Many thanks for this review. I am wondering about the MTF values for the 24-120 F4G displayed in this test in comparison with the 24-85, compared to the values displayed in the review of the same lens (JUNE 29, 2017). Maybe I’m wrong, but they don’t seem to have the same values. For example at 5,6, for center and corners: In this review: 24mm: 3,542 1,892 35 mm: 3,507 2,005 50mm: 3,507 1,959 120mm:3,232 1,478 The same in the 24-120 review: 24mm: 2,832 1,602 35 mm: 2,838 1,606 50mm: 2,965 1,669 120mm:2,181 1,003 Am I wrong, or is it not the same lens, or what? Thanks for your answer. Best regards if it's just for 24mm, and at f/4, then a faster prime is the best bet. No wide angle lens is at its best wide open so I'd suggest the 24/2 Ai-S or the 24/2.8 Ai-S... at this focal length, focussing is a doddle and the cost saving is not inconsiderable...... On the other hand, if you can swing it by finding a clean used copy, the Nikon AF-S 17-35/2.8 is simply superb and at 24mm and f/4 offers virtually zero distortion, very little vignetting and far better resolution across the frame. Don't buy one with a squeaky focus motor but apart from that, if the glass is clean the lens is damn near bullet proof. It's one of those lenses where you point, press and get a keeper almost every time... plus you get some wiggle-room either side of 24mm :) Originally posted 118 months ago. (permalink) Woof (Ken Irvine) edited this topic 118 months ago. mausgabe says:+1 And on a budget, the Nikkor 20-35/2.8D (vivid) or Tokina 20-35/2.8 AF (softer) are good, too. However, their hoods are difficult to find. Fotodiox carries a Nikon-replacement version that's thick but flexible -- as good as the original and much better than the flimsy Chinese knock-off: www.fotodioxpro.com/fotodiox-hb-8-lens-hood-bayonet-for-n... Originally posted 118 months ago. (permalink) mausgabe edited this topic 118 months ago. Woof (Ken Irvine) says:I would also say that having had both the non-VR AF-S 24-8/3.5-4.5 G and the earlier AF-D 24-85/2.8-4, I would hesitate to choose either as my main 24mm lens... the Photozone results are one thing but in real life, the distortion and vignetting at the short end at wide apertures can be a nuisance and only the centre is sharp on either; edges and particularly corners are really not that exciting. Either of the mf primes I mentioned before would be far better at f/4 in IQ terms. Here's a sample from a Nikkor-N 24/2.8 at f/4 and ISO1600. The later Ai-S is slightly better but I don't have any suitable lower-light shot from one of those. A friend gets some amazing results from his 24/2 though....  I can't find anything I shot with the AF-S 24-85 at 24mm under f/8, mostly because it was pretty crap off the centre area at wider settings. The AF-D 24-85 was used on a D300 so not much use for comparison of edges/corners, but looking at the Photozone tests on Fx it also needed f/8 to bring the corners in.. The AF-S 24/1.4 looks really sweet, btw, but man. that's an expensive piece of kit.... interesting to note that the 17-35 at 24mm and f/4 is sharper in the centre and edges, has less distortion and similar vignetting. The only place the 24/1.4 scores a big win is the far corners. Originally posted 118 months ago. (permalink) Woof (Ken Irvine) edited this topic 118 months ago. kanemochi says:For the record, I normally prefer primes also. I use my 35mm f/1.8, 50mm f/1.2, 85mm f/1.8 and 105mm f/2.8 Macro lenses MUCH more than any of my zoom lenses. However, that isn't just because they are light (although that is certainly an advantage)...I prefer them because they tend to be sharper than my zooms. Also, I agree that generally speaking if you take a fast prime and stop it down you will get higher resolution than a slower lens, simply because most lenses are sharper one or two stops down from wide open. Case in point, my 50mm f/1.2 Ais is kind of soft at f/1.2.....but that's not why I bought it....yes I occasionally take shots at f/1.2 for certain bokeh or extreme low light conditions....but the best part about that lens is when you stop it down to f/2 it is sharper than any other 50mm lens @f/2. With that being said....I did thoroughly research a long list of lenses made for Nikon mount that were capable of doing 24mm f/4. The 24mm f/2.8 is an old optic formula and is not nearly as sharp as many other prime lenses....... Of all the lenses I included in the initial research...only the Tokina 17-35 f/4 was less sharp at f/4 than the Nikon 24mm f/2.8D. It's also my understanding that the Ais version has the exact same optic formula as the D model....all they did was add AF and D....so although I didn't see any MTF charts for it....I'm not expecting the 24mm f/2.8 Ais to be much sharper if at all. Like I said in my original post....the ONLY three lenses that were sharper at 24mm f/4 than the AF-S 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5G were the 24mm f/1.4, 24-70mm f/2.8G, and 14-24mm f/2.8G all three of which are much more expensive. The 17-35mm f/2.8D is a good lens overall, BUT at 24mm f/4, it also is less sharp than than the 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5...and costs about 3 times as much. If I were going to use it as a zoom, then I like the 17-35 range better and if I could find a deal on it....could probably settle for a little less resolution @24mm for a faster and better overall lens. However, I haven't seen any of them for under $500 that are in decent shape...so at this point, I'm really pretty settled on the 24-85 f/3.5-4.5.......my only decision is do I go newer and get one with VR (which I won't use) or get one without VR even though it will be an older used lens albeit slightly sharper. 