Why is the Nikon 24-85 2.8 so much cheaper then Nikon 24-70 2.8?

I would think it would be more expensive seeing as it zooms further. They both have aperture of 2.8 and are both for FX format cameras… So why is the 24-85 $1, 300.00 cheaper!

Thanks guys!

Added (1). OMG thank you. I completely undertand now. Wow.

NO NO, you are misunderstanding the specs on the cheaper lens. The 24-85 is NOT a constant aperture lens. It is a 2.8 to 4.0 aperture, meaning it closes down to f4 as it is zoomed to the longer focal length. The 24-70 is a CONSTANT aperture lens meaning it stays at 2.8 throughout the zoom range. Any constant aperture lens is MUCH more expensive as it is much move costly to build and also necessarily has to be physically larger.

The good doctor is correct.

The 24-85 mm f/2.8~4 is NOT a kit lens, not at $800.It is a well performing lens, one I use when shooting at the drags when I do not need f/2.8 at 85 mm and the extra 15 mm (vs. 24-70 mm) is just what I need.

Steve P and Ace are correct. I will just add that the 24-85 f/2.8-4 is a great lens for both dx and full frame cameras if you do not need f/2.8 at the long end. I used it for years on 35mm film cameras and use it now on a D300 and D80.It is a good portrait and everyday lens, although 24 is not very wide on a crop sensor. I believe there's another Nikon 24-85 consumer lens that is f5.6 at the long end.

I shoot Canon, but I've seen both those lenses first hand. The 24-85 is built like a kit lens. Very light and plastic compared to the 24-70.It doesn't autofocus as fast or quietly either.

There's probably a difference between the two in image quality.

EDIT:

Ah, my mistake. I was thinking of the 24-85 f3.5-4.5. Sorry about that.