Nikon 24-85mm VR Lens Review

[@asterixx6878]

Probably one of the most underrated lenses out there. It's just as good (or better) than the Tamron 24-70 and the Sigma 24-105 f4. I've had all of them.

[@TheCatnipCinema]

I don't like Tamron or Sigma. The lenses I've had from them have all been horrible.

[@Jessehermansonphotography]

So you review the lens without actually reviewing it?! Sounds like Art of the Images channel. This is more than a "kit lens". It is incredibly sharp and if Variable aperture is the ONLY disqualifying aspect then the softness of the 24-70 lenses should disqualify them as well.

[@polmacdhomhnaill3021]

Don't let this video put you off buying this lens. I've shot landscape and the portrait images at 1:1 the eye lashes are pin sharp every time. The two issue I've had was, I found a tiny piece of grass grain no thicker than a pin prick behind front lens, the other was if your lay on the floor when taking landscape, there's a build up of fine dust and grass grains outer casing when zooming lens in and out.

[@echolynfan9118]

I've been shooting for 30+ years and 10 years of that pro and recently purchased this lens for my Nikon D800 specifically for a walk-a-round lens. It is indeed a kit lens but it's also Nikon ED glass and while of course not as good as a prime lens or a $2000 equivalent - it DOES take very very sharp images with outstanding color and contrast. Barrel distortion is a bit high but corrected in camera with distortion control and also easily fixed in Lightroom/Photoshop. Kit lenses in the past used to be pretty bad and I believe they still carry this stigma today but that's not the case with this lens - you can't beat it for the money. Also - anyone saying this lens is not sharp or is junk has NOT used it. I was really impressed with the results I've been getting and I'm very critical about my images.

[@latinoladino1048]

echolynfan cool thanks for the info

[@Jrome719]

echolynfan 2018, wow- just bought it from Nikon/USA refurb. It is an extremely solid and sharp lens. I rig this with my D750 when I travel. My pro setup is the D750 w/ the grip. When traveling, the pro 2.8 glass is too heavy, and a pain when dealing with TSA. #airlinetravelisapainforvactionerenthusiast

[@smeerdsn]

Before I read the comments, I wasn't so sure about the lens. But then again, that's why research is key. I've heard alot about some pros STILL using "kit lenses" like this that actually have images that sell with said kit lenses. Like others have said before, it's not the camera, it's the person behind it.

[@johnjackson8975]

If you can’t afford a 24-70 then this lens is for you. I own it. I love it. It is a great lens. Very very sharp.

[@philismint88]

Is the autofocus as slow as Jared says it is? It sounds like exactly what I need, except it needs to have fast focus (for high volume nursery photography), so Jared's review has thrown me off a bit.

[@suzannewalker2320]

I recently acquired this lens. Though it is not as sharp as my 24-120 f/4 glass, it delivers quality results. And the auto-focus is pretty quick. I don’t know why he said it slow in focusing. 🤔

[@caribeno188]

Interesting, Jared does not seem to give it a high score but every other review I have seen says it is amazing, particularly in the "sharpness" department !! The "Angry Photographer" recommends it as one of Nikon's sharpest lenses. By the way, this lens refurbished by the manufacturer is about 325 bucks . NOW, THAT IS A BARGAIN !!!! and if it is as good as the other reviews, is definitively the way to go. I am seriously considering getting one. Would love to get feedback from people that have tried it out !!! Thanks !!

[@floex831]

Angry's reviews haven't failed me yet. Every lens he's said is sharp, is indeed sharp, the ones I've gotten anyway. And yes I pixel peep when checking sharpness on every new lens I get.

[@Jessehermansonphotography]

Alfio Lora the lens is amazing. Sharper than any of the 24-70

[@fourth1000]

exactly! I'm hearing this is the sharpest lens nikon has made or shapest zoom.

[@burntvirtue]

fourth1000 This lens is Nikon's absolute sharpest mid-range zoom lens.