118 months ago(permalink) 4-eyed says:I have this 24-85mm f3.5-4.5G, bought it a few years back in Tokyo for around $300 used. It was practically new meaning you couldn't tell it was used. I used it for a while but was never one of my favorites. I found the distortion at the wide end (~24mm) HORRENDOUS! Some times I could correct it in PP but most of time not. This is right around the time when Nikon made a conscious/unannounced decision to go after sharpness at the cost of distortion given that the sw PP applications were becoming more and more powerful. I agree with some others here that for what you described a prime AF 24mm F2.8 would be a better (smaller and better made) choice though maybe a bit more expensive. Also, if you know what you are looking for and buy from reliable sources, some extraordinary deals can be made buying used. I used to be overly paranoid about buying used until I realized people sell their stuff to finance their wishlists not necessarily because something is bad quality or broken. Once I even bought a Nikon mount Zeiss lens with the original factory inspection certificate with the name of the person who inspected it (typical for Zeiss products) for a reasonable price just because the seller was shifting to medium format and had to get rid of a ton of 35mm Nikon gear ... it was a fantastic lens! (still is) For most of the lenses listed in these postings, I doubt you'd be able to tell which image came from which lens, they're all pretty good. Originally posted 118 months ago. (permalink) 4-eyed edited this topic 118 months ago. Woof (Ken Irvine) says: if you've done all that research on test results on paper and reached the conclusion that the 24-85 is better at 24mm f/4 than the 17-35, then I guess you'll just have to buy the 24-85.... good luck :)118 months ago(permalink) kanemochi says: GranDadWoof:Just FYI......When I made my last reply prior to this one.....I had not seen your reply that had the sample picture in it, or that talked about your experience with these lenses. Not sure why mine was the last post when I posted it....but this morning when I open it up, yours appears to be prior to mine. Anyway....I appreciate the opinions of those that have real world experience with these lenses.....In addition to looking at your sample posted above....I've gone through the 24mm f/2.8D pool here on Flickr...and indeed it does appear to be "sharp enough". With that being said..... I went though the sets that  posted that showed his work with the 24mm f/2.8D and the 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5G lenses....and to my eyes comparing the shots on the same camera with the same photographer at the same focal length...the 24-85 did indeed look sharper to my eyes......which is in line with what the "on-paper" research suggested.Although I'm still convinced that at 24mm f/4 the 24-85mm f/3.5 will be sharper than the 24mm f/2.8D on the D700....I do believe the difference is not great enough to dissuade me from buying the prime lens, given it's size and speed advantage. And I have put that option back on the table for consideration. However, in my original post I was asking specifically for which was the better choice between the VR and the non-VR version......Nobody specifically addressed those questions....instead suggestions of other lenses were thrown out there. If anyone has any thoughts on the original topic (VR vs non-VR on the 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5G lens) I'd still love to hear those. Thanks. 118 months ago(permalink) kanemochi says:Also......now that I've opened up the criteria some to "sharp enough" rather than sharpest I can get for the money.......I may go in an entirely different direction. The Sigma 24mm f/1.8 EX DG is a prime, it's sharper and faster than the Nikon 24mm f/2.8D...and still falls in my price range. It's only drawback is that it's heavier...but then again....if that was a major consideration for me, I wouldn't be using a D700. But it does at least line up better with my other fast (f/1.8 or faster) primes. 118 months ago(permalink) gryphon1911 says:VR is something that you either need or don't and if you do, you know why you do. It will depend really on what you need your kit to do. I find I rarely use VR on the 24-85VR(I did in the night architecture images in my sets). However, since the 24/2.8 did not have VR, the images in that set, specifically the airplanes in the museum, are done without. Same with the cathedral shots. Good hand holding technique and still subjects should give you the ability to hand hold the 24/2.8 down to 1/20th no problem. The majority of those images were taken with shutter speeds around 1/25 to 1/40. What is 24 85mm lens good for?The AF-S NIKKOR 24–85mm f/3.5-4.5G ED VR covers wide-angle and medium telephoto perspectives, making it a great multipurpose lens for photography and HD video recording. At its widest focal length (24mm on FX-format D-SLRs, 36mm on DX-format D-SLRs) it's ideal for travel, landscapes, interiors, group shots and more. Is there a 3000mm lens?A 3000mm equivalent NIKKOR ED glass lens—the most powerful lens ever used on a COOLPIX camera—opens a new world of shooting possibilities. |
