Jump to content

Affordable kit lens for Nikon D610


alan_kovarik

Recommended Posts

I can buy Nikon D610 for a very good price and I am looking for some kit lens (something between 24-80mm would be ideal) bellow $600. Could be used/older lens, but with AF and it should be sharp. What would you recommend?

I am considering new Nikon 24-120 f/4 (which is for €455 on e-infin) or older and much cheaper Nikon 35-70 f/2.8 which is also a macro lens.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The 24-120mm/f4 AF-S VR would be a good choice if that falls in your price range. Please make sure you get the constant f4 version.

 

I wouldn't get the 35-70mm/f2.8 AF/AF-D because it is a very old lens with a limited zoon range. That lens also has the tendency to have one internal element fogging up. That is exactly what happened to mine.

 

Another newer lens to consider is the 24-85mm/f3.5-4.5 AF-S VR lens. That should be less expensive than the 24-120mm/f4 and is still a very nice kit lens:

AF-S NIKKOR 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5G ED VR

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The 35-70/2.8 I had was pretty good stopped down to 5.6, but I did not think it good at 2.8. A lot of them seem to be fogged internally so be aware.

 

The 24-120/4 VR is good enough and certainly versatile. I like it a little better than the 24-85VR I used to have, but the 24-120 is bigger/heavier.

 

I had a very good 28-105 AF, but that lens was damaged beyond economic repair. The one I got to replace it is not as good, I never use it. If you get lucky with a good copy, the older Tamron 28-75/2.8 can be a good value. Only the ones with internal focus motor can be serviced and AF calibrated by Tamron per their rep a month ago.

 

I don't think there is a perfect zoom choice, just whatever compromise of $, zoom range, speed, size, mechanics, works best for you. Then add a prime in your favorite length.

Edited by robert_bouknight|1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I will stand up for the 35-70mm f/2.8. I have a very good copy that's haze-free and sharp from wide open. However, to OP, I would say don't put any stock in the so-called macro or micro capability of this lens. It only engages at 35mm, and you lose AF. Just not very useful, although I suppose it can serve a purpose in a pinch.

 

One thing to watch out for when using the 35-70 is veiling glare when shooting with a strong light source (e.g., the sun) just outside of the frame. The hood doesn't help much. You'll have better luck shading the front of the lens with a hat or you hand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I bought a 24-85 f/3.5-4.5 as a walk-around for my D800. When I bought it, I debated for a while about it vs. the 24-120 f/4, which is about twice as expensive used and new.

 

I've just recently bought a 24-120 f/4, and just got back from a trip where I used that as my main walk-around lens on my D800. I usually kept a different focal length(usually a wide angle of some sort) on my D600, but the 24-85 is now marked as a "kit lens" for my D600. If I'm not mistaken, the D600/610(which are very similar cameras) can be bought as a kit with this lens.

 

One of the things that's really hit me about the 24-120 f/4 is how heavy it is relative to the 24-85. I think this comes as much from the construction as from the optics, as it is certainly a much more solid feeling lens.

 

I will say that I DEFINITELY noticed the difference in weight when carrying it around all day, but did appreciate the little bit of extra range. I don't get too caught up on it being a constant aperture vs. variable aperture(although it IS key that you get the fixed aperture 24-120 as the older variable aperture is a dog). I don't really see any difference optically in the real world between the two.

 

Bear in mind that my comments are specifically on the D800-I find that the smaller and lighter 24-85 balances a lot more nicely on the D600 than does the 24-120.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Concerning the 24-85mm AF-S zoom, please keep in mind that there are two different versions. Both are AF-S, but the earlier version was from the beginning of this century. I used to have one but sold it a long time ago. The version I am suggesting is the latest AF-S VR version. The earlier version does not have VR.

 

Likewise there are three versions of the 24-120mm. Only the latest version is constant f4 and has VR. But as Ben points out, it is not a small lens and it uses 77mm filters.

 

Concerning the 35-70mm/f2.8, regardless of how great one copy may be optically, IMO 35mm is too restrictive on the wide end. In fact I would much rather have 24mm than only 28mm, but your mileage may vary. I bought my 35-70mm/f2.8 AF, pre AF-D, way back in 1990. In that era it was an excellent zoom. Mine developed that fogged up issue around year 2001/2002. It all happened in about 6 months but now almost 2 decades later, I don't think the problem has gotten worse. There is a layer of haze inside so that the lens is not very useful. I haven't bothered to get it fixed.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

For the record, and "for something completely different", consider that one of the great bargains is a standard 50mm lens such as the f/1.8: quite inexpensive and very useful for portraits, street shooting, and low light. The focal length was the most used by many of the classic photographers.

