Until I can afford the Nikon 28-70 2.8 What would you suggest?

Discussion in 'Nikon' started by tricia_moskal, Dec 8, 2008.

  1. I have the 70-200, as well as primes 28, 50, and 85. But I need a zoom now. After the D700, and the 3 strobe and softboxes, I may be sleeping on the couch if I spend another $1800 on a lens! I would like to here feedback from other shooters using Sigma & Tamaron lenses.
    What you you think, or suggest?
     
  2. A Tamron 28-75mm f2.8 is an excellent lens and sells for under $500. Many pro photographers prefer it over the more trouble prone Canon 24-70mm f2.8 lens. The Nikon 28-75mm f2.8 would be a good lens to acquire on the used market (just avoid eBay).
     
  3. How about the Nikon 28-105? Not a 2.8 zoom, but a decent lens at a bargain price (some nice D3/D700 images have been posted here using this lens).
     
  4. How about the 18-70mm Nikkor f3.5-F5.6? You might discover you reall don't need that very expensive extra stop.
     
  5. You can get good deals on used Nikkor 35-70/2.8. This lens is every bit as good optically as the 28-70/2.8, s maller and lighter. The filter ring rotates in focusing and the zoom is push-pull, which I like but some don't. It also ha s a solid, professional feel, unlike the 28-105/3.5-4.5 (which is otherwise a good lens, but not as good as the 35- 70 ).
    &nbs p;
    I've never been seriously tempted to buy a Sigma or Tamro n lens.
    ����������������������������������
     
  6. I've also thought of the Tamron 28-75mm f2.8 zoom. I really can't feel satisfied with just the 35-70mm range, I find the 28mm focal length very useful in many situations when I need a wide angle, and 70mm is a nice "normal" focal length. I've also liked the Nikon 28-105mm and while I owned it it did not feel "cheap" to me at all, it's built to the same standard as the Nikon 35-70mm f2.8 AF lens in my experience. I have the Tamron 17-35mm f2.8 zoom and it's very good, but not sharp in the corners as the Nikon version surely would be. For 10 percent of the cost of the Nikon, it's a bargain.
     
  7. The Tokina 28-80 AT-X f/2.8 is a fantastic piece of glass. It is pretty cheap and really solid.
     
  8. Thanks for all the input. I prefer to stick to the Nikkor lenses, but had not considered the others. I have a little bit of research to do! :)
     
  9. I picked up my Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 two weeks ago and here's a shot I took yesterday. Overall, this lens is very sharp with nice bokeh. Very happy with it as my portrait lens.
    00Rjsi-96033584.jpg
     
  10. I second 35-70mm 2.8. It's an obvious choice and images are great.
     
  11. The Zeiss ZF 35mm / f2. You will not be disappointed.
     
  12. I also agree the Nikon 35-70 f2.8 is a winner! On sale for $550!
     
  13. I seems counterproductive to save up for an expensive lens by purchasing another lens that could cost a few hundred dollars. If a 28-70 will be your end result, why not look into the Nikon 28-70 f/3.5-4.5. It can be had for less than $100. The 35-70 f/3.5-4.5 is also a sharp little lens for about $50.
     
  14. love my tamron!
     
  15. Maybe take a look at the 24-120 f3.5-5.6 VR. I used that for many years before getting my 24-70, which is a wonderful lens, by the way!!!
     
  16. stp

    stp

    The Nikkor 35-70 f2.8D is one of the sharpest lenses I've ever used. Sold it several years ago, spent the intervening time regretting it, and just got a replacement a month ago. Great lens.
     
  17. This won't help you choose a lens but..... How long is it going to take you to save up for a 28-70? the reason I ask is because if it was me and I knew for sure I'll have the cash in a few months I would rather buy the lens on a credit card and pay a few bucks of interest than buying a lens just for a while. i think that is more expensive. This is just what I would do! good luck!
    PS. my vote on the 35-70 f/2.8
     
  18. I would suggest you to make do with what basic mid zoom lens you have now .. or if you don't have one get that. So when you wanna go light you have that ... so that isn't a wasteful expenditure. For digital 18-70mm is pretty good as I understand, I have mine shipping to me now :D Great FL for digital DX.
    Depends how you are saving. If you have no money .. not sure if one should budget so tightly. If you are saying you have other priorities but have money that you rather not spend, maybe I would use that now .. or if you not like, get a lightweight version that would surely be useful when you wanna go light.
     
  19. ray, an 18-70 is a DX lens, so not the best choice for an Fx camera like the D700.
    to the OP, i have the tamron 28-75, use it with d300. sharp and contrasty is its middle name. it would probably be even better on FX as it's considerably wider. i'd also consider the sigma 24-60/2.8 and the nikon 24-85/2.8-4, and also the tamron 17-35, which would get you really wide on FX.
     
