flyboy61 Loc: The Great American Desert

I got bored, and ran a test against my decades-old 50 mm f/1.8D... all handheld, illuminated by my SB 400.
The 50 outperformed the 24-85 by a skosh, mostly edges, but not by all that much!
EXCELLENTLY sharp lens, fully the equal of my 16-80 2.8-4 lens! BUT! da ooold 50 is still the Champeen👍as expected, but not as versatile, having a 75 mm equivalent view on my 2 DX cameras.
That's why I have a dollar bill (I'm cheap) and a B&H resolution chart taped to my wall, with a pair of Altoids boxes. plus a front-back focus thingie on my shelves!😎 They do come in handy once in a great while!

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

You know the Everything bagels from CostCo? The local store sells two sleeves for the price of one. I toasted one this morning for breakfast, with a bit of Irish butter and a smear of whipped Philly cream cheese.

bikinkawboy Loc: north central Missouri

Some of those old lenses are pretty darn good. Makes me think the science of optics was pretty well figured out years ago. Now it’s just how to make zooms perform as well as primes, making them lighter and less expensive.

I suspect the science of bagel making was pretty well figured out years ago as well. Now it’s just a matter of finding new stuff to slather on top of them, making the caloric and gluten count lighter and making them cheap enough for the masses to afford.

Orphoto Loc: Oregon

Very believable. I use the 24-85 as my convenience lens on a d850. Considerably crisper than the more popular 24-120 f4.

billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont

Home made lens tests are not a true indicator of a lens performance. Most modern lenses in the hands of a capable photographer will result in an excellent image.

BebuLamar

I have the 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5 first version withou VR. It's reasonably sharp but has significant distortion.

camerapapi Loc: Miami, Fl.

Let me put this in perspective for you. When you buy a zoom lens you are buying convenience. A zoom has a complex optical design where the manufacturer has to make certain compromises to achieve the best resolution of each focal length. Today zooms are better than ever and the quality of professional zooms are just superb.

A single focal length lens requires less compromises during the formulation of its optical formula. They tend to be better optically than a zoom but many times they are not convenient, at least not as convenient as a zoom. A zoom could be the difference between making the image or loosing the opportunity to make it. All 50mm lenses are among the best optics because they offer a minimal to non existent amount of distortions and they are all sharp. Your 24-85 f3.5-4.5 VR zoom is an excellent lens with pretty sharp resolution and in my case it has served me well, even for my usual 12x18 inch enlargements.

My 50mm Nikon lens is the old 50mm f1.4 S (single coated) of the 70's. It is very sharp but lacking multi-coating I need to watch for flare and ghosting images when shooting against a strong source of light. I bet you do not have those problems with your D lens.

camerapapi Loc: Miami, Fl.

Addendum: I forgot to mention that I have not used a lens that failed to do its job when I did mine.

bikinkawboy Loc: north central Missouri

I agree yet I disagree. I have a Nikon 70-300 1:4-5.6 that I got as a package deal that included a low shutter count D80 (<4500). On the D80 I was really disappointed with the lack of sharpness and I figured it was the lens. However, it is quite sharp on my D800, D7000 and even my D5100 and old D40, although they had to be focused manually.

So I figured maybe the auto focus on the D80 was out of calibration so I set up a tripod in the house and used multiple cameras and multiple lenses at different f stops and ISOs to photograph different objects at different distances. The result was that the D80 focuses sharply with all my other normal, wide angle and zoom lenses, with sharpness that is comparable to the other bodies. Except on the 70-300, which much less sharp on the D80 than on any other bodies.

So no I couldn’t use my findings to rate all 70-300’s, but the lens I own doesn’t like the D80 nor does the D80 I own like that lens. Other bodies like the 70-300 and that particular lens likes other bodies, just not the D80.

I figure there’s nothing at all wrong with making side by side comparisons under similar conditions with one’s bodies and lenses. I’m glad I did.

Spirit Vision Photography Loc: Behind a Camera.

You think so? Have you compared them? I’m not doubting you. I just picked up the 24-85, and the few images I made with it look good. I haven’t compared them to my 24-120 snaps yet. 🤔

Orphoto Loc: Oregon

Yes, i have both. The 24-120 has been retired for about 3 years now, courtesy of the other, and i keep meaning to sell it.

JD750 Loc: SoCal

😋

flyboy61 Loc: The Great American Desert

flyboy61 Loc: The Great American Desert

I am of the old school, where a wildlife photog opined If I'm gonna use it on fur, I test it on fur...once. Not being locked in to any sort of photo genre, a test at reasonable using distance suffices. Then, using the best technique I can come up with at the time,I shoot.
Saves a lot of drama and discontent, it does!

User ID

Same here. Maybe Im a little more varied and thorough than you, but not by much, and NO useless geeky "lab test" stuff for me.

OTOH those "nobody really shoots brick walls" retorts are simply NOT true. See pix below. Yes some walls have no bricks, but they have other things :-)

(Download)


(Download)


(Download)


(Download)


(Download)


(Download)