[@polmacdhomhnaill3021]

I bought this after watch Angey's video and in 2019 its around 220£. On the D800E I'm getting sharp images and printing them off at A0 and above.

[@froknowsphoto]

which ever camera you use will give you the best pictures as long as you know your settings.

[@chuckmac3994]

"It's a lens, your going to capture images with it" - insightful as ever my man.

[@echt114]

@chuck mac: "Insightful"? maybe if you're really stupid.

[@SQV66]

My D3 wears this lens like an old worm in pair of Jordan’s. The images are as sharp as one of my Japanese gyutos after I have ran them across 5 whet stones for a keen edge, prior to cleaning the days catch for dinner service.

[@nickgoodwood4812]

Making people new to photography beating their wallet, because " I would not put this lens on any current full frame camera on the market. The reason being is this is not a pro lens ". I got it, thanks for this excellent review. You know I bought it for 169 euro for my D700 because 24mm has always been my most used wide angle focal point, and this lens just delivers. With a real VR at 70-85mm. Have you ever seen a 24-85 mm lens without distortion at this price? And taking in that my D700 gives 90% of real view in the viewfinder and so perspective correction is just one click in Nikon Capture NX-D? Thank you for reminding me not to subscribe to your channel.

[@dct124]

This lens is sharper and smaller than the 24-70 2.8; not saying it's better. You basically are paying at this time $1,300 more used to have 1.3 stops (speed) more light, slightly faster autofocus within milli seconds and slightly more background separation; bokeh at 2.8 vs 3.5 or 4.5

[@froknowsphoto]

The t-shirts are printed in the US but it is wherever hanes manufactures their t-shirts. I buy form a local distributor and use a local mom and pop shop to print.

[@TRAVELWP]

I use this lens on my D500 and love it. Despite commets from Fro, I find the lens to be fast focus !

[@froknowsphoto]

At what point was I not honest about the fact I would never buy this lens? Please read the description as well to see what else I ripped on.

[@harleyrider9166]

Thumbs down on this one fro, only because this lens is very sharp contrary to your comments. I'm not a 2.8 snob so I don't care about the 24-70 2.8, but I do know this lens is very sharp and produces wonderful images....even for pros.

[@TheGamer1998pro]

Do you have any photos taken with it? I'm planning to buy it this week

[@n1k1george]

Good call: I dropped $1900 for the 24-70 F/2.8G (non VR) and after shooting with it for 2+ years, I am ready to ditch it. Tripod mounted shots at F/11 still looks mushy and lacking in contrast. I mainly shoot landscapes and nature so I won't even miss the 2.8 aperture. On the other hand, the 70-200 F/4G which I bought at the same time has been a pleasant surprise! No one mentions that lens but it turned out to be a real winner.

[@gasbike100mpg]

got this lens in 2022 on the cheap from ebay (around 200$), great for traveling, very sharp, color and contrast very good, no problems with autofocus for casual shooting.

[@nuke63]

I guess I'm curious what fro's definition of "professional photographer" or "pro glass." A pro photographer is someone who makes a living or makes money selling photographers. Smells like an 18-55? Why wouldn't he put in on a D800? I think this is BS and "smells" like he wants us to buy a D810 and 24-70 f2.8 so we can call ourselves pros.

[@floex831]

I find the term Professional misconstrued. Professional does NOT mean good photos. I know plenty of local photographers which produce subpar work and yes they make a living at photography, hence, they are professionals.

[@floex831]

***** All honesty, I don't like this lens, my AF-S DX 18-70mm ƒ/3.5-4.5 is sharper, based on results I have gotten on my camera.

[@fbekker1838]

​@@floex831You use a DX lens on an FX camera?

[@dnyanesh.sawant]

Would it be worth buying this lens now to use it with a d850 as compared to buying a used 24-70 2.8 (non vr) ?

[@froknowsphoto]

i have no idea what that is. I try and read and answer as many e mails as possible but there are hundreds a week.

