How does this lens compare to the 24-85mm?
448718
I've owned both lenses, and in my opinion for use with FX cameras the AF-S 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5G ED VR lens is a better lens than the old 24-120mm f/3/5-5.6G. The 24-85G is sharper, especially at the edges; it's lighter; and its VR function works better. Of course, you give up the extra range, but I've found that 85mm is adequate for most general photography.
448719
i dont have the 24 85mm to truly give you a comparison. but according to a few reviews and test i saw the 24 85mm has a slightly better sharpness wile the 24 to 120 has more focal length. so it depends on what you are going to be shooting and what you want to pay for your lens.and fyi if you go for a 24 to 120mm i dont reccomend this version of it as its one of nikons worst modern lenses . get the Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-120mm f/4G ED VR its the revised version and supost to be a better lens. or if you really want focal length the 28mm to 300mm hope this helps
1958585
The 24-105 lens is the lens that is on my camera about 80% of the time. For everyday, walk around use, I think it is a great lens.
92186
Hello, other than 4mm in the zoom and the nano coating on the 24-70, nothing. If u wanna get technical they are completely different parts internally but they perform almost identically. I am very familiar with both lenses and they both have their ups and downs however I am seeing a lot of the 24-70's having soft focus issues particularly wide open. This can be repaired and we do have access to fix this problem it is a hassle. The 28-70 does not have this problem. The 28-70's major flaw is the squeaky AF. But this is a easy fix. Personally I would save the money and get the 28-70.
2252079
No. I have an old manual focus AI 35-105 and it is noticably sharper and contrasty compared to my 24-120. It is a good general lens but I still favour fixed focal over this zoom.
219910
Its a great lens but obviously very different from the 10-18mm f4. I use the 24mm Zeiss almost exclusively indoors because it gets me to an equivalent focal length close to 35mm and helps with low light because of the wide 1.8 aperture. It also gets the nice shallow depth of field with that wide aperture and nice bokeh. I would love to own the 10-18 f4 but it would really be for a totally different purpose - super wide outdoor landscapes. Also, it's a slower lens with that f4 aperture and won't get a shallow depth of field under really any circumstances.
357732
I think the 24-120 is considerably more usable, and the f2.8 is not really necessary for low light with the D750 sensor. The f2.8 offers shorter Depth of Field, if that's the important thing to you. I have a 24-85mm f2.8-4D (I don't like the G version) that I use for this range on my D800E, mostly. It's a lot smaller and lighter than the 24-120 f4, with similar optical performance. It lacks the 24-120 VR.The 24-70 is by far the largest and heaviest of the lenses I've mentioned, a negative for me.
1716981
This Lens is phenomenal! I also have the 6d and together they are great. Don't waste your money on the 24-70. At first, I was not too sure about the 28-70L , but after Using it at a few events, it is proven to be an awesome lens. My copy is tack sharp and the only difference is 4mm.
579921
It's a better lens. There are video tests on youtube of these two lenses against each other and this lens is considerably sharper. It's sharpness is somewhere between the Canon 85mm 1.8 and the Canon 85mm 1.2 L lens. This is a very powerful lens.
108097
This represents approximately 1/2 stop of light. That may not sound like much but in low light it can make a difference. Also, Nikon doesn't make a 24mm 1.8. the closest is a 28mm 1.8 which is obviously a different focal length. It is a very good lens however. If you don't need the 1.4 and 28mm is an acceptable focal length then go for that as it is much cheaper.
2278162
The 24 is a good all around but I think the 20mm 1.7 would be superior for low light interior shots.
2004640
Which one did you finish up with? I'm interested because you said that you shoot mainly lanscapes, so why would you part with the 17-40mm? If your option had been for the 16-35mm f2.8L, I could have understood the reason, but a 24mm lens on any new camera (assuming it's not a film body, 5D or 1Ds) is only going to give you 31mm (1D) or 38mm (the rest). Not much good for landscape work.BTW, the 24-70mm eats the 24-105mm alive when it comes to contrast and sharpness, IS or not!
385957
I really enjoyed my Sigma 30mm, but the 24L is something different. $1100 is worth different things to different people. I found it to be a better focal length on a crop sensor (7D) for general indoor low light shooting.
794545
I'd always prefer a more extreme wide angle... So the 24mm is my favourite. The f/1.4 aperture is all the more glorious when the angle is wider.
1864064
The 24-105mm will absolutely kill anything you can get out of the 28-135. It's not just about sharpness - which will improve in the 24-105. It's also the contrast and the colour rendition. Believe me its chalk and cheese. Having said that, the 24-105 L IS is still not in the same class as either of Canon's L 70 - 200's either f4 or 2.8. But longer those longer lenses are easier to build. At the long end (200+) Canon rules.
1351158
I used the 55-200mm/4-5.6 lens on my DX format D200 and thought that it was an excellent lens. There are two things that would make me prefer it to the excellent 24-85mm/3.5-5.6 in your case. First, you would probably be using the lens at longer focal lengths, in which case both lenses would be operating at f/4.5 to f/5.6, so there is no advantage to having the 24-85mm in terms of low light capability. Second, the 24-85mm is designed for the FX format, so you'd be paying for a wider field lens than you need on a DX camera.If you ever go to FX format, the 24-85mm/3.5-5.6 is a real jewel to own. I used the 55-200mm/4-5.6 lens on my DX format D200 and thought that it was an excellent lens. There are two things that would make me prefer it to the excellent 24-85mm/3.5-5.6 in your case. First, you would probably be using the lens at longer focal lengths, in which case both lenses would be operating at f/4.5 to f/5.6, so there is no advantage to having the 24-85mm in terms of low light capability. Second, the 24-85mm is designed for the FX format, so you'd be paying for a wider field lens than you need on a DX camera.If you ever go to FX format, the 24-85mm/3.5-5.6 is a... » Read More I used the 55-200mm/4-5.6 lens on my DX format D200 and thought that it was an excellent lens. There are two things that would make me prefer it to the excellent 24-85mm/3.5-5.6 in your case. First, you would probably be using the lens at longer focal lengths, in which case both lenses would be operating at f/4.5 to f/5.6, so there is no advantage to having the 24-85mm in terms of low light capability. Second, the 24-85mm is designed for the FX format, so you'd be paying for a wider field lens than you need on a DX camera.If you ever go to FX format, the 24-85mm/3.5-5.6 is a real jewel to own. « Show Less
1674522
I bought the 24-105 lens recently because I thought the IS would make up for my lack of a higher aperture in low-light situations. It does to an extent, but I have decided that I want the f/2.8 for other reasons. So I'm trying to sell my 24-105 so I can buy the 24-70. I do wish the 24-70 had IS, but it's really not necessary because it's just a faster lens. It really depends on your use. If you are using it for weddings, you may want to consider the 24-70 because of the faster focusing and better handling in low-light situations. If you are using it for a general walk-around lens, the 24-105 will do just fine. I love mine and I almost want to keep it and buy the 24-70, but I can't afford both right now and I need the 24-70 for my business. You can see some sample photos from the 24-105 at my website: www.sarakelley.net. Email me there if you want more input or have any questions.
2052960
I can't talk about the 16-85 DX, but the 24-85 FX is a good lens. It also depends on what camera you use. Note that the 24-85 is a full-frame lens, so if you use it on a DX camera, it will act as a 36-127. The 16-85 is a DX (cropped) lens, so it will act as a 24-127 no matter what camera you use.