Has anybody used this lens on a D 700 and what were the results?

I have this as my main lens on my D700. If you can afford the 24-70 f/2.8 it is a MUCH better choice. That being said it does an OK job and is listed as a macro lens, but does suffer from vignetting and is not as sharp as some others. All the pics in my gallery, with the exception of the basketball ones, were taken with this lens.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Your "left behind in the ghetto" is an intriguing image, but try a slight crop on the left side to eliminate the piece of the utility pole and it's a much nicer image without the distraction. Nice work! Alan in Waterloo, IL

Alan
Waterloo, IL, USA
www.proimagingmidamerica.com

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Thank you very much to everybody who has sent information about this lens.
I hope my shop can find one for me and then I can try it on my D700.
Right now I work with the 70-300 mm VR and I'am very satisfied with the results.Sharp,very good and fast focusing(however could not focus on my black cat in darkness when she shut her green eyes LOL)

It's a terrific lens - versatile, sharp, well built and relatively lightweight. My normal urban shooter is a Nikkor 24-70 f/2.8, but on days when I don't want to carry the greater weight of the 24-70, the 24-85 f/2.8-4 goes on my D700 or my D3. You'll find a touch of barrel/pincushion at each end which is easily correctable - but I feel it's only noticeable when you've got a grid or parallel lines in the background (brick walls, etc.). It's an excellent lens on the D700. Some people report a small amount of vignetting, but I haven't noticed any on my D700. Maybe I'm just not looking closely enough or maybe I just don't compose much for the far corners. Anyway, I've never noticed any vignetting intruding on my shots with the 24-85 f/2.8-4.

I've found the lens provides consistently good resolution in a wide variety of natural light. It also remains sharp no matter what sort of light you've got. I've also found it to be consistently sharp throughout its zoom range. It's not as wonderfully sharp and color consistent overall as the 24-70, but I think we're really talking about the difference between excellent (the 24-85) and superb (24-70). The difference in price between the two lenses is enormous. Personally, I think the 24-85 is a bargain. You can do professional work with the thing.

My Nikonians Gallery

Howard Carson, Managing Editor
Kickstartnews Inc. - http://www.kickstartnews.com

I've had the lens for about 2 months now & the results so far are excellent. Great general purpose lens -- very crisp focus, and very fast focus (great results shooting indoor basketball). Outstanding sharpness, edge to edge (even at widest apertures). No distortions. Lightweight, yet rugged. 9-bladed diaphragm produces nice, creamy bokeh. Versatile focal range on a D700 (wide angle to mid-telephoto). And the icing on the cake is the outstanding macro feature. Specs state the minimum focus distance in macro mode is 6 inches, but it's more like 2 inches, so you can get some really nice macro shots with stunning detail. Highly recommended. Check out the positive reviews on Fred Miranda's site.

RNV

"Check out the positive reviews on Fred Miranda's site." rnvanya

They are not all positive. In fact they are characteristic of reviews on this zoom--wonderful to terrible. That tells me the samples vary greatly. My sample is a good one, except for one thing: It produces occasional overexposures. I think it's a sticky diaphragm, and I'll probably be sending it to Nikon for this relatively simple repair.

I bought the 24-85 with my first DSLR, the D100. As I moved up through the various bodies, it was replaced by other "normal" zooms, the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 for one. Now that I'm shooting mainly FF with the D700, I've gone back to the 24-85 as my go-to lens. I find the size and heft perfect, and the macro feature is a real plus. I am NOT planning to get the new 24-70.

Edo