[@froknowsphoto]

I answer a TON of question via e mail privately not in public as well as on facebook. Also its 12:51 on a friday night.

[@nerwin]

I bought this lens for $300 used on eBay and I'm pretty happy with it on DX. It has the most common range that I use. Sure..I miss my 17-55 2.8, but its too heavy and too big for what I needed at the time. I also plan on switching to full frame soon and I wanted to get the most I could out of my 17-55 2.8 to put toward FX body. Its not a bad lens at all, its pretty tack sharp..sure the focus is slow..but so be it..its not a pro lens.

[@TyCrawford]

Its also cool if anyone still shoots film. I just bought an old 24-120mm for a single carry around lens and it works pretty well. Also, I feel like the industry over the next few years will start to integrate more and more FX sensors into lower level cameras, making a VR kit in this focal length something that will one day be super practical.

[@ramanmono]

I'm from the future, it will be used mainly with the D600 and updated D610. Yup, Yup

[@johngalt9262]

I read multiple reviews on this lens before I bought it. This IS a good lens. I'm also using it on a D600 for walkabout (Nikon serviced, so it's basically now a 610)

[@smeerdsn]

Funny thing is, I'm actually looking at a couple of these lenses on eBay and I shoot with a D600 🤣

[@SyntheticFuture]

Don't know about the quality, just wanted to say that raw is nothing like jpeg. Raw gives you load of editing options after the shot is taken and that makes it a superior format in any case. Also, when would you need the extra 4MP other then cropping, as Jared has said before, 12MP is enough to print huge, and for web based it's also plenty large. Just my 5 cents.

[@froknowsphoto]

Your right about the first part of this. People dont know the difference they think the bodies are where its at.

[@Shaikailash1]

Current kit lens for Nikon D610, at around 1700€ in Europe.

[@froknowsphoto]

I tested it with video as well but you will still have the same bowing issues in video as you do with photos.

[@spankbutt123]

Yes! Its excellent on a crop sensor camera such as the D7000 since u dont use the outer portions of the glass. The only problem is that it wont be very wide on a crop sensor.

[@CoffeeStop101]

well yes but in the same way as taking a large photo and then just cropping to just show the middle. Its not an increase in image magnification so much as just blowing up the picture. So often there will be a reduction in quality. if you look at David LLoyd or Andy Rouse or any top wildlife photographers, most use fx cams. above 1600mm you start getting distortion and loss of quality from the air so theres no need of extra magnification.

[@habadashery2009]

I do recall Nikon saying that they were thinking of making a low end full frame. I could be wrong and it may have just been a rumour, but it would make sense given this lens has come out.

[@glennwih]

FD lenses for SLR cameras can be used on EOS bodies. The results are superior to any digital lens in color saturation but there are limits. Under 200mm lenses will give you extremely shallow deepth of fields like 1/2". Even in this case, you can buy a prime Canon FD lens for $20-40 at a garage sale and get beautiful photos! There are many Electronic confirm adapters with and without lenses. Rumors are that China is making a rival to the 1980's Canon original adapter which now costs $1800.

[@Lysander-Spooner]

Thanks for being honest while trying not to piss off the buying paying for the ad!

[@froknowsphoto]

I honestly dont buy the heavy argument. The camera is still going to weigh the same, the difference in weight is going to be nominal. I want the best pictures I can get every time I take pictures.

[@froknowsphoto]

thank you, very good response.

[@byjangel]

it comes with the d600 so youre right when you said that it's to be bundled with a full frame... great prediction...

[@thingsinthelight8789]

I bought this lens to go on my D5200. It was alright and it got me by (I used my 10-24 more than anything) I wasn't sure if I was even going to be fully interested in photography. Now that I have my D810 (as of yesterday) this will be the first lens to be replaced.

[@TropheusJon]

Yes that's true but I think the point of the super zoom is that it's 1 lens for a trip, especially excursions on vacations. Its heavy to bring both 24-70 and 70-200 when going on a day tour hopping on and off busses and walking a lot. Image quality sacrificed for mobility I guess. I don't use it other than travelling by air.

