Replacing 35-70mm 2.8

<p>I am currently considering replacing my 35-70mm. My main problem with this lens is the flaring. I am outdoors a lot and always seems to have flaring/ghosting. I have the lens hood as well but really does not seem to help all that much. Would like some opinions from others on options besides the famed 24-70. I don't doubt that this is a fabulous lens however the price tag for me is unrealistic at this time unless I find a supremely sweet deal!<br>

A weakness of mine is post processing. I am not very good and it takes a large amount of time so usually I try to avoid unless necessary. So I am looking for a lens that has as few faults as possible. Trying to avoid fringing and distortion, doesn't have to be a super speedy lens however crisp images. <br>

My camera is a d300. I use my camera primarily for family and fun. Earlier this year I sold my 50mm lens and replaced it with an 85 1.4. My only other lens is a 300mm f4. I typically lean towards primes however I have not been impressed with 24mm. I do have a trip coming up to Disney so this new lens will probably be my walk around lens for a couple weeks. <br>

Thanks in advance!</p>

<p>Hi Jennifer, what is your price range? And would you like a DX or a FX lens?</p>

<p>Fairly flexible on both. No plans of upgrading to fx anytime in the near future. Staying under $1000 would be great, $600-$800 even better. I don't swap around lenses very often so I consider them worth the investment. Just can't justify so much for the 24-70. </p>

<p>Tamron 17-50?</p>

<p>Hi, I just thought I would mention that I use an hn-23 hood on my 35-70mm on my dx body instead of the recommended hood. It definitely helps with the flaring as it is a bit deeper (but does not completely eliminate it). I haven't found any vignetting on dx at all. Thought that might be an option for you. Good luck!</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I am outdoors a lot and always seems to have flaring/ghosting.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>In that case you can rule out the Nikon 17-55mm/f2.8 AF-S DX. It is otherwise a great lens for DX, but it has serious flare problems.</p>

I actually just ordered the hn-23 hood this morning! That will be my last ditch effort to salvage the 35-70. Otherwise it may

help until I decide and purchase my new lens. The thought of going to Florida though with the 35-70 is pretty unappealing

to me though between the beaches and the parks.

 

It is just as helpful to know what lenses to avoid so thanks for that feedback!

 

I'm a little hesitant going 3rd party. The reviews always seem mixed on whether you get a good copy. I also like the idea

of Nikon holding a better value in case of resale. However when it comes down to price if it is inexpensive enough the

what do you have to lose attitude might come into play.

<blockquote>

<p>I also like the idea of Nikon holding a better value in case of resale.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Jennifer, it always cuts both ways. Yes, 3rd-party lenses tend to lose the value faster. However, that also means if you are willing to buy used, you can get better deals buying used, 3rd-party lenses. Just deal face to face, e.g. via Craig's List; test before you buy. Last month a friend bought a used Nikon 16-85mm DX. I went with her with my D7000 and laptop. I took a few test shots on the spot and checked them out in PhotoShop immediately.</p>

<p>The same applies to DSLRs. They do depreciate quickly, but if you are willing to buy used DSLRs introduced 3, 4, 5 years ago, e.g. the D3, D700, and D300. Sure, they are no longer state of the art, but they are still quite good and you can get them at a fraction of their original prices.</p>

<p>Jennifer, I am having the same problems as you do with the 35-70mm lens. I am now using my Nikkor AF-S 16-85mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR most of the time. It will do the trick, but I wish I had a faster lens. I can't turn up the ISO much because of noise in the D300. Luckily the camera has a good built-in flash, and you can always turn up the ISO a bit when you are using the flash - to get decent ambient ligting.</p>

<p>Was it the 24mm af-d you tried? What was it that you didn't like about it? To bad, since it would have been a good alround focal length on a DX camera.</p>

<p>There is <strong>the 20mm f2.8 AF-D</strong> lens which is selling for around $550,- I have no personal experience with it, maybe someone else has tried it. There is a AF version as well, but you would want the AF-D version with distance meetering.</p>

<p>There is a <a href=" f2.8 flickr group</a> showing a lot of great photos shot with the two lenses.</p>

<p>I second the idea of the Nikon 16-85 for a D300 if you are against third party lenses. This lens, along with a 35mm or 50mm prime make a dynamite combo for a D300. I used to own a 16-85, and even though it was variable aperture, the lens was tack sharp even at its widest setting. If you must have f/2.8, then the 16-85 is a non-starter. But if you are flexible, you won't find a better zoom lens (purchased new) in your price range in the Nikon brand.</p>

<p>If you are happy with the focal range of the 35-70mm on DX, want to keep f 2.8 and don't want to mortgage your house you should have a closer look at the Tamron 2.8 28-75mm. Optically it is a very good performer on DX and has very little flare problems. It is very small and light for its optical specifications. You wrote, you are hesitating to buy 3rd party lenses as their resale value is low - but this lens has a considerably lower price than the Nikon 24-70. Even if you loose a higher percentage, you loose a smaller absolute amount on resale. Sample variations aren' t a big issue wit this lens today, its is in production since several years, Tamron should have fixed possible manufacturing problems. </p>

<p>Here is another vote for the 16-85 mm DX lens for your D 300. It and the Nikon 35mm f 1.8 DX are my two favorite DX lenses. I guess I am lucky in that I have not had a lot of flare problems with my copy of the 35-70mm f 2.8 which I bought used a number of years ago. My 24mm f 2.8 AF D lens does not perform well on my D 300 for some reason. My 20mm f 2.8 Af D does perform well on the D 300.<br>

