If you’re here, then it’s fairly safe to assume you’re considering buying this lens. This review, while spec heavy, does not do this lens justice. As a professional photographer, listen to me carefully.. BUY THIS LENS. There are ZERO lenses on the market (native or third party) that compete with the optical performance of this lens for the money. The only lens that comes close, is the Nikon 24-120mm F4 VR. That lens is twice the price at around $1000 new, and is LESS sharp and almost unusable at 120mm, even stopped down. The next best option is the coveted Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8 at THREE times the price of the 24-85mm. Which brings me to the biggest benefactor of the 24-85mm- it’s focal range. Ideally, we’d all love to own just 3 lenses- the 14-24mm f/2.8, the 24-70mm f/2.8, and the 70-200mm f/2.8. Other lenses at this price point will offer a much broader focal range, which might sound convenient, but is ultimately a waste of money. You will end up replacing parts of those broad focal ranges with better quality glass, rendering those lenses more and more useless as you upgrade. The 24-85mm offers a smaller focal range that you’re much less likely to overlap or replace as you upgrade your kit. This lens effectively serves as your 24-70mm with a little extra reach at the long end. As a proud owner of a D850 and having owned two versions of the Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8, I can say with absolute conviction that there is no reason to justify the cost of that lens over this 24-85mm. Yes, this lens is THAT damn good. In terms of sharpness, it IS just as sharp as the 24-70mm f/2.8. The only difference I’ve found is that the 24-70mm f/2.8 has SLIGHTLY better micro contrast. This is something easily correctable in post processing. Now, if you’re worried about the variable aperture or it not being an f/2.8, STOP. Consider what you’ll be shooting with this lens.. mostly landscapes at the wide end and throughout the middle of the focal range, and some portraiture at the long end. The aparatare, while variable, is plenty fast enough for both. All my landscapes are shot between f/5.6 (low light) and f/11. For portraiture, I shoot between f/4.5 (low light) and f/5.6 and this lens still produces nice looking bokeh. Now, it won’t produce the same bokeh as an f/2.8, but consider the post processing tools at your disposal. A radial blur tool can effectively achieve the same effect. Will it produce EXACTLY the same bokeh as an f2.8? No, but the difference is negligible to clients or anyone who isn’t a professional photographer. If the bokeh is really important to you, you can buy this lens AND the Nikon 85mm f/1.8, or the Nikon 105mm f/1.8 (favorite portrait lens of all time) for LESS than what you’d spend on the Nikon 24-70 f/2.8. So, there’s your “real world” review of this lens from a pro. BUY IT. It’s relatively smaller focal range is future proof, it’s entire focal range is tack sharp, it’s aperture is fast enough for what you’ll be using it for, and at 500 bucks, it is EASILY the best value Nikon zoom lens on the planet.
I couldn't agree more, owning all the glass you've mentioned (and more!), this little beauty produces stunning results in the right hands, but it's the size and weight that really make me want to pick it up as I walk out the door, oh and the VR is really good for the price too. Listen to this pro, he knows what he's talking about !
Excellent central sharpness, less so at the borders, especially soft from 24-30 mm. VR is very good. Very good option for the beginners into the full frame photography.
Borders are horrible, you have to take the aperture to F8 for it to be more or less decent. But also, this lens has distortion when using wide angle. It is a lens that does not convince me.
This lens is incredible value used in Dec 2024. You can afford to get this zoom for AF at f5.6+ , and get a nice vintage Nilkkor, Super Takumar (or whatever) for manual focus.
I bought it at $110 last month to replace the 24-120 considering the size and weight. What a smart decision! In my opinion this lens and the AF-S 18-35 G and the AF-P 70-300 E, which I bought at $200 and $310 respectively early this year, could be the most cost-effective and "size-and-weight-effective" combo.
At 4.33 yuo can see horrible distortion even at a 50mm focal length. If you have straight horizontal lines in the scene, no one-click correction works in the edit. At more angular distances the distortion is even worse. Someday I will have to try a 24-70 f 2.8 to see how it handles distortion, while so many I prefer to continue using fixed lenses that provide much superior image quality.
Great review yet you didn't give this lens what it deserves. For the price this is a fantastic lens. Nikon's best midrange lens available even compared to lenses much much more expensive. Great walk around lens. Buy one you will love it.
For me it has been a great disappointment. From 24mm to even after 35mm the edges are blurry, even closing the diaphragm there is no notable improvement. And the other scary thing about the lens is the distortion that cannot be corrected with a simple click. I prefer to use a 28 and a 50 AI, saving me money and an abysmal difference in quality.
It's just a good lens, not more. Fast but not the fastest, sharp but not the sharpest, but it's all plastic and i don't like it's bokeh. At the end, you get what you pay.
