Upgrading lenses for Nature Photography

Hi all,

I shoot primarily nature (landscapes, wildlife, macro flora/fana)and

looking at upgrading some of

of my lenses. My eyes are not what they used to be so I need the 2.8

for the bright view finder image.

Here are the lenses I am considering:

AF 20-35 f/2.8, AF 17-35D AF-S, or adding the AF 20mm 2.8D to my 24mm

2.8 prime set

AF 35-70 f/2.8 or the AF 28-70 f/2.8 AF-S

AF 80-200 f/2.8 (2 ring w/collar) or 80-200 f/2.8 AF-S

I was able to look at the AF 35-70D

and the 28-70 f/2.8 AF-S last weekend but the store did not have any

of the other lenses I am considering.

Of course the 35-70 is more compact than the 28-70 AF-S and somewhat

lighter but it has the Push-Pull zoom and the barrel rotates with the

focus..do you find that an issue?

Size can be a factor for the field and of course weight as well but I

can carry my Lowe Pro Photo Trekker AW all day long with the tripod

attached

(not too bad for being 50!)

Money is always and issue but if the AF-S series is really "better"

than the other f/2.8 series lenses in my list then I will go for it.

Appreciate any input from you that may own or have experience with

any of these lenses.

Jeff

Those are all really good lenses. I traveled all over Europe with the 20-35 and 28-105. I could tell when I used the 20-35 because it it always sharper. It is a very nice lens. I upgraded to the 17-35 AFS because I got a good deal on one. I cannot tell the difference between it and the 20-35, even though it is reputed to be sharper. I also upgraded to the 28-70 AFS. I compared it shot for shot to the 28-105 AFD and saw a big difference.

I also have the 80-400VR. What I like about the 20-35 or 17-35, 28-70 and 80-400VR is that they all use 77mm filters. The 20mm and 24mm fixed lenses are awesome lenses, but you would need to carry different sized filters for them. One filter size for all means I can carry one Circular polarizer, one warming filter, and one ND grad for all of three them (each lens has a UV otherwise).

AF-S is just a change in the focussing motor. The 20-35 does not need it, since the focussing range is small. Having never used the 35-70, I cannot say if there would be a difference between it and the 28-70, but I doubt it would be that significant. With the 80-400VR, the lack of AFS is an obvious annoyance with fast moving subjects. So, if I were going for the 80-200, I would definitely want AFS.

Nikon is currently working on a 80-200 AFS VR lens, but only the Lord knows when it will be out (and he ain't talking).

The 80-200/2.8N AF N focuses very fast, so in that respect the AF-S has little advantage, other than the ability to fine tune the focus manually. The latter is also a heavier lens.

The 35-70 is a nice lens optically ... the advantages of the 28-70 are of course the autofocus (for nature photography it probably doesn't matter in this focal length range) and the wider range (may be important). I'd take the 28-70 because of the range.

The 20-35 I would not recommend. I think it doesn't produce sharp landscape shots, even when stopped down. It's excellent for photojournalism but not landscapes. The 17-35 is reportedly better in this respect. Still, whether you want to pay for the zoom in this range is up to you; I'd just get by with primes.