 

If people ask why you don't have a zoom, just say Cartier-Bresson found the 50mm more than adequate.;)

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Something to consider is what other lenses you have now or plan to buy. I use the 24-85 on my D610, and skipped the 24-120 because of 1) the weight and 2) I have a 70-300 (old) and an 80-400, so the extra reach of the 24-120 wasn't important to me. The 24-85 has done everything I have wanted it to do. If the kit lens you buy will be your only lens, then that lens will be your only way to get to a 100-120 mm focal length - that could be a deciding factor. You know more about your current hardware and what kinds of shots you hope to make - if you expect to need longer than 85 mm and you have no other lenses, the 24-120 is probably your best bet.
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with Bob's suggestion that you think of this lens in the context of the other lenses your have. If you don't need the reach of the Nikon 24-120mm, the Tamron 24-70mm f/2.8 VC (version 1) is an excellent lens, heavier than I prefer, but solid. Since version 2 was released, it has become available used at prices within your budget.
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Concerning the 24-85mm AF-S zoom, please keep in mind that there are two different versions. Both are AF-S, but the earlier version was from the beginning of this century. I used to have one but sold it a long time ago. The version I am suggesting is the latest AF-S VR version. The earlier version does not have VR.

 

That is a very good point to remember-the one I've used extensively and was discussing was the most recent(still current production) VR version.

 

I was also swayed to that lens in summer 2017 by the fact that the local store had managed to acquire a glut of used ones(4 in the case when I bought mine) and had marked them down to $150-probably what they paid for them-to get them to move and make space in the case. I'm kind of sorry I didn't buy more than one.

 

As best as I can tell, over the range they cover, the 24-85 f/3.5-4.5 VR and 24-120 f/4 VR are pretty well optically equal over the ranges they cover, although I've not done a side by side shoot-out. Both are put to shame by the D800 sensor(forget a D810 or D850) and look great on my D3s. I don't have much time yet with the 24-120 on my D600, but the 24-85 is more or less a good match for the sensor in my experience, although I do sometimes find it lacking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is an image I captured 6 years ago, back in 2012, when Nikon first introduced the 24-85mm/f3.5-4.5 AF-S VR.

 

The two lenses on the left were loaners from Nikon. I have never owned those two lens models. The two on the right are my lenses.

The 24-85 uses 72mm filters, the other three 77mm filters. My recommendations are the two on the outside.

 

FourZooms_4745.thumb.jpg.5c9e23b8ff2daf1a14df5d5c7a331699.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can vouch for the 24-70 Tamron (I have the G1). I had both it and the 24-120 (bought just as the exchange rate tanked after the Brexit vote, before the camera stores had updated their prices). While I don't deny that 70-120mm is useful, the performance of the 24-120 didn't justify how large it was - for a long time I used the 28-200mm f/3.5-5.6G on my D700 and, while it's not really good enough for a high MP body, it's tiny compared with the 24-120. The Tamron isn't much larger, is a stop faster, and to my mind behaves better optically; my 24-120 got traded in because I so rarely used it, where my old 28-200 was my "take if you don't know what you're shooting" lens and lived as a body cap. I suspect the 24-85 would appeal to me far more just because it's much smaller and lighter, but I've not actually bitten the bullet on one yet.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is an updated image of the mid zooms shown above, from the very old 43-86mm/f3.5 AI introduced in 1977 to the latest Z-mount 24-70mm/f4 S. I am also including the 35-70mm/f2.8 AF the OP mentioned.

 

It should be pretty clear that mid zoom lens size gets big with wider aperture and longer zoom range. The size of the latest 24-70mm/f2.8 with VR is kind of ridiculous with 82mm filter size, but the mirrorless 24-70mm/f4 is quite compact.

 

As far as I know the Tamron 24-70mm/f2.8 is not nearly as big as Nikon's two versions, but I have never used that Tamron lens.

 

MidZooms_1574.thumb.jpg.c9a719f437c2bcf4b3a576066e5329f7.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As far as I know the Tamron 24-70mm/f2.8 is not nearly as big as Nikon's two versions, but I have never used that Tamron lens.

 

I've used the mk1 (non-VR) 24-70 and own the mk1 24-70 (the new one is similar except for the electronic aperture, updated VR and dock compatibility): it is appreciably smaller, to the extent that I've been happy for it to be a walk-around lens and I don't worry about it hanging from the mount like I might with the Nikkors. It still has an 82mm filter, though, and a recent thread discussed that it vignettes somewhat. For comparison:

 

Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 G2: 111mm long, 88.4mm wide, 900g (claimed by Tamron), 82mm filters

Nikkor 24-120 f/4: 103mm long, 84mm wide, 707.6g, 77mm filters

Nikkor 24-70 f/2.8 VR: 154.5mm long, 88mm wide, 1067g, 82mm fillters

Nikkor 24-70 f/2.8 non-VR: 133mm long, 83mm wide, 900g, 77mm filters

Nikkor 24-85 f/3.5-4.5 VR: 82mm long, 78mm wide, 460g, 72mm filters

Nikkor 28-200 f/3.5-5.6G: 70mm long, 71mm wide, 469.1g, 62mm filters

Nikkor 28-80 f/3.3-5.6G: 64mm long, 66mm wide, 194.1g, 58mm filters

 

I don't recommend the last two (on anything newer than a D700), they're just there for amusement since I own (or owned, in the case of the 28-200) them. That's quite an argument for the 24-85 for me, since I know I could use the 28-200 as a body cap, but of course sensor demands move on. (Could be worse, I've just scanned some pictures from the late 1990s. I can't tell whether the lens was awful, whether the camera autofocus was awful, or whether it didn't actually have autofocus and I was asking a lot of the depth of field...)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...