If you’re here, then it’s fairly safe to assume you’re considering buying this lens. This review, while spec heavy, does not do this lens justice. As a professional photographer, listen to me carefully.. BUY THIS LENS. There are ZERO lenses on the market (native or third party) that compete with the optical performance of this lens for the money. The only lens that comes close, is the Nikon 24-120mm F4 VR. That lens is twice the price at around $1000 new, and is LESS sharp and almost unusable at 120mm, even stopped down. The next best option is the coveted Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8 at THREE times the price of the 24-85mm. Which brings me to the biggest benefactor of the 24-85mm- it’s focal range. Ideally, we’d all love to own just 3 lenses- the 14-24mm f/2.8, the 24-70mm f/2.8, and the 70-200mm f/2.8. Other lenses at this price point will offer a much broader focal range, which might sound convenient, but is ultimately a waste of money. You will end up replacing parts of those broad focal ranges with better quality glass, rendering those lenses more and more useless as you upgrade. The 24-85mm offers a smaller focal range that you’re much less likely to overlap or replace as you upgrade your kit. This lens effectively serves as your 24-70mm with a little extra reach at the long end. As a proud owner of a D850 and having owned two versions of the Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8, I can say with absolute conviction that there is no reason to justify the cost of that lens over this 24-85mm. Yes, this lens is THAT damn good. In terms of sharpness, it IS just as sharp as the 24-70mm f/2.8. The only difference I’ve found is that the 24-70mm f/2.8 has SLIGHTLY better micro contrast. This is something easily correctable in post processing. Now, if you’re worried about the variable aperture or it not being an f/2.8, STOP. Consider what you’ll be shooting with this lens.. mostly landscapes at the wide end and throughout the middle of the focal range, and some portraiture at the long end. The aparatare, while variable, is plenty fast enough for both. All my landscapes are shot between f/5.6 (low light) and f/11. For portraiture, I shoot between f/4.5 (low light) and f/5.6 and this lens still produces nice looking bokeh. Now, it won’t produce the same bokeh as an f/2.8, but consider the post processing tools at your disposal. A radial blur tool can effectively achieve the same effect. Will it produce EXACTLY the same bokeh as an f2.8? No, but the difference is negligible to clients or anyone who isn’t a professional photographer. If the bokeh is really important to you, you can buy this lens AND the Nikon 85mm f/1.8, or the Nikon 105mm f/1.8 (favorite portrait lens of all time) for LESS than what you’d spend on the Nikon 24-70 f/2.8. So, there’s your “real world” review of this lens from a pro. BUY IT. It’s relatively smaller focal range is future proof, it’s entire focal range is tack sharp, it’s aperture is fast enough for what you’ll be using it for, and at 500 bucks, it is EASILY the best value Nikon zoom lens on the planet.
This is the most awesome comment I've ever received in 10 years of RUclips!
U sir, deserve a trophy 🧙🏻♂️
Just to be sure what is the exact name of the lens you talk about here as i think nikon have made several 24-85 full frame lenses
I’m sold! Thanks
I couldn't agree more, owning all the glass you've mentioned (and more!), this little beauty produces stunning results in the right hands, but it's the size and weight that really make me want to pick it up as I walk out the door, oh and the VR is really good for the price too. Listen to this pro, he knows what he's talking about !
Excellent central sharpness, less so at the borders, especially soft from 24-30 mm. VR is very good. Very good option for the beginners into the full frame photography.
Borders are horrible, you have to take the aperture to F8 for it to be more or less decent. But also, this lens has distortion when using wide angle. It is a lens that does not convince me.
This lens is incredible value used in Dec 2024. You can afford to get this zoom for AF at f5.6+ , and get a nice vintage Nilkkor, Super Takumar (or whatever) for manual focus.
I bought it at $110 last month to replace the 24-120 considering the size and weight. What a smart decision! In my opinion this lens and the AF-S 18-35 G and the AF-P 70-300 E, which I bought at $200 and $310 respectively early this year, could be the most cost-effective and "size-and-weight-effective" combo.
At 4.33 yuo can see horrible distortion even at a 50mm focal length. If you have straight horizontal lines in the scene, no one-click correction works in the edit. At more angular distances the distortion is even worse. Someday I will have to try a 24-70 f 2.8 to see how it handles distortion, while so many I prefer to continue using fixed lenses that provide much superior image quality.
Great review yet you didn't give this lens what it deserves. For the price this is a fantastic lens. Nikon's best midrange lens available even compared to lenses much much more expensive. Great walk around lens. Buy one you will love it.
thanks for the review i will be getting this lens next 2 weeks!
if there any photos u took using it be great if we can see.
cheers!
All photos from 03:06 were taken with this lens. :-)
@@LENSDATA thanks! :)
Nikon d800e me use kar sakte hai
yes...why not
For me it has been a great disappointment. From 24mm to even after 35mm the edges are blurry, even closing the diaphragm there is no notable improvement. And the other scary thing about the lens is the distortion that cannot be corrected with a simple click. I prefer to use a 28 and a 50 AI, saving me money and an abysmal difference in quality.
Zack? É voce? rsrsrsrsrs
It's just a good lens, not more. Fast but not the fastest, sharp but not the sharpest, but it's all plastic and i don't like it's bokeh. At the end, you get what you pay.
Hy alternative Lens? Not 24-70 is big and heavy
m ieful zomshr - fr FF, imo. needs le hood, I uld think, lk ha it i icluded, if buyig used. useful gd review.