[@Wes2299]

I think you're being too harsh on this lense. People that want to do some snapshots who have FX, but don't want to lug heavy glass would want this. It's a $600 FX lense with VR with a nice focal range and while the aperture is variable it only goes out to 4.5 instead of the typical 5.6. As for DX while it's not as wide as the 18-55 it's still a solid lense for those cameras and they can keep it for later use if they upgrade to FX. This is a budget option compared to the expensive 24-70.

[@froknowsphoto]

its true.

[@stevenj2380]

Got older non VR version used $179. In good light, I like to stopped down some, on a D7500. I have AF-S DX 12-24 f/4 for wider.

[@CoffeeStop101]

no its not unfortunately. I have a 7d and its great but its still not as good as a 5d mkii, iii, 1dmkiv or 1dx. Cropped sensors dont give your lens more magnification they just produce a smaller image which when you veiw it on the screen is more zoomed in. Also the pixels are smaller so it has worse iso performance. I know pros use 7ds, i use one for video, but its pretty much accepted that fullframe cameras are better for wildlife. hope this didnt sound patronizing. Check out my 7d films

[@TheSleve22]

The reason I was asking was because I am looking for a good walk around lens that is not too heavy. I'm not looking to walk around with the 24-70 2.8

[@Clint_the_Audio-Photo_Guy]

3:37 was my favorite. Still can't believe it smells like a kit lens, lol.

[@TheOutdoors84]

.....it is a kit lens

[@Clint_the_Audio-Photo_Guy]

J Gaposchkin That was sarcasm. :)

[@Freepepsi42]

I ended up just looking on pixel peeper. I still like the 17-55, but the 24-120 isn't that bad. If you can try both out in a camera store and just go off what fits your shooting style.

[@dakoolguy111]

If you think this is expensive... and a kit lens... what other lens around the same price range would be a good standard zoom lens?

[@MultigrainPie]

Hey Jared, you might want to fix the end of your video. You say if it says "unsubscribe" then give it a click. Why would you want us to unsubscribe?

[@jimbimedia]

Very presumptuous sounding review. I need someone who is price agnostic and looks at the photos. Very slow AF? I think I will get the lens and play with it.

[@nadeemafzal8984]

nailed it - great review- i bought it for weight carrying and it works fabulous on D750 and Df. some caveats though and recommend use F8 or above at 24mm - which is possible with VR on as i can use shutter 1/15 and get a sharp pic --- and have a 35mm 1.8 FX prime to supplement when need low light ---

[@michaelpoczynek]

Thanks for this video. I think I will opt for the 2.8 24-70mm.

[@Dr_Flankensteinn]

this lens was designed for the "rumored" D600 which will be 24MP FX between $1495 and $1795.

[@froknowsphoto]

I dont think he has seen it yet.

[@donaldwolff]

Thanks, I have been reading about this lens and longing to here what the pros think. Now its off my list.

[@johnbuffum6135]

I bought this lens for my N80 film camera. Imagine! VR on a film camera! The looney thing is, all features WORK, and it takes GREAT pictures!Film bodies require FX lenses. This is an FX lens. I didn't want to spend a bundle on my first VR lens for my film camera, so this was it. The DX lenses will work, but you have to stop them above f/8 to prevent vignetting. Couldn't use my 18-55.Film rocks. You don't just blast away with film, you chooses your shots.Great lens for a starter. We'll see where it goes.

[@satwantmhajan8755]

John Buffum nnn

[@TheScaryfluff]

You got it right there. The d600 just came out with this

[@socc3r7k1ng]

What do you think about the 24-85mm D lens? With a higher shutter speed I won't miss the VR. I know you stated if you had one lens to take with you it would be a 24-70. The 24-85mm 2.8-4 D im looking at looks like a good option for what you were discussing a single lens. I won't spend 1k on a lens just yet.

[@habadashery2009]

Nikon did say they are making an entry level full frame camera to go along with some of their new full frame lenses.

