokina 28-70 ProII lens & a Nikkor 85 1.8. I will lose a few mm but the image quality should increase considerably. Just one mans oppinion...... Melvin

-- Melvin Bramley (bramley@nanaimo.ark.com), March 04, 2001.

Jim Tardio has an interesting review of this lens.

Also try, http://www.photographyreview.com/

And this thread...

-- Anth Plummer (anthplummer@bigpond.com), June 19, 2001.

Guys, guys... I dont' know how You can debate for pages and pages what a particular reviewer (I forget his name) ment or didn' mean. As I uderstand, most of us own this lens and can judge themselves whether it is performing well enough FOR THEIR NEEDS. I too find it to be too soft, even closed down. But it depends on the subject... Buildings come out sharp, but bright lit foliage for ex. is all blurry. The distorsion level suits me just fine. I have a solution for the lack of sharpness though (or is it just my lab?), I'm buying a hi-res film scanner and will consistenly use the Sharpen option provided by Photoshop. Call it a half-assed solution, but don't force me to buy three more prime Nikkors and be juggling between them on my outings. I LOVE the convenience of this lens and am willing to forgive it its few blunders. Yours truly.

-- Artur Kozlowski (arturek@sympatico.ca), November 28, 2001.