squeaky zoom on 24-85mm VR

[Hugh_3170]

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.

[Chulster]

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.

[Chulster]

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.

[MFloyd]

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

[Chulster]

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. 

[Jacques Pochoy]

Oh well... You'll have to believe me, after all, I don't really care  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 

[MFloyd]

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.

[MFloyd]

Voilà, 0 sharpening applied but some micro-contrast added:

https://mfloyd.prodibi.com/a/2x9y7yxg9w89r8/i/6y448e1ojerom6q
click to open, re-click to enlarge

[Chulster]

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.

[Gerhard2006]

 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

[MFloyd]

Very nice! I can find no fault with this image. Your lens acquited itself admirably.

Perhaps mine was a bad copy.

You are welcome 

[Chulster]

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.

[Gerhard2006]

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.

[Gerhard2006]

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.