Nikkor lens

Need comments from you on what lens I should get. Currently, I am

using a Nikkor 50 f/1.4 AF and a 80-200 f/2.8 for my F5. I would

lke to add another zoom lense. The following Nikkor lenses are the

ones I am thinking of:

28-70 F/2.8

17-35 F/2.8

35-70 F/2.8

 

Since these lenses are quite pricey, I would appreciate it if you

could give me as much input as possible. I don;t go on trips for

taking pictures, in other words, I need a lense that could be

flexible with good quality when I am on a family outing.

 

Thanks

The 17-35/2.8 zoom. This will round out your lens selection nicely, and you'll have a ball with the different perspectives the wide angles give you.

Agree with Ken, the ultra wide is the way to go.

 

Brian

 

bmacphoto.com

Another vote for 17-35 f/2.8. This is a very good lense and is of

the exact focal length that you need. Don't believe the stupid lense

test by some moron web site. This lense beats the crap out of canon's

17-35 f/2.8 and will match some prime f/2.8 wide angle nikkors.

Thank you all for your input. By the way, I heard that the 17-35 lens distorts sseverely and may need correctional lens. Is that true? If so, what lens do I need to "correct" it?

I know which of your suggested trio of lenses I would prefer in my bag - the 17-35 without question. But for the sort of family shots you seem to be suggesting as your main use for the lens i think the 28-70 would be a more useful range.

I own th 17-35 and the 35-70. It would help a lot to know more about your shooting style, subjects, experienc, and habits. The 17-35 is, indeed, a great lens. However, in this case, I think your most logical next step is the 28-70 or the 35-70 (If you do a search you can find lots of threads comparing and contrasting those two lenses then decide for yourself--to sum them up tho', some feel that the 35-70 is somewhat superior optically, the 28-70 is AFS and IF so works better with a polarizer or ND Grad filter)

 

If you're not sure if you need an ultrawide lens I think I'd go with the 28-70 and maybe an older 20mm lens for you wide angle needs. OTOH, if you need/want that ultrawide and are happy with what you're getting from the 50mm in that "normal" range and don't feel you need better zoom coverage in that range then go for the 17-35.

 

Hope that makes some sense...in your position, knowing what I know, I'd get the 28-70 for sure.

--evan

CL, I have had the 17-35mm AF-S for about a year and it is an excellent lens overall. I am not sure what kind of distortion you have in mind, but I have tested it against a fixed 20mm/f2.8 and the 17-35 at 20mm shows no noticable barrel distortion at 20mm. At 17mm there is a little bit of barrel distortion but you have to put a straight edge against the top/bottom edge of an image shot with the 17-35 zoom at 17mm to see any problems. The amount of barrel distortion is so slight that a lot of so called "primes" exhibit the same amount of distortion anyway. At 35mm there is no much pincushion distortion either.

 

The main disadvantage of the 17-35 AF-S is price, weigth and like all wide-angle zooms, it is somewhat prone to flare. That is why I keep a 24mm/f2.8 AF for those sunset shots (with the sun inside the frame), but even the 24mm "prime" is still somewhat prone to flare and ghosting.

 

As Even points out, without knowing what kind of photography you are into, it is hard to advice which focal length suits you. 17mm on an F5 is pretty extreme, so unless you shoot wide landscape, architecture or certain type of photojounalism, the 28-70 AF-S may be a better fit, or that should be the next one to get before the 17-35. For a lot of people, 28mm is wide enough although landscape photographers tend to prefer the 24mm and perhaps wider. For D1(h/x) and D100 users, the 17-35 is like a 25-50 in 35mm. In that case getting the 17-35 makes a lot more sense.

 

As far as I know the 28-70 AF-S is excellent as well, but it too is heavy and expensive. Since you are using an F5, the new 24-85 AF-S G is an alternative. It is much cheaper and lighter but don't expect the same quality from it.

Suggest you look into a mint copy of the 20-35 f/2.8 AF zoom. In its heyday, it was as highly regarded as the 17-35 is today and it should be cheaper now that the action has moved to "S" lenses. The highest possible AF speed is not a major concern with wide angle lenses. Also, lots of people like the 24-50 Nikkor, if you want to to move gradually toward wide angle. The prime lens fans will tell you that what you really need is a another prime or two in the 20/24/28/35 range.

The 17-35 f/2.8 and 28-70 f/2.8 are both excellent lenses, with sharpness and contrast rivaling prime lenses. To choose, you need to examine the type of photography you do.

 

The 17-35 lens fits a certain niche. It's not a people lens, other than for candids at parties and corporate events. It's not particularly useful for landscapes, except for emphasizing foreground objects. It's great for interiors and architectural photography. The so-called distortion is due to perspective effects, not to optical flaws.

 

I use the 28-70 at least 85% of the time, for people and scenary. It's my favorite lens for "grip and grab" events, weddings and landscapes. If I had to choose, I'd carry this lens and a 24/2.8 prime. The sharpness is incredible! The 28 end is just short enough to minimize lens-changing. The range is narrow, but adequate for "cropping" in the viewfinder. The macro range is serviceable, and useful over the entire zoom range (e.g., leaf-litter shots.) Before, I used a 35-70/2.8, which is just as sharp and 1/3rd the price, but has a rotating front element, useless len shade, and is more prone to flare. The 28-70 does not rotate, which simplifies use of a polarizer, and uses a "tulip" len shade (which is highly effective.)

 

I just spent a week with family in the Rockies. I shot 25 rolls, and the 17-35 never left the bag.<div></div>

If you only want to take portraits one 80-200/2.8 is enough. You will use ~100mm all the time. One 50/1.4 is good for low light.

17-35/2.8 will complete the focal length but you won't use it very often. 28-70 and 35-70 is just repeat the focal lenghth. I don't think you want to add them. Although they are excellent lense too.

If your interested in interiors, 17-35mm AFS f/2.8 is the best choice. If you are just after the 24-35mm range for landscapes, consider the 24-85mm AFD f/2.8-4 as a less expensive alternative. Its 50-85mm end overlaps your other lenses and isn't the best end of the 24-85mm.

I second the recommendation for the 28-70. I find it to be an excellent performer that fills the gap under the 80-200. Probably all you are going to need for what you want to do but you could add the 17-35 later on, not now. <p>

That said, even though I have these same lenses and body, I find that for general all around use like weddings, candids of families, etc. you can't beat the 28-105, 3.5-4.5. Yup, it's a "consumerish" lens, not quite as sharp or as fast as any of these (but damn sharp for what it is) and about 1/4 the price but it has the range that you most often will use in these situations. The 80-200 is heavy (especially with a flash bracket setup) and often 80mm isn't wide enough. OTOH, the 28-70 often isn't long enough. You either have to carry two cameras or change lenses all the time. You may want to consider this lens in addition to the others for this reason if you want something flexible and light for when you are on your outings. Leave your good glass at home, you probably won't notice the difference in these situations anyway.