NikonGear'23
Gear Talk => Lens Talk => Topic started by: Chulster on June 10, 2018, 21:51:07
-
Hi,
I just acquired a second-hand 24-85/3.5-4.5G VR with a stiff and sometimes squeaky zoom action. It's particularly bad between 24mm and 35mm.
Anybody else have a similarly afflicted copy? Anybody know how to self-service it?
Thanks.
-
Mine is a bit stiff but not in a troubling way. It simply doesn't enjoy the same mechanical finesse as on old f/2.8 zoom that I used to own. There is no squeak, though. Are you able to handle a new one to compare?
My rule of thumb for servicing lenses is: if you have to ask how then don't try it :)
-
It has probably been dropped and needs service,,, not a DIY project that is easy,,, sorry
-
Apologies for never having responded to these fine replies until now. Gmail was routing reply notifications to the spam folder.
In the end, I returned the lens and purchased another that had smooth zoom action. But I grew dissatisfied with its optical performance and wound up selling it on.
-
In the end, I returned the lens and purchased another that had smooth zoom action. But I grew dissatisfied with its optical performance and wound up selling it on.
Two questions :
# Were you dissatisfied with the optical performance of the first one ?
# And which body did you use ?
Just to know, as I bought the same recently (second hand) and I am very happy whit it (used on both DF and Z6). :)
-
Sorry for the squeaky first lens ! I have/had one (given to my daughter with the D3x after her D700 was stolen with a batch of lenses) that works fairly well... I tend to regret it, having now a 24-120mm f/4 VR. It's more about the relative weight and length then about the optical qualities !
I might get myself another in june at the Bière Photo fair, as it works well with the Df (size and weight).
-
Two questions :
# Were you dissatisfied with the optical performance of the first one ?
# And which body did you use ?
Just to know, as I bought the same recently (second hand) and I am very happy whit it (used on both DF and Z6). :)
Frankly, I don't remember how the first copy performed optically. I think I was so turned off by the squeaky zoom that I didn't use the lens much at all. But neither do I remember thinking that the second copy was meaningfully worse than the first.
I used the lens on my D810. It was not egregiously bad, but it suffered in comparison with the 24-120mm f/4 that I had used before. It would have been fine on a 16 or 24 MP sensor.
-
Sorry for the squeaky first lens ! I have/had one (given to my daughter with the D3x after her D700 was stolen with a batch of lenses) that works fairly well... I tend to regret it, having now a 24-120mm f/4 VR. It's more about the relative weight and length then about the optical qualities !
I might get myself another in june at the Bière Photo fair, as it works well with the Df (size and weight).
The 24-120mm f/4 crosses an IQ threshold for me, that the 24-85mm VR does not. (But it must be said that this opinion is only tendered on the basis of using the lenses on a 36 MP sensor, which is the only way I have used them.)
It's not that the 24-120 is twice as good, or even 50% better. But it manages to sneak into an IQ range that I find "good enough" on the D810 sensor. In my recollection, the smaller lens was just a little too unsharp at every focal length, wide open.
I do envy the 24-85's small size and light weight. In fact, ever since selling the 2nd copy, I've been on a quest to find a normal zoom that is as small and light, but optically just a little bit better—without being more expensive! A tall order. But since I prefer the 28mm focal length to 24mm anyway, there were several lenses that start at 28mm that I could try, and did. The closest alternative, the 24-85mm f/2.8-4, is one that I did not try. I just could not bring myself to buy one, having convinced myself that it would disappoint me. Lately I did find a lens that I liked in this range: the 28-85mm f/3.5-4.5 Ai-S.
-
Well, mine was as "good enough" as the 24-120... ;)
(https://live.staticflickr.com/1474/26171544383_b837b60e47_c.jpg)
Df and 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5 at 85mm f/5.6
-
I'm perfectly happy with this lens. Hereunder a link to a full resolution picture taken with this lens on a D850:
https://mfloyd.prodibi.com/a/2x9y7yxg9w89r8/i/lvvqd0d5rx1go46
click to open; further click to enlarge up to 100%
little distortion; fine details in the edges
-
I'm perfectly happy with this lens. Hereunder a link to a full resolution picture taken with this lens on a D850:
little distortion; fine details in the edges
From 16Mp to 40+Mp, I guess it depends on whether we get a "good one" or not :o But I didn't think this little zoom would "hold" with the D850 ! Nice shot 8)
-
I'm perfectly happy with this lens. Hereunder a link to a full resolution picture taken with this lens on a D850:
https://mfloyd.prodibi.com/a/2x9y7yxg9w89r8/i/lvvqd0d5rx1go46
click to open; further click to enlarge up to 100%
little distortion; fine details in the edges
Was that shot wide open? Every lens looks good at f/8, and the model under discussion looks good at f/5.6. I do see some jitteriness at the very edges of the group of people in the photo. Not that I'd complain about that! What I don't love is when a modern lens like the 24-85mm VR isn't sharp wide open. I have a cheap-as-chips AF-P 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6, which when used in DX mode on my camera outperforms the 24-85mm.
-
This one is at the max f stop... f/4.5 for 85mm
(https://live.staticflickr.com/5572/14240986493_d0326e4913_b.jpg)
-
As this one, if the portrait might be too near, a "landscape" variant on the Df at f/4.5 at 85mm...
