I have not been disappointed with mine and find it very convenient. If maximum IQ is necessary, I’ll put on one of the f/1.8G primes in the appropriate focal length. The 24-85 is just so handy, light and compact for what it does. Along with the excellent AF-S 18-35mm f/3.5-4.5G, you can have a very versatile two-lens walk-around kit.
nadeem
July 25, 2021 6:25 am
thank you for a great review — i never purchase withour reading your review — really wonderful detailed analysis
for my use i found the 24-70 2.8 (all versions), 28-70 2.8 and 35-70 2.8 unbeatable.
with just on the fly field use, found 24-85 much easier to carry and not much different to 24-120 F4 in practical terms for me which i sold off — my other mid range is a 28-105. I really like that lens. the weight of the 24-120 F4 was a deal breaker for me (and the very reason i dont own the 2.8 lenses as much as i like them)
i dont disagree with your findings but i just am big fan of the 24-85 3.4-4.5 G lenses (i have both VR and non VR versions) over the 24-120 F4
if i really need something special then i either use my 35mm 1.8G or 85mm 1.8G or for a zoom go to my old trustee 17-35 2.8 –
(sold off 28mm 1.8G as found focus ‘shift’ as you mention a huge problem – )
Tim Wheeler
April 25, 2020 4:36 am
Poor Man’s 24-120. I got one of these a couple of years back when I saw a nice used copy for £250 U.K. (a good price then.) I am a fan. I wouldn’t pretend it’s brilliant wide open, but at f6.3-f10 it’s great. I do mainly portraits in home studios and occasionally commercial studios. Although I have 35mm f2D, 50mm 1.8G, 70mm 2.8 macro, & 85mm f1.8G primes, I’ll quite often use the 24-85VR for sheer convenience as it doesn’t fall that far short once stopped-down a bit.
Calvin
December 9, 2019 9:25 am
Nasim, I rented this lens when I had to send my 24-70 to Nikon for repair. I was considering keeping the rental until I read your review. Can you suggest an alternative if I need a backup for my 24-70. Thanks.
Me
November 11, 2019 5:46 pm
Ken Rockwell would beg to differ with your review of this lens. I suggest readers check his review out – yours is biased to the idea that only Nikon’s pro lenses can take quality photos. Such elitist BS.
Nadeem
September 15, 2019 7:22 am
Thank u Naseem Find ur scientific analyses quite representative of real life experience
For me the 24-85 f2.8 -4 comparison was v useful. I have done a U-turn from 24-70 2.8 to smaller lenses however struggled with resolution stopped down
The 24-85 VR is a good lens but I found it over saturating colours (despite tweaking) and weaker wide end certainly not in 24-120 F4 league which remains my reliable workhorse (thanks to u)
I have gone back to 24-85 2.8-4 for informal walk about photos – for me I need the sharper wide end contrary to the VRs sharper long end which I sold off. Don’t think anyone wud vote for that but suites me for my purposes – definitely it’s nothing like pro 2.8 zoom
The discussions here are fantastic too.,.
Keep up the good work
Timmy Wheeler
April 11, 2019 6:41 am
It’s April 2019 and I’ve just bought a 24-85 VR for use on D3x. Why? Because I’m a portait shooter who has only primes – and currently the 35 f2.0D is my widest lens. I’m a cheapskate and (without having actually tried it) my reading suggests a used Nikkor 24mm f2.8D is not fantastic value and the 28mm f2.8D is genrally disliked by reviewers . I’ve just paid £250 for the 24-85 VR used, and I have the option of returning it if I don’t like it. The jury is out currently as I only ordered it this morning. Ps. I was surprised to see so much passionate discussion of the 28-300 in the 24-85mm review – that’s the internet I suppose. I congratulate Nassim for his calm, level-headed tone in his reviews & responses to comments. Tim
AlainFR
January 30, 2018 1:06 am
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
Alain, please do not compare results between lens tests yet, since the numbers are indeed different due to differences in prior testing methodologies. We will be updating all the lens tests with the proper numbers very soon. For now, please refer to comparisons within reviews only.
Seamus McGuilty
January 22, 2018 6:20 am
Great review of the lens, thanks. However, the inclusion of photos was a serious waste of time/space/bandwidth..post processing of images will mask or distort deficiencies or problems that lenses have. A person even reasonably skilled at post processing can make most flawed images look great.
My suggestion? Check your ego “at the door”..show the JPEGs generated at default camera settings.
Seamus
Sean T
December 6, 2016 11:14 am
Thank you Nasim. I don’t know if you see these, but I appreciate your work, and that PL is so easy to search. I just bought a 24-85 VR for my D750, in no small part to this review. Yes yes, it’s not as good as the 24-120, but it’s smaller and the one I found is half the price of even a reasonable used 24-120, so I’m happy. Thank you again!
I know people pooh-pooh the notion of sample variation, but this lens must be the epitome of that phenomenon. The reviews are all over the place with most reviews finding the lens sharper at the wide end than at the long end. They do agree that the lens has weak corners.
I actually pre-ordered the lens in 2012, but found it disappointing. At the time, I was using several primes and a 2-lens zoom combination (14-24, or 18-35G along with a 70-200 f/4). This lens, while very sharp in the center, and quite good for outdoor shooting, just didn’t measure up.
However, recently I find myself coming back to it as a general purpose lens. I just haven’t found any lens that provided a significantly better value. I’ve tried a couple of 24-70mm. The Nikon E was better, but not enough to warrant the high price, and the new Sigma Art has too many flaws to warrant its price. I hear mixed opinions about The 24-120mm (sample variation as well?). From what I gather, it’s better but not substantially better. Hopefully Nikon will release a 24-120 E lens that will meet my needs. Until then I’ll continue my two lens approach (Sigma 24-35 and 70-200) or continue using the 24-85G VR when I want a truly lightweight kit.