[@daveyan]

A new lens for the rumored FX D600? Still, if you saved $600 already, why not save some more for the 27-70mm 2.8

[@froknowsphoto]

if it says unsubscribe than click the button to subscribe, common sense come on.

[@spencersmat]

35mm primes are really good for crop sensor cameras like the D3100, They are almost equivalent to 50mm on a full frame camera and are great for portraits as they have wide apertures, Either this or a 50mm is a great option as an upgrade from a kit lens. I recently purchased a 50mm 1.4 for my 60D and its a little tighter than id like but still an amazing lens

[@zomifreelancephotographer620]

Sir, i'm into wedding photography. I use nikon d7000. I'm on a tight budget. I want AF S-NIKKOR 24-70mm f2.8 but didn't have that much money for this lens. So i am planning to buy this AF Zoom-NIKKOR 24-85mm f2.8 lens. Will this lens be good for my wedding photography?

[@cristianfuentes69]

te va a quedar largo, ve por un sigma 17-50mm f2.8 HSM OS

[@infringinator]

"its only $600 bucks" I wish I could say things like that

[@froknowsphoto]

I did the sample images with my d4

[@ebrahemmh]

I read many comments about this lens and how sharp it is. But why does it score low in dxomark?

[@italianreviewer]

I looked on the Nikon lens chart and I think that such a lens is thought for videomakers (these who don't like to manual focus, of course). In fact the similar, but fastest lenses, don't have VR. The only thing I don't get is why such a lens when it actually exists the 24-120 VR? I really don't get it...

[@xplorer3475]

ok ... so i don't want it for my Nikon D810 which will arrive soon. Now, what 24 - something lense should i get ? only Zeiss ?

[@froknowsphoto]

nikon did not say anything.

[@NicolasLarrea]

love the honesty in this video. Keep up the good work!

[@robjohnston6785]

Well, fast forward and in September of 2023, I purchased the same lens off ebay (EPAY) for $49.00. The front element had one small scratch at the outer edge. The Auto-focus is slow, but who cares?

[@elkawash]

Hi, I am looking for full frame lens in the same range of zoom and price. Do you suggest any better lens ? Cheers,

[@froknowsphoto]

in manual.

[@kymmbop]

i found you on youtube last night and have been watching your videos off and on all day and last night, then i came across the still from this one and thought to myself "myself, that looks like Alan's camera's in levittown but im sure most camera shops look the same" then i clicked on the "edit this raw file 77" video and you said it WAS! ....no questions as of now, just thought it was crazy.... are you from bucks county too?

[@EmotionSideUp]

I've got an older G lens w/out VR $300 bucks used the 28-200mm 3.5-5.6G It's sharp, not PRO sharp; requires a steady hand and good shot disciple; great color and contrast; some distortion but goes away from40-85mm; small and light did I say 200mm? check it out

[@rochat]

Sounds like the perfect kit lens for the budget FF D600 that's suppose to be coming.

[@Ledones]

Thanks man. I've seen the 24-120 f/4. What do you think?

[@Ledones]

I see... That lens here (Brazil) cost some like $3500 (almost the double), and I can't find her here... I'll buy my camera and lens without seeing before... Thanks man, I will read more about these lens (and others) until october... cheers

[@Wes2299]

Yes it does, because there's people out that are enthusiasts that buy full frame cameras and don't work professionally. The ONLY cameras that are $6000 are the flagship cameras, I'm talking to the ones that have the D700 or D7000 and don't want to spend another two grand for a pro lense, this is what the 24-85 is for. When the D600 comes out this is the sort of lense Nikon wants to dish out. You guys are trying way too hard thinking from a pro's perspective, this is for consumers.

[@Freepepsi42]

I have the non-HSM Sigma 24-70. I like it so far. Go to the camera store and try the lenses out for yourself. That's what I say. But the Tamron (24-70) has better glass and IS.