Seems "good enough" at least for me ;)
(https://live.staticflickr.com/309/32824063262_3b2f23def5_b.jpg)
-
Was that shot wide open? Every lens looks good at f/8, and the model under discussion looks good at f/5.6. I do see some jitteriness at the very edges of the group of people in the photo. Not that I'd complain about that! What I don't love is when a modern lens like the 24-85mm VR isn't sharp wide open. I have a cheap-as-chips AF-P 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6, which when used in DX mode on my camera outperforms the 24-85mm.
Sure. I can show you many pictures with this lens which are of excellent quality. It also depends what you are photographing: in most cases, from 50mm and downwards, I favor a comfortable DOF. So, maximum opening is rarely the case. In fact, I need this lens from 35mm to 70mm. For the time being, investing €2’000
In a 24-70mm is not my first choice.
And the statement “at f/8 all lenses are good”: not sure.
-
Is not part of the art of "learning" a lower priced optic is to find out which of its aperture settings it performs well at and to accept that it may perform well at fewer apertures than its higher grade counterparts?
The late Galen Rowell often used lower priced optics (on account of weight considerations when travelling long distances on foot) and as a trade off he restricted their use to those apertures and focus settings that he had previously determined they performed well at.
-
As this one, if the portrait might be too near, a "landscape" variant on the Df at f/4.5 at 85mm...
Seems "good enough" at least for me ;)
I'd be happy to agree with you, but the tiny downsampled photos you're attaching don't provide good evidence to back up your words! Let's see them in full resolution.
-
Is not part of the art of "learning" a lower priced optic is to find out which of its aperture settings it performs well at and to accept that it may perform well at fewer apertures than its higher grade counterparts?
The late Galen Rowell often used lower priced optics (on account of weight considerations when travelling long distances on foot) and as a trade off he restricted their use to those apertures and focus settings that he had previously determined they performed well at.
Quite right. Consumer lenses (which are almost the only kind I use) always force one to accept compromises and to find how to minimize their flaws. I suspect I'm prejudiced against this one because of the initial bad impression the first copy left on me.
-
One, wide open; taken by a friend, but with my gear:
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/46799024175_e6315d14a0_h.jpg)
Nikon D5
Nikkor 24.0-85.0 mm f/3.5-4.5
ƒ/3.5 24.0 mm 1/3200s ISO 100
-
One, wide open; taken by a friend, but with my gear:
Nikon D5
Nikkor 24.0-85.0 mm f/3.5-4.5
ƒ/3.5 24.0 mm 1/3200s ISO 100
Thanks. That's better, but it's still just 1600 x 1280, which is 2 MP. Also, your friend applied heavy sharpening, thus obliterating the genuine resolution of the lens.
There's just no satisfying some people (me). It's okay. :)
-
Oh well... You'll have to believe me, after all, I don't really care 8) As most here, we aren't really pixels peepers, but try to have fun with our cameras and lenses whether in pro or leisure situations :)
-
Thanks. That's better, but it's still just 1600 x 1280, which is 2 MP. Also, your friend applied heavy sharpening, thus obliterating the genuine resolution of the lens.
There's just no satisfying some people (me). It's okay. :)
I did the post-processing; as far as I recall, I didn’t apply any sharpening, but I will double check, and I will also post a full resolution link.
-
Voilà, 0 sharpening applied but some micro-contrast added:
https://mfloyd.prodibi.com/a/2x9y7yxg9w89r8/i/6y448e1ojerom6q
click to open, re-click to enlarge
-
Voilà, 0 sharpening applied but some micro-contrast added:
click to open, re-click to enlarge
Very nice! I can find no fault with this image. Your lens acquitted itself admirably.
Perhaps mine was a bad copy.
-
You might want to try the 24 to 85 3.5 G non-VR zoom the older copy. Bjorn rated at 3.5 a 24 mm and 5 at 85 mm. It's a lot smaller than the VR version and I own one and it's my main lens on my D 700. Thom Hogan also said it was his main lens for many years, and I know you can purchase them for less than $200 on eBay. Regards Gerry
-
Very nice! I can find no fault with this image. Your lens acquited itself admirably.
Perhaps mine was a bad copy.
You are welcome :)
-
You might want to try the 24 to 85 3.5 G non-VR zoom the older copy. Bjorn rated at 3.5 a 24 mm and 5 at 85 mm. It's a lot smaller than the VR version and I own one and it's my main lens on my D 700. Thom Hogan also said it was his main lens for many years, and I know you can purchase them for less than $200 on eBay. Regards Gerry
I've considered buying that lens a few times; never pulled the trigger. It's weird that Nikon discontinued it before introducing the VR version. I wonder why they did that. I'll consider the lens again.
-
I've considered buying that lens a few times; never pulled the trigger. It's weird that Nikon discontinued it before introducing the VR version. I wonder why they did that. I'll consider the lens again.
Nikon brought out the 24-120 VR lens and I think it killed the sales of the 24-85. A bigger zoom range and VR made the old lens less desirable even though it was (I think)a better lens.
-
I've considered buying that lens a few times; never pulled the trigger. It's weird that Nikon discontinued it before introducing the VR version. I wonder why they did that. I'll consider the lens again.
Nikon brought out the 24-120 VR lens and I think it killed the sales of the 24-85. A bigger zoom range and VR made the old lens less desirable even though it was (I think)a better lens.