Nikon AF-S Nikkor 24-85 f/3.5-4.5G ED VR vs. Nikon AF 24-85 f/2.8-4D IF: Can anyone who has had experience with both of these lenses give me their opinion how they compare. Looking for...

MakuaMan Loc: Waianae, Hi.

Can anyone who has had experience with both of these lenses give me their opinion how they compare. Looking for a quality FX wide angle zoom.

One is $496.95 and the 2.8-4 is $741.95 at B&H. The latter can be found on EBay for $375.00 or so in great condition.

I really like the macro ability of the 2.8-4 for a walk around lens but also like VR.

Just wondering?.

Aloha M.M.

chase4 Loc: Punta Corona, California

Yep, I own the 2.8 D and my son owns the 3.5 G and I've used both on my D610 and here's what I'll tell you:

Physical size is the same, weight: the D is about 3 oz more due to quality of build, D is made in Japan, G is made elsewhere
D is slightly faster (about 0.6 f stop) and can focus much closer,
D to 0.7 ft (half lifesize) and G to 1.25 ft. (I like and use this feature)
D has no VR and G does (not important to me at these focal lengths)
My opinion about IQ - both are about the same from my photos taken (no serious test performed by me to determine any differences)
My conclusion: based on the macro and lens speed which fit my use, I'd pick the D. If price were an important issue for you then I'm sure you'd be happy with the G.
Good luck and happy shooting. chase

MakuaMan Loc: Waianae, Hi.

chase4 wrote:

Yep, I own the 2.8 D and my son owns the 3.5 G and... (show quote)

Mahalo chase4,

I was thinking the same about what was most important to me. Mostly a quality walk around lens with macro as I only want two lenses and have the 80-400D 4.5-5.6 which gives me 120-600mm on my D7000.

Would also be looking for a D600, D610 or D750 for a FX body at some point for the 24-85mm.

Anyway good to hear from someone who has used both on a FX body.

Aloha M.M.

OviedoPhotos

I own the 2.8-4 version. I did try the less expensive one but having the macro capability was important to me.

RKL349 Loc: Connecticut

MakuaMan wrote:

Can anyone who has had experience with both of these lenses give me their opinion how they compare. Looking for a quality FX wide angle zoom.

One is $496.95 and the 2.8-4 is $741.95 at B&H. The latter can be found on EBay for $375.00 or so in great condition.

I really like the macro ability of the 2.8-4 for a walk around lens but also like VR.

Just wondering?.

Aloha M.M.

Some times Nikon USA has both in stock as refurbished units. If you can do without the VR, the 2.8-4 may be the better choice. I owned a 3.5-4.5 but sold it when I acquired a 24-120 mm f/4, which I wanted for more reach. I did like the IQ of the 3.5-4.5 and wanted the VR feature which is why I selected it when I got my D610.

MakuaMan Loc: Waianae, Hi.

OviedoPhotos wrote:

I own the 2.8-4 version. I did try the less expensive one but having the macro capability was important to me.

As it is to me also.

Mahalo M.M.

MakuaMan Loc: Waianae, Hi.

RKL349 wrote:

Some times Nikon USA has both in stock as refurbished units. If you can do without the VR, the 2.8-4 may be the better choice. I owned a 3.5-4.5 but sold it when I acquired a 24-120 mm f/4, which I wanted for more reach. I did like the IQ of the 3.5-4.5 and wanted the VR feature which is why I selected it when I got my D610.

Mahalo,

I really like VR but at a maximum 85mm it really isn't as important as the macro capability to me. My future plan is to have the 24-85 on a D600 as I can't afford more and the 80-400 on the D7000 which gives me 600mm and never change lenses just cameras.

Mahalo for your opinion. M.M.

RKL349 Loc: Connecticut

MakuaMan wrote:

Mahalo,

I really like VR but at a maximum 85mm it really isn't as important as the macro capability to me. My future plan is to have the 24-85 on a D600 as I can't afford more and the 80-400 on the D7000 which gives me 600mm and never change lenses just cameras.

Mahalo for your opinion. M.M.

:thumbup: