Nikkor AF-S24-85mm f/3.5-4.5G
I spent a bit of time playing with this lens today. Here are the results. Firstly, size and weight-wise it's very similar to my Tamron 28-300XR in weight - feels the same in the hand. It's just a bit shorter when neither lens is zoomed. Much shorter when both lenses are zoomed. The lens speed is similar. Focusing is *much* faster with the AF-S lens.
The AF-S has the zoom and focus rings reversed, and that drove me up the wall. It was, however, my first opportunity to really play with an AF-S lens... I'd looked at a 200-400mm before, but that was at a camera show and I couldn't take any shots or really get a feel for it. This one, however, I was able to take a bunch of shots and really play. The focus is tight and fast, and the way the focus ring stays coupled in auto-focus is just a blast to play with.
How did it measure up to the Tamron XR and the Nikkor AF50mm f/1.8D? Here are some shots. All of the shots are taken with the D100 in servo-auto-focus, f/6.3, 1/6s exposure in ambient light, taken in NEF mode with the camera body sitting on the counter of the local F/Stop Camera in Orangeville, Ontario where I was trying the lens. The resulting shots below are details from the shots taken of one of the display cases in the shop. The shots were all adjusted in Nikon Capture for a 3700K colour temperature, which might not be quite right, but it's consistent between all of the shots. After the shots were cropped in PSE2 an unsharp mask was run on them, radius 0.3, amount 310%, same for all images. No other modifications were made. No adjustment of levels or anything like that, no upsizing or downsizing.
* * * Note - It has been suggested that the blur of the AF-S lens was caused by vibration due to my use of the shop counter, rather than a tripod. I'm willing to believe that it's possible that there was vibration only when the AF-S lens was being shot, but not when the Tamron or Nikkor prime was being shot, so in the interest of fair play I will re-do the test tomorrow using my tripod and a cable release. I will leave the existing shots up in the interim for interest's sake, but be advised that new shots will be taken tomorrow and the results could change. * * *
New shots were taken, and they appear at the end. These shots were taken with the camera on a tripod, anti-shock turned on, triggered with a cable release... every reasonable precaution was taken to ensure no camera movement.
Nikkor AF-S at 24mm. Taken in isolation, not too bad.
Tamron AF28-300mm XR at 28mm. I realize this is a 'larger' shot than the other, but these are the pixels as-recorded. The Tamron exposure is a bit more contrasty because it was wearing its Tamron Skylight 1A filter with the slight magenta cast. It's clearly far sharper. Note, particularly, the AF-assist light.
Honestly, I think the Tamron took a far superior shot to the one the AF-S lens took.
Now how does the AF-S lens stack up against the AF50mm f/1.8D?
Same deal as before, but with the AF-S lens zoomed to 50mm. Same aperture as before, same exposure as before.
Obviously a much larger detail due to the tighter zoom. This is the shot the AF-S lens took when zoomed to 50mm. Oh, and I should mention that when you turn the zoom ring to "50" you actually get 50mm... and that's a rare and wonderful thing in my limited experience. Usually they're off by a bit.
And here is the shot taken by the Nikkor AF50mm f/1.8D. MUCH sharper than the AF-S lens. Note the 'S' and 'C' on the AF-mode setting switch. I really wish I'd thought to take a shot with the Tamron at this length... but I didn't. I'll try to remember to take some shots the next time I'm in the shop, if I have my D100 with me.
RE-SHOOT
Due to suggestions of faulty shot-taking, a re-shoot was performed with the camera on a tripod, cable release, anti-shock, you name it.
Here's the new shot at 24mm from the AF-S lens. No sharpening performed.
New shot from the Tamron at 28mm. No sharpening. I think the Tamron still took a cleaner shot.
New shot at 50mm from the AF-S lens. As you can tell from the physical size of these re-shoot details the shots were being taken from farther away.
And finally a shot at 50mm from the Tamron. I didn't re-shoot the 50mm prime at this time. These shots at 50mm are a lot closer to being equal than the last set, but last time the AF-S lens was being compared to the prime, rather than my ~11X Ultra Zoom. I think the Tamron still had the edge at 50mm, though as you can see the Tamron 50mm is shorter than the AF-S lens' 50mm. I'm not sure which lens is 'correct' or whether, more likely, they are both wrong.
The newly-revised bottom line for me? The AF-S lens was really fun to use, and worked great for hand-holding. Due to the fast focus it might get you shots that you wouldn't otherwise get, but I don't see it as having particularly fine image quality. It's not a very expensive lens, though, so aside from the reversed focus/zoom rings and no aperture ring, it seems like a lens worth having.... though for a bit more money you can get the Tamron XR which covers almost three times as much range with at least as good image quality, according to my testing.