Joe Smith </p>

<p>I really enjoy the 35-70/2.8D AF Nikkor but it is prone to occasional problems with ghosting flare. In actual practice I've seen it only in nighttime photos of emergency responders where there are lots of headlights and flashing lights from fire trucks, etc. So far I haven't experienced any problems in daylight photos.</p>

<p>I need VR so I'd go for the 24-120/4 or even a good copy of the older 24-120/3.5-5.6 VR - I had one and stupidly sold it. It was very resistant to ghosting and veiling flare even when shooting into the sun.</p>

<p>I haven't tried the 16-85 VR but I've seen plenty of excellent, sharp and flare-free photos taken by other folks, even nighttime photos with lots of lights in the scene.</p>

<p> </p>

I love the 35-70mm f/2.8 on my D200 and F100; I used the HB-15 with the D200 and the HB-1 with the F100 and haven't

had any trouble with flare or vignetting.

Thanks for the suggestions! I will look further into all the mentioned above!

 

How strange that we have such different experiences with the 35-70!

Hi Ann,

The 24mm that I used was the d version. Maybe I should try another one to give it another shot before completely ruling it

out because you are right that it would be about perfect as a general lens!

 

I only used it for an afternoon and I was shooting the awards at a softball tournament. I was switching back and forth

between my 50mm and the 24mm depending on the amount of space I had available. There was a noticeable difference

in the pictures between the two lens. I printed 16 pictures to mount on a photo board of each separate team and posted

their ranking. The images using the 50mm were much more clear and crisp. Especially near the edges. More so when I

lowered the f stop. Maybe it is not a totally fair comparison between the 2 lenses however I was not expecting to notice

such a difference so easily detected between the two. Especially to an untrained eye such as I have.

 

On a different note I also thought the manual focus ring was small. It would take some getting used too.

<p>Jennifer, I have the 24mm f/2.8 Ai, which should optically be identical to the AF-D you tried. While I loved the focal length on a D300 quite a bit, optically it was a love-hate affair. It was plenty sharp in the centre from f/2.8 on, but the corners much less so, and stopping down never fully solved it. So I can understand your experiences - I kept mine, though - small, f/2.8. And glad I kept it, as on my D700, this lens seems a lot better in nearly all ways.</p>

<p>I've had the 16-85VR, and really liked it a lot. For a do-it-all lens, about as good as it gets, and most of all I found it an excellent landscape lens. The only issue with it, in my opinion, is that it's relatively poor value for money. It's not a cheap lens for a f/5.6 zoom. I find the 18-105VR -despite less construction quality- a much better value. It's a lens worth considering, unless you insist on a metal lens mount. Add a 35mm f/1.8DX for the fast aperture shots, and you've got a pretty great kit.<br>

For the wider end (below 35mm), most primes aren't great. Frankly, I would not bother with them on APS-C, and look for a DX-zoom, such as those mentioned already. (For completeness sake, probably I should make an exception here for the 24mm f/1.4, which I never used and which costs a lot more).</p>

<p>Nikon has not updated the optical design for the 24mm/f2.8 since the AI version. Way back in 1978, a year after Nikon first introduced the concept of AI, I bought one of those. Needless to say, that optical design is now quite dated.</p>

<p>Today, I have a 24mm/f2.8 AF-D. It is still OK now but certainly is not the best lens on modern high-pixel DSLRs.</p>

<p>Lex Jenkins, if you have some time available I would be very interested if you could provide more details about your experience with the 24-120. Especially since you have used the f4 and the 3.5 version. Covering this wide of a range does the lens struggle on one end verses the other? I believe I would use it more on the 24mm end and am curious about the strength optically. </p>

<p>I was also curious if there is a size and weight difference between the two. </p>

<p>Is there anything in particular, quality wise that you would cause you to lean towards one lens verses the other? </p>

<p>Any new f/2.8 lens (Ulrich mentioned the Tamron 28-75) <em>should</em> have fewer flare problems, as more modern lens coatings are generally much more resistant to flare. However, they will have slightly different colour and more contrast ... if you prefer the look of the older lenses, your best bet is to use the lens hood and make do.</p>

<p>I don't believe that any of the f/3.5-5.6 kit lenses can be called a replacement for an f/2.8 lens. I'd second (or third) the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 suggestion. You see these on eBay in good condition for $250 or so all the time. They're not as good as options like the Nikon 24-70 but they'll give you fewer problems when facing the sun than your 35-70.</p>

<p>What a shame about the 24mm lens. Wonder why Nikon has let it go for such a long time without improving it? </p>

<p>The tamron looks like a decent lens. I am going to keep that on my radar when I am searching. Locally there is none available on the used market and I'm not sure I would pay the price tag for a new one.</p>

<p>I do like the idea of the 16-85. Seems like a great range and I do like the idea of have the wide side for whenever the situation arises. Never used anything quite that wide before. The price is a little surprising considering the aperture. My thought process is that it must be a great little lens and overcomes the aperture somewhat that others are willing to pay the price.</p>

<p>Any opinions of the 24-85mm 2.8-4?</p>

<p>The 16-85 lens is overhyped. It's not worth the money unless you really, really want something with that particular range, because aside from the 16mm wide end and somewhat better build quality, in terms of optical performance it's not better than other decent variable aperture kit lenses like the 18-105 and the Sigma 17-70.</p>

<p>The 24-85 2.8-4 is pretty good. It gets good press but I don't think it's any better than the newer 24-85 lenses. The newest 24-85 is the best, and since Nikon just gave away a ton of them in D600 discounts you can get one cheap on eBay.</p>