Replacing an AF 35-70mm f/2.8 with another mid range zoom

<p>My question here is based upon my interest in shooting landscapes / outdoor scenes.<br>

I currently use a D700 with AF-S 17-35mm f/2.8 which I adore and also my AF-S 70-200mm f/2.8 VRI which I also pleases greatly for my stated purpose of landscape photography. </p>

<p>I am currently using an AF 35-70mm f/2.8 D lens as a mid range zoom and whilst this lens is plenty sharp across the frame for my needs I really have lost patience with the way this lens flares easily when used outdoors, even with a homemade deep hood. In fact I've not used this lens for 6 months now as it disappoints all too often in the flare dept. and simply gets put back into the camera bag and not remounted. In the last 6 months I've made do with my 50mm f/1.4 but have come up against situations where I cannot back up or get closer to my intended frame and so I no longer want that compromise.</p>

<p>The majority of my landscape photography is wide angles and then some tighter frames hence a mid range zoom is no where close to being the most important lens in my kit which leads me to the question of what I might actually consider replacing the 35-70mm lens with? </p>

<p>Clearly the AF-S 24-70mm f/2.8 is going to be the best performing option and I have had a short loan of a friend's 24-70mm f/2.8 and found it quite the surgical instrument, however, although I can afford to buy one, I do not necessarily need it as most of my exposures are well stopped down and frankly my camera pack currently loaded with D700+grip along with said 17-35mm, 35-70mm, 70-200mm, small carbon tri-pod and a 16mm f/3.5 fisheye to boot is really about as much weight as I care to lug about.</p>

<p>I have tried the current model Tamron 24-70mm f/2.8 (Canon mount - assuming the Nikon mount version is optically identical) and found it flares too easily also.</p>

<p>I know there is a variable aperture <strong>Nikkor 24-85mm VR</strong> lens option and also the <strong>Nikkor 24-120mm f/4 VR</strong> option which are both lighter weight and less expensive than the 24-70mm f/2.8 but how do these lenses control flare and ghosting too for that matter. I can live with more distortion at either end of the focal length range - flare control is my key criteria to finding a replacement.</p>

<p>I like to have the sun inside the frame occasionally and find the way the 17-35mm lens deals with flare is very good.</p>

<p>I require a mid range zoom lens that has better flare control than the older 35-70mm f/2.8 I have currently - are there any other options you care to discuss?</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Matthew, I have the 24-120 f/4VR (on a D700) and as a landscape lens, I am not 100% sold on it. It *could* well be my copy, but I do not find it as sharp at infinity as it is at closer distances. Somehow, for landscapes I do not get the "bite" which I did have with a D300 / 16-85VR (the latter, in my view, a pretty awesome landscape option).<br /> The 24-120 does flare, but not all that bad in my view. Vignetting is more than I expected and quite noticeable. It's quite a lot lighter than a 24-70 f/2.8 (one of the reasons I went for the F/4 too), but it's still not a light-weight nor small option. I know, I sound very negative probably about my 24-120, while I actually find it a perfectly fine allrounder - landscapes just not being the strongest side.</p>

<p>However, a lens that does really work for me for landscapes, and which I haven't yet managed to get to flare, is the AF-S 50mm f/1.8G - I know you asked about zooms, but with both 35 and 70 covered by the other lenses, having just a simple 50mm in the middle could possibly just work fine.</p>

<p>Cheers Wouter! There is nothing like hands on experience as a guide.<br /> My freind who loaned me his 24-70mm f/2.8 keeps telling me to forget about midrange zoom and upgrade my AF 50mm f/1.4 D lens to the newer Sigma 50mm f/1.4 which is said to be popular amongst landscapers with added bokeh bonus points for wide open captures........</p>

<p>I'd never say never to anything but do wonder about the lack of zoom just past 35mm keeping me as a 'spectator' instead of a 'participant' .............. and is the Sigma 50/1.4 really an upgrade.....?</p>

<p>DXOMark rating for both lenses on a D700 link below. Sigma only better by a point and not sure I would call it an upgrade. More like a waste of time and money from selling to spending more cash on the Sigma. <br>

<br /><a href="http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Lenses/Camera-Lens-Database/Sigma/50mm-F1.4-EX-DG-HSM-Nikon/%28camera%29/441/%28cameraname%29/Nikon-D700">Sigma 50</a><br>

<a href="http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Lenses/Camera-Lens-Database/Nikon/AF-Nikkor-50mm-f-1.4D/%28camera%29/441/%28cameraname%29/Nikon-D700">Nikon 50 1.4D</a></p>

<p> </p>

<p>Are you really interested in a huge 50mm/f1.4 lens that uses 77mm filters?</p>

<p>If your interest is mainly landscape photography, I would get the 24-85mm AF-S VR and perhaps replace the version 1 70-200mm/f2.8 with the 70-200mm/f4 AF-S VR. Version 1 of the f2.8 has poor corner performance.</p>