  20. It really depends on what capability/quality of the 24-70 f/2.8 you want to have the most. If you prefer the f/2.8 speed for low light and subject isolation, then the old 35-70 f/2.8 AF-D present a good value, especially if one can be obtained new or in good condition. Several 3rd party f/2.8 zooms should also be feasible choices. (I personally considered buying them, but ended up biting the bullet on the 24-70 f/2.8 and becoming broke afterward)
    If you just want to have a lens that goes to 24 mm on FX, then you got a few good choices. There's the 24-85 f/3.5-4.5 AF-S, the 24-85 f/2.8-4 AF-D, the 24-120 f/3.5-5.6 VR, and several other normal zooms from the film and early digital era. They should work fine and give good results, though they lack the capabilities of a f/2.8 lens.
    Some pro PJ photographers tend to use two lenses the most. They tend to have a fast wide angle zoom on one body and a fast tele zoom on the other. So you might want to look at the ultra wides along with the normal zooms.
     
  21. Another vote for the 35-70mm f2.8 Nikkor. Pro build, excellent IQ (some complain about flare, but it's never bothered me) and the price is right!
    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]
     
  22. Tricia, you want to know what we can recommend. Let me tell you.
    1) Nikon AF-S 24-85 G f3.5-4.5 comes to mind. Discontinued (alas!) but not forgotten.
    2) Nikon AF-S 24-120 VR f3.5-5.6 may help. Dismissed by some, loved by others, worth a try.
    3) Sigma AF 24-70 f2.8 cuts the mustard if you want a nice, wide zoom. Nice, pleasant bokeh, fast focusing, good range and, most important, fast. Check the classifieds. Mine is for sale there.
     
  23. I purchased a 35-70mm 2.8D for $285 on ebay. It's in mint condition. It's a great lens and it's solid metal.
    My only complaint is I wish it were sligtly wider. On a full frame sensor it would be perfect. It was made for film so duh. I do which it were a 28-70 at least....but I'd be a whole lot poorer because of it.
     
  24. BTW - the tamron 28-75 2.8 is a nice lens. The build quality isn't all that impressive, but the image quality is very good. For under $500 it's all you could ask for.
     
  25. You have quite a few lenses already. I personally think the best way is just to save up as much as you can and get the 24-70mm once you have enough money. There's no point getting slower zoom especially when you are so used to prime and your 'slowest' lens is 70-200mm.
    Well you can also get the third party one like Tamron 28-75mm or 17-50mm f/2.8 (17-50mm may not suit your D700 though), but again, since you are so used to your lenses, you might not like the build and the zoom feel at all.
    I think if you really NEED one as of now, the Nikon 35-70mm recommended previously is your best choice.
     
  26. Until I can afford the Nikon 28-70 2.8, I use 35-80/4-5,6 from my old F50. I have to save every penny, dreaming to 24-80/2,8G...
     
  27. I agree with Eric Sande the 28-70 f/3.5-4.5 is a great lens when stopped down to f8. I paid mine 80$ on ebay. BTW see http://www.naturfotograf.com/lens_zoom_02.html#AF28-70 for a competent evaluation.
     
  28. If you purchase a cheaper gap fill lens, you are one step away from getting your dream lens.
     
  29. I think the 28-105 or 35-70/2.8 would be good short term zoom lenses that can do the job while you save up for the 24-70 or the 28-70. The 28-105 and 35-70 can be purchased for very little money right now, as they use the older body-motor autofocus. I have used both lenses on 35mm film and they're good glass, one has wider range and a bit lower quality and the other a very short range but very good optics. ;-)
     
  30. i'm basically in the same boat, and for the time being i am well served by the 28-70/3.5-4.5D. i look at 3rd party lenses sometimes, but i know what i really want...
     
  31. Ok, if it is FF, I would go for a 24-85mm AFS for a lightweight lens that you can stil use in the future should you go light so not a redundant investment.
    Not sure on 35-70/2.8 cos may be not wide enof.

    I would also think about a 28-105 or 24-120vr if you want a travel all in one lens or even a 28-200 if you can trade quality for convenience.
     
  32. Another vote for the 24-85 f3.5-4.5 AF-S.
    As wide as the 24-70 f2.8, longer than that or the 28-70 f2.8.
    Much much smaller and far cheaper than either.
    Fast quiet AF-S as both of the bigger expensive lenses.
    Yes, slower than f2.8 but with the low noise and high iso of the D700/D3 I'm still shooting at plenty fast shutter speeds for the shots I need, especially if I am using flash e.g. covering an event with a Gary Fong Whale Tail. I have a 28-70 f2.8 AF-S that sits on the shelf favoring the small and light 24-85.
    Plenty sharp too.
     
  33. Get the $100 Nikon 50mm 1.8.
     
  34. Thanks for all the input. I think I have decided to stick with the 35-70 Nikkor!
     

Share This Page