Review on Nikon NIKKOR 24 85Mm 2 8 4D Cameras by Mia England

, I bought this lens a few years ago to replace the 18-105 kit lens that was paired with my D90. I started to do a lot of figure skating and wanted something that worked a little faster but wasn't expensive. Back then I had some old cheap Nikkor lenses from my FM2 and N70 days and really didn't want to go down the Tam/Tok/Sig route so I settled on this 24-85. I have used the lens extensively (and continue to use it), but I have to say that while the lens can perform very well, I have never been thrilled with its use. Here are the pros and cons as I experienced them: Pros: - The lens is designed for FX. Although I currently shoot in DX, I typically buy FX lenses with the expectation of switching to FX when prices get closer to my reach. The range of focal lengths, apertures and focal lengths supported by this lens is very useful, be it DX or FX. Even on my D90, the 24mm lens suffices for most of my shots, and the 85mm lens offers at least a slight improvement at the long end over 24-70mm lenses. gave me very good results. The focus range is acceptably short, colors are crisp and images are very sharp. [I only used macro photography in good light; important caveat. Another caveat is that in macro photography I tend to only use manual focus. The ergonomics of the lens design is quite good. Build quality is solid, controls are smooth and comfortable to hold - much better than the 24-120mm F4 (previous generation) I rented. The price is significantly better than the 24-70mm F2.8 for my price range. Cons: The D90's autofocus performance isn't impressive. My Tamron 70-300mm VC F4-5.6 and 50mm F1.8D seems faster and more accurate (quality feedback is hit and miss based, I haven't tried to quantify this), and only 28mm F2.8D keeps getting more"missed" of the autofocus. As mentioned, I often shoot on ice rinks - poor general lighting, lots of reflections and some tricky dynamic range. I'm sure this makes my problems worse, but I would like to reiterate that I have other lenses that perform more reliably in these conditions. Autofocus speed is a bit disappointing - perhaps the reason for some of the "failures" above. A non-VR lens is par for the course for its time, but there are now attractive VR (or equivalent) options and it would be nice to have that kind of flexibility. I doubt this will even be a problem for FX users. A few important considerations: Some of the other views talk about the micro focus setting. Since the lens doesn't overshoot all the time, I'm not sure the microfocus setting is the answer. My experience tells me it's more of a matter of autofocus consistency. There is no such function on the D90, so the question is moot for me. However, D300/D300S, D700, D7000/7100, D800/800E and D600 users have this option. The autofocus on my D90 doesn't match the systems in the D300, D7xxx or the latest FX bodies. Given that the autofocus performance is a major disappointment to me, I'd be curious if these bodies would perform better with this lens. Since buying both the D90 and this lens, my skills and usage have changed a lot. It is worth considering that I bought this lens at the wrong time and might have been more impressed if I had started using it sooner. If I had bought it a year later, I would have needed a fixed maximum aperture of F2.8. Summary Thoughts: In general this lens is certainly not bad and in many ways very good. It's very functional and affordable, and while I like the functional choice of this lens, I just don't like the overall experience of using it. If I were to buy another lens in this range I would be strongly tempted to buy another lens instead, hoping for something more. Despite being twice the price of the 24-85mm F2.8-4, I would most likely buy the Tamrom 24-70mm F2.8 VC or the Nikon 24-120mm F4 VRII. Both support FX and offer enough extras to be the best in my opinion. The Tamron is a truly remarkable lens, combining the convenience of a fixed f/2.8 maximum aperture with Tamron's excellent VC system, while the latter offers Nikon's VR-II and enough extra range at the long end to make it stand out (and maybe it is worth a try). lens that seemed problematic in its previous iterations).