<p>I've only borrowed a Sigma 50mm. My experience was that it is extremely sharp and impressive, but only to about the limits of the DX frame. I'll recommend it without hesitation to a DX shooter, but on an FX camera, I'm not convinced, though it arguably does have nicer bokeh than the f/1.4 AF-S. Not that the f/1.4 AF-D is remotely sharp at wide apertures either. I'd really be sure I wanted f/1.4 before ignoring the f/1.8 AF-S.<br />

<br />

Like Shun, I'm surprised that the corners of the 70-200 VR1 don't bother you at 200mm on a D700.</p>

<p>The Sigma 50 is a great portrait lens, not a landscape lens. In my experience the corners stay impossibly soft. If you want a 50mm prime, the 50/1.8 AF-S is probably the way to go.</p>

<p>Sounds like a 50mm swap is a pointless exercise and does not really help me when I'm unable to use my feet to zoom forward beyond 35mm........ Recently on a visit to New Zealand I was twice handicaped on a steep ridgeline and once on the verge of a busy road side where I had the 17-35mm mounted and just needed to be that extra 10-15 meters further forward to get a clear frame but was unable to move into traffic or off the edge of a really steep hill top ridge and of course I did not bother packing the 35-70mm..........</p>

<p>The corner issue with the 70-200mm VRI is not a thorn in my side as I tend to shoot back from 200mm on this lens. Quite often I will zoom out to 180mm and realise I need to include certain elements inside the frame - I guess that is a function of my photo taking process. At present I'm getting the best out of the older 70-200mm - if I want longer glass I'll switch to the 300mm f/4 and use with a TC on a tripod if necessary.</p>

<p>Anyone with experience of the 24-85mm variable aperture VR lens and how it copes with flare? </p>

<p>I had two different samples of the 24-85 AF-S VR on loan from Nikon last year, when I did the review. I checked my LightRoom this morning, and I have several hundred images captured with that lens, but somehow I forgot to capture a few samples with the sun inside the frame. However, it has been a very popular lens. I am sure somebody who owns one can answer your question.</p>

<p>I do have the 24-120mm/f4 AF-S VR, but it is a little weak around 24mm. I think you are better off with the 24-85. Generally speaking, I found the 24-85 to be very good, but I prefer more reach with the 24-120 for people photography.</p>

<p>I just did this and got the Tamron 24-70VC, a fantastic lens btw.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Are you really interested in a huge 50mm/f1.4 lens that uses 77mm filters?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>why would this be an issue, if the OP already has the 17-35 and 70-200, which both use 77mm filters? the sigma 50 is big for a prime, but small compared to either zoom. a bigger issue is what alex says, that it's a great portrait/candid/bokeh lens, but not particularly great for landscapes, where corner performance stopped down is more needed than bokeh at open apertures.</p>

<p>if you dont need the 2.8 of the 24-70, i'd just get the 24-85. you can always rent one before you buy.</p>

<p>Eric, a big 50mm prime is an issue because the OP shoots landsape, which typically involves hiking, perhaps a lot of hiking. He is better off for each ounce he can reduce. IMO, for landscape photography, I wouldn't bother with those f2.8 zooms. That is why I am recommending the 24-85mm/f3.5-4.5 and reduce the 70-200mm to an f4.</p>

<p>Remember the OP wrote in his opening post:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>as most of my exposures are well stopped down and frankly my camera pack currently loaded with D700+grip along with said 17-35mm, 35-70mm, 70-200mm, small carbon tri-pod and a 16mm f/3.5 fisheye to boot is really about as much weight as I care to lug about.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Photo.net should publish my review of the new 18-35mm/f3.5-4.5 AF-S soon. I bought one myself recently. For landscape work, that new lens beats my 17-35mm/f2.8 easily. That old lens has a lot of edge/corner issues on the 17mm end. Modern wides are much better.</p>

<p>I would leave those f2.8 zooms for indoor, hand held work.</p>

<p>agree that the 17-35, 24-70, and 70-200 2.8 zooms are best for PJ work or sports/events, and other lenses may be better for landscape. but, c'mon, it's not like the Sigma 50 is gargantuan, except if you compare it to the 50/1.8 AF-D. IMO being able to share filters is a plus, especially since C-Polas get expensive at that filter size. Also, The OP would save much more weight from replacing the 17-35 and 70-200 with smaller zooms. Hiking with the 70-200 wouldn't be my idea of a picnic.</p>

<p>Sigma (or any other brand) 50mm prime is off my option list. I really want to give myself the opportunity to venture into tight locations with no 'foot zooming' room and have the option to adjust my compositions rapidly without packing up and moving and switching back to another lens.</p>

<p>I'm loathe to mention KR here, however, in his review of the 24-85 VR he does offer up a clear sample exposure with the 24-85mm VR shooting into the sun. Without reading his blurb on this matter the image speaks for itself, it appears the 24-85mm VR version of this lens really does work to my tastes when shooting into the sun......... my 35-70mm f/2.8 is now up for sale..........</p>

<p> </p>