AF 28-70/f2.8-ED-IF lense for D200?

[ntv666]

I want a lense that is compatiable for my D200 as well as N80. Is it

ok if I buy one AF 28-70mm/f2.8 ED-IF Nikkor? I am already having a

AF 80-200/2.8 ED-IF(Nikkor)with my N80. Will this two lense serve my

pupose for Portraits and landscape and nature photography in both

the camaeras? Can you also suggest a good MICRO lense (Nikkor)that

can be used in D200 and N80 also? I will be happy to get your

response and thank you very much in advance.

N.Thangavelu

[mawz]

The 28-70 will not be all that great for landscape work on the D200 because it's not wide

on a DSLR (it's a 42-105 equivalent) but it will work fine. I'd recommend instead getting

the 17-35 AF-S and a tamron 28-75 f2.8 to fill the gap between the 17-35 and the

80-200, it's sharp and cheap. That will get you an ultra-wide on the N80 and wide-normal

coverage on the D200.

 

For a good macro, I'd look at either the Nikon 60mm f2.8 or the Tamron 90mm f2.8. You

might also be able to get a good deal on the recently discontinued Nikon 105mm f2.8 AF-

D.

[bernard_frank]

Do you HAVE to buy a zoom? Is it for the convenience? Because, for the price of a 28-70/

2.8 or so you could get a 50/1.8 AF (great portrait lens on a D200), a 85/1.4 AF (fabulous

portrait lens on any Nikon film camera) and a 20/2.8 or 24/2.8 AF.

[Ed_Ingold]

You would find a wider lens much more useful, perhaps the 17-55/2.8. That would pair up well with your 80-200/2.8. 28mm on a DSLR is equivalent to 42mm on film - not very wide at all. The 17-55 is as good or better than the wide angle primes it replaces, and a lot more useful than the cultish 50/1.8 for general photography. If you must have a 50mm prime in your kit, get a 55mm AIS. Or you can buy a new 50/1.8 for chump change.

 

I have a 28-70/2.8, in part because I migrated from film, and need it in conjuction with a 17-35. The 28-70 is my lens of choice for landscapes. It is very sharp and has very little distortion, and will focus down to about 1:4 magnification (on a DSLR). A wide angle lens is best used in landscapes to emphasize something in the foreground, not to capture everything in sight. A longer lens helps eliminate clutter and emphasize middle and background details. I also use it for individual and group portraits (if there is enough leg room).

 

A Nikkor 105/2.8 Micro is an excellent lens for closeups in nature for digital or film. The new IF-VR version is definitely worth a look. With the cropping sensor of the D200 you have the equivalent of an 150mm lens with the corresponding long working distance (front element to the subject). If you plan to copy documents or artwork, you should get a 55mm AIS or 60mm AF Micro lens. Neither of these work well in the field, however, due to the short working distance. There is nothing mandatory about 1:1 magnification. Most macro work is less than 1:5, unless you practice opthamology on bugs (hemiptera).

[cameradude]

Zooms are more convenient, if you have all those primes, you need more time to change the lenses or more bodies. Prime is old school!

 

I was thinkin about getting that same lens, because I shoot a D50, and an F4 thinking I could use that lens on both cameras. Another similar lens, but of lesser quality is the Sigma 24-70 f2.8 runs around $400 vs. Nikkor's $1,400.

 

Or I could go out and buy 5 prime lenses and a huge backpack to carry them in. Same quality, more convenience with a zoom. Recently spoke with a Nikon employee who got laid off 2 weeks shy of his 25th anniversary Rolex, he told me primes were great when the technology wasn't there and recommended zooms. After trying out the 28-70 2.8 in a store, I'm starting to believe him.

 

Enough talking, go take some pictures.

[david_h._hartman]

Thangavelu,<br>

<br>

You asked about portraits and landscape. For

portraits the 28~70/2.8D ED-IF AF-S is probably the best Nikkor

zoom right now. There is no 70mm or so prime lens from Nikon. You

might use the 35~70/2.8D AF with little or no loss in quality

just a little loss in focal length at the normal end. I say

normal end because 28mm is to me on the short end of normal while

35mm is pretty much right on it.<br>

<br>

For landscape youll want wider. The 17~55/2.8G ED-IF AF-S

DX or the 17~35/2.8D ED-IF AF-S are better choices for landscape.

You didnt mention events but the 17~55/2.8G will be a

better lens for events photography on DX.<br>

<br>

---<br>

<br>

<em>Prime is old school! --Robert Morton<br>

</em><br>

Forgive me but that statement shows ignorance. <br>

<br>

I sold a pickup truck back in 1974 to get an 80~200/4.5 Zoom-Nikkor,

the only way I could finance it, and in 1982 I got a 25~50/4.0

AIS Zoom-Nikkor that performs very nicely (Thank You!) on DX

cameras as well as on film. I also own a 35~70/2.8D AF, 70~180/4.5~5.6D

ED Zoom-Micro and 80~200/2.8D ED AF and more. OK, so Im not

anti-zoom by any stretch.<br>

<br>

There is a place for both primes and zooms. Perhaps not in your

bag but thats your decision and does not change the many

performance and lens character issues involved. There is far more

to a lens than focal length and sharpness.<br>

<br>

Regards,<br>

<br>

Dave Hartman.

[ntv666]

Dear Mr. Frank, Edward, Robert and Mr.David,

 

Thank you very much for your kind advice and sugestions. I think I can go for AF 17-55/2.8 ED-IF . So that I can use it in N80 and D200. Am I right?. What about that new AF-S Nikkor 18-200 /3.5-5.6 DX -ED-VR which can be used only in Dgital?

[ShunCheung]

Unless you don't mind serious vignetting, the 17-55mm/f2.8 DX can only be used on your N80 from about 28mm to 55mm. Below 28mm, you'll start seeing darkened corners on the 24x36mm film frame. I have done test shots with the 17-55 on my f5.