Nikon 24-85mm AF-S VR thoughts and images

[Ian R]

I was in my local photo shop yesterday and they had one of these fairly recent lenses, as new and boxed, for £210. I don't have a stabilised standard zoom, neither have I used many stabilised Nikkors, so I thought I would try it. I went out with it today and gave it a try. Well it worked well but I'm not 100% convinced. The plus points were good colour and flare resistance, nice to handle and the VR was nice in lower light. On the negative side was not very convincing clarity, I could not help but feel that I was getting point and shoot performance from my SLR. Also the VR, while handy, sometimes made an unsharp photo in a shutter speed range that was fine on the next exposure. I can't complain as the VR is a help, however I did not like the inconsistency so I never knew if my 1/15th exposure would be any good until I reviewed.

The feel of the lens is light but solid. I remember when zoom lenses used to have quite wobbly sections, this lens does not have them. I'm not sure if I will keep it as the photos don't bear too close scrutiny, and having good technical quality is half the reason for me in taking an SLR. Maybe the classic Nikkor primes have spoiled me, I don't know.

Anyway, here are three photos I took at the Roman wall in St Albans. They look decent enough, and the zoom was a help with the framing. Does anyone else have this lens in their arsenal? How do you find it?

[Bjørn Rørslett]

The 24-85 AFS VR was never considered to be amongst the best of the middle class Nikkors. Its longer brother, 24-120 (first version) received even more lukewarm reception.

Judged by your posted samples, your copy of the 24-85 in fact appears to perform better than I would have expected. Try it over a wide range of subjects and learn its strong and weak sides. The focal range is very useful for general, walk-around style of photography.

[Bjørn Rørslett]

(general comment applicable for most zoom models of this kind): do not stop the lens far down. You probably are well beyond peak performance already at f/11.

Only use VR when it is deemed absolutely necessary.

[armando_m]

I have it and think it is a very versatile zoom, on my recent trip to the UK it was the only I had and I did not felt let down .  I think that AF is often faster than VR , if you shoot before vr has settled the shot will not be sharp (that is my theory ).  At that price I think is really worth it.

[tommiejeep]

Armando, I agree with this lens not being the very best but your UK trip and Jacques use of the lens during his trips to Istanbul show that it is a capable lens .    I've tried several lenses on the Df for casual walkabout.  The older 24-85 2.8-4 D, 35-70 2.8D, 28-105 3.5-4.5D , 24-120 f4 vr and the 24-70 2.8G.  I tend to use the 24-120 the most when I have no idea what I will be shooting but the size and weight of the 24-85vr earns the spot in the bag for trips.

Ian, nice images, many years since I've been to St. Albans.
Tom

[simsurace]

I had this lens briefly and used it on D700 and D600 before I sold it. Images from it required a handsome amount of sharpening in order to come to life. I think for the price it is a fair and versatile performer, but I prefer the drawing and haptics of some of the primes I have in this focal length range and therefore it did not get enough use and was sold.

I wouldn't trust the VR in this lens too much -- as you already found out, it does not work all the time and should be seen as a backup solution to salvage a shot or two. If you're using it all the time in low light (e.g. in a forest), save yourself the frustration and crank up the ISO or bring a tripod

[Ian R]

Thank you for the input - appreciated. Thinking back, I perhaps did not take time to allow the VR to settle on each shot. I will be spending some more with this lens to see how I get on, taking note of what was said here. Certainly it is very light and that is a plus.