I have not been disappointed with mine and find it very convenient. If maximum IQ is necessary, I’ll put on one of the f/1.8G primes in the appropriate focal length. The 24-85 is just so handy, light and compact for what it does. Along with the excellent AF-S 18-35mm f/3.5-4.5G, you can have a very versatile two-lens walk-around kit.
thank you for a great review — i never purchase withour reading your review — really wonderful detailed analysis
for my use i found the 24-70 2.8 (all versions), 28-70 2.8 and 35-70 2.8 unbeatable.
with just on the fly field use, found 24-85 much easier to carry and not much different to 24-120 F4 in practical terms for me which i sold off — my other mid range is a 28-105. I really like that lens. the weight of the 24-120 F4 was a deal breaker for me (and the very reason i dont own the 2.8 lenses as much as i like them)
i dont disagree with your findings but i just am big fan of the 24-85 3.4-4.5 G lenses (i have both VR and non VR versions) over the 24-120 F4
if i really need something special then i either use my 35mm 1.8G or 85mm 1.8G or for a zoom go to my old trustee 17-35 2.8 –
(sold off 28mm 1.8G as found focus ‘shift’ as you mention a huge problem – )
Poor Man’s 24-120. I got one of these a couple of years back when I saw a nice used copy for £250 U.K. (a good price then.) I am a fan. I wouldn’t pretend it’s brilliant wide open, but at f6.3-f10 it’s great. I do mainly portraits in home studios and occasionally commercial studios. Although I have 35mm f2D, 50mm 1.8G, 70mm 2.8 macro, & 85mm f1.8G primes, I’ll quite often use the 24-85VR for sheer convenience as it doesn’t fall that far short once stopped-down a bit.
Nasim, I rented this lens when I had to send my 24-70 to Nikon for repair. I was considering keeping the rental until I read your review. Can you suggest an alternative if I need a backup for my 24-70. Thanks.
Ken Rockwell would beg to differ with your review of this lens. I suggest readers check his review out – yours is biased to the idea that only Nikon’s pro lenses can take quality photos. Such elitist BS.
Thank u Naseem
Find ur scientific analyses quite representative of real life experience
For me the 24-85 f2.8 -4 comparison was v useful. I have done a U-turn from
24-70 2.8 to smaller lenses however struggled with resolution stopped down
The 24-85 VR is a good lens but I found it over saturating colours (despite tweaking) and weaker wide end certainly not in 24-120 F4 league which remains my reliable workhorse (thanks to u)
I have gone back to 24-85 2.8-4 for informal walk about photos – for me I need the sharper wide end contrary to the VRs sharper long end which I sold off. Don’t think anyone wud vote for that but suites me for my purposes – definitely it’s nothing like pro 2.8 zoom
The discussions here are fantastic too.,.
Keep up the good work
It’s April 2019 and I’ve just bought a 24-85 VR for use on D3x.
Why? Because I’m a portait shooter who has only primes – and currently the 35 f2.0D is my widest lens. I’m a cheapskate and (without having actually tried it) my reading suggests a used Nikkor 24mm f2.8D is not fantastic value and the 28mm f2.8D is genrally disliked by reviewers . I’ve just paid £250 for the 24-85 VR used, and I have the option of returning it if I don’t like it. The jury is out currently as I only ordered it this morning.
Ps. I was surprised to see so much passionate discussion of the 28-300 in the 24-85mm review – that’s the internet I suppose.
I congratulate Nassim for his calm, level-headed tone in his reviews & responses to comments.
Tim
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
Alain, please do not compare results between lens tests yet, since the numbers are indeed different due to differences in prior testing methodologies. We will be updating all the lens tests with the proper numbers very soon. For now, please refer to comparisons within reviews only.
Great review of the lens, thanks. However, the inclusion of photos was a serious waste of time/space/bandwidth..post processing of images will mask or distort deficiencies or problems that lenses have. A person even reasonably skilled at post processing can make most flawed images look great.
My suggestion? Check your ego “at the door”..show the JPEGs generated at default camera settings.
Seamus
Thank you Nasim. I don’t know if you see these, but I appreciate your work, and that PL is so easy to search. I just bought a 24-85 VR for my D750, in no small part to this review. Yes yes, it’s not as good as the 24-120, but it’s smaller and the one I found is half the price of even a reasonable used 24-120, so I’m happy. Thank you again!
I know people pooh-pooh the notion of sample variation, but this lens must be the epitome of that phenomenon. The reviews are all over the place with most reviews finding the lens sharper at the wide end than at the long end. They do agree that the lens has weak corners.
I actually pre-ordered the lens in 2012, but found it disappointing. At the time, I was using several primes and a 2-lens zoom combination (14-24, or 18-35G along with a 70-200 f/4). This lens, while very sharp in the center, and quite good for outdoor shooting, just didn’t measure up.
However, recently I find myself coming back to it as a general purpose lens. I just haven’t found any lens that provided a significantly better value. I’ve tried a couple of 24-70mm. The Nikon E was better, but not enough to warrant the high price, and the new Sigma Art has too many flaws to warrant its price. I hear mixed opinions about The 24-120mm (sample variation as well?). From what I gather, it’s better but not substantially better. Hopefully Nikon will release a 24-120 E lens that will meet my needs. Until then I’ll continue my two lens approach (Sigma 24-35 and 70-200) or continue using the 24-85G VR when I want a truly lightweight kit.
So, I’m holding on