[@josh885]

I think this lens pretty much guarantees the D600 exists, will be below or just at $2000 for the body, and will be announced before Christmas. Otherwise this lens and the timing of it's release doesn't make sense at all. Although personally I think Nikon should have just waited and announced the 24-85 VR with the D600.

[@misteragb7558]

Hey Jared, what do you concider the best ''affordable'' mid-range zoom for dx? I am thinking of the sigma 17-50 but the lens has it's flaws

[@AlmightyUniden]

No offence Jared, but if you're doing video, you're probably not using a Nikon camera. So I don't really know who this lens is for.

[@CaptRB]

Nonsense. I own the 24-85vr, 24-70, 24-120 F4. No one can tell the difference between shots taken with the 24-120 F4 and the 24-85vr. At 85mm the 24-120 is softer. The 24-85vr is matching the 24-70 2.8 in sharpness (more CA and distortion). For an ACTUAL PHOTOGRAPHER, the 24-85vr is a sharp little gem and one of the few light-weight walk-arounds you can buy. It IS a kit lens and it's quite good. I wish the 24-120 F4 were better, but beyond better VR and sealing, they are too close to matter.

[@MattDiffey]

I think it might be worth revisiting it once the D600 is out, depending on its price?

[@Gidenkidenk]

I think that entry-level full frame will be the D600, Jared.

[@raymondchan3587]

iso under 3200 for fx now in 2024 is not a big issue with ai-denoise.

[@LuigiVN]

The man is a professional, he's got a life. Don't pressure him, he's busy creating stuff that you can learn from for free, and he even tries to answer things, don't get all naggy about it.

[@sledgeoc]

My guess is, you pay for the three (!!!) aspherical emenents, which the old one didn´t have.

[@paulreid1369]

Very slow focusing lens what the hell are you talking about I find it fast.

[@Warrior_Resisting_Colonialism]

He didn't even try it, so how would he know? lol. This is pure garbage "review".

[@Ledones]

D7000 + this lens, isn't good? i don't know... I suppose it is...

[@Wes2299]

I respect that, but a lot of people that own a DSLR aren't even professionals and don't want to spend $1700 for the best possible quality. As for weight you're probably right it's probably not a huge difference, but it might for the average consumer, for a pro such as yourself you just deal with it since it's part of the job.

[@fbekker1838]

Jarid and Ken Rockwell = two completely different reviews... Rockwell loved it, claiming it's extremely sharp...

[@tugsoutdoorprod]

well i have one, and use it on a d800 all the time.. well all the time for the 2 weeks iver owned the d800... its an awesome package..

[@talatv6669]

if I have 1000$ what is the sharp lens that I can get for my Nikon d5500? help

[@ubuntumobutu]

All said and done; this could be a lens that can make a Pulitzer winning photo. All this gear talk is just static. In the right hands this lens can be a winner

[@alexcorona]

There's rumors that Nikon is releasing a under 1K full frame, this is helping those rumors. I can see a full frame kit with this lens for $1,500. That's if they ever do it, I hope they do. It will make me switch over from Canon.

[@pinkeye00]

Wait ... this video wasn't without 6x6 and 6x45 film cameras? I was distracted by the Hassies and Mamiyas.

[@enticingimagery]

The 105mm micro VR only has on/off for macro. Ridiculous point there Jared.

[@dollarbill125]

This lens is actually good for the range and price...not everyone can afford pro lenses right off the bat especially if they just dropped a bunch of money on a full frame body...you never know a person's purposes or lens requirements so unless it just performs bad as hell optically it's still good

[@JacobdelaRosa]

Under 1K? That's a bit generous. I'd say $1,500 for the body only and even that's pushing it. Retail with kit lens should be $2,100ish. And while I love the idea of an entry level FX camera, what I really love is the idea of plummeting D700 prices in its wake. Let's face it. The D600 will be decent, but in terms of speed, AF and possibly ISO perfomance (wait and see...maybe it'll be better) the D700 will beat the snot of the D600. Just my two cents.