Looking for a standard zoom

[jv1]

Good day,

 

I am looking for an autofocus 'standard' zoom (from 24-28mm to 70 or

longer). I use a Nikon F4s (recently acquired, I love this camera!)

and a Nikon F70 as backup, which means no G-type lenses.

 

I use mostly primes if I want the best quality, so what I am looking

for is a good walkaround lens, that is not extremely heavy or

expensive (thus excluding the 2.8 zooms for which I have no need),

in fact I'm looking to spent as little as possible. I am looking for

Nikkors only, maybe it's silly, but I don't 'trust' third-party

lenses as much, and besides, Nikkors seem to hold their resale value

better.

 

I already have a standard zoom, my first lens, the 35-80 f/4-5.6. I

find it lacking for two things: 5.6 is a bit too slow and too dark

in the viewfinder, I would prefer something like f/3.5-4.5 (or f/2.8-

4), and, 35mm is still too long on the wide end. I don't need 24mm,

it would be nice, but more important is good performance at 28mm (my

favorite focal lenght).

 

So, let me take a look at the options:

 

AF 24-85 mm f/2.8-4 Nikkor: Bjorn Rorslett rates this lens very

good, and Ken Rockwell rather bad. It would be a great zoom range,

and I like the speed (admittedly I have not yet looked at the price

of this lens), but I am wondering how the quality is. Generally I

trust Naturfotograf a lot more than Ken Rockwell, but it's always

possible Bjorn just happened to have an extraordinary good sample,

compared to the rest of 'm.

 

AF-Nikkor 28-70 mm f/3.5-4.5: From what I hear this lens is very

good. The zoom range is a bit shorter than that of the others, but

if this means better quality, I won't hesitate to buy this lens. It

looks like what I'm looking for, but I would like some feedback on

this lens.

 

AF-Nikkor 28-105 mm f/3.5-4.5 IF: Nice zoomrange, but I hear mixed

comments about it. How is the quality compared to that of the other

lenses mentioned?

 

Zoom-Nikkor 28-85 mm f/3.5 - 4.5: On paper this looks like the

perfect lens for me: cheap, nice zoom range, nice speed.

Unfortunately, I'm hesitant to get this since it's a lot older, and

I tried it a bit in a shop: the lens had a lot of play (this would

lead to incorrect focus if the amount of play is significant,

right?), the autofocus seemed to rattle a lot, ... Any comments?

 

 

As you can see, I tried to do my homework as good as possible, what

I am looking for now is simply user feedback, what would you guys

recommend?

 

Thanks in advance.

[low light]

HI Jonas, Would you consider a 3rd party lens? I have the Sigma 28-70F2.8EX and it is an excellent lens. Even though a have a lot of fast primes I use it more my F100.

[jv1]

Thanks for the suggestion Anthony. I'll certainly look into it, though I am somewhat more hesitant to buy non-Nikkor lenses. Then again, if it's good, it's good, I guess :)

 

I did some more "research" and I'd have to say the 24-85 f/2.8-f/4 is out of my budget range for this... I'd rather spent that money on something else. Right now I'm leaning most towards the AF Nikkor 28-70 f/3.5-4.5. I can pick one up, with warranty, in good condition, from a shop I trust for 150EUR. I'd like to hear some comments about this lens specifically!

 

thanks in advance!

[richard_laepple]

I'd get a newer lens with internal focus. IF has some advantages like faster AF, no rotating front while focussing. But if you prefer manual mode this may not be important. Manual focus on IF zooms is a bit difficult. I once had the 28-105 and used it on a F-801s and F4s, this lens always did a good job for me, good results even wide open. The only 2 things I did not like were the huge lens shade and the rotating front while zooming. Today I'd go for 24-85 instead.

[uli_theune]

One for the 28-105. Although I also prefer primes I realize that I am using this zoom more often than I thought before buying it. Nice range, and good images for a "walk-around lens". Of course it doesn't beat the 35/F2, 50/F1.8, 85/F1.8 ... but who expects that?

[gaius1]

The Tamron 28-75/2.8 is surprisingly good.

[Ed_Ingold]

The venerable Nikkor 35-70/2.8 is one of the sharpests lenses in Nikon's stable, in addition to being a fast (for zooms) f/2.8. You can get a used "D" version for under $400 in excellent (per KEH) condition. None of the other lenses you mention stand up to this lens in terms of image quality.

 

There is little difference between 70 and 85 at the long end. However, 28 is significantly wider than 35 at the short end. The other strike is that the filter ring rotates - a feature shared by most of the other lenses you are looking at.

 

I also have a 28-105/3.5-4.5, which is highly regarded by most. The quality of the image is superior to the other lenses you mention, according to most reviews. It is slow (i.e., dim) and the filter ring rotates (with focusing or zoom, I forget which), and is not nearly as clean and sharp as the 35-70/2.8. The 24-85/2.8-4 is overpriced, with modest optical quality. The only redeeming feature of the 28-85/3.5-4.5 is that is is cheap enough to use as a paper weight.

[russ_butner___portland__or]

I too, highly recommend the Nikon 28-105 AF lens. I've been pleasantly surprised how nice and sharp the slides are. I use a "Sonia" hood on it. Much better and more compact than Nikon's HB-18 hood.

 

Russ

[mawz]

Given that there's only $100 difference between the Nikon 28-105 and the Tamron 28-75 f2.8, I'd have to recomend the latter. Given the superb optics and low cost of the Tamron, I'd say it's the best deal. After that, I'd look at a used Nikkor 35-70 f2.8.

[bernard_frank]

I'm with Guy on this one. Look into the Tamron 28-75/2.8. Excellent, and not too

expensive.

[todd peach seattle, washi]

One of my most-used lenses on AF film bodies is the Nikon 24-50 F3.3-4.5. It is inexpensive (about $100 used) and compact. I find that my 'eye' tends to need the 24mm focal length for a lot of shots, so the 28-whatever zooms didn't do it for me. Coupled with a flash I find this a good 'party lens'.

 

If you compare the results head-to-head with pro zooms or the best primes, you can see that this lens is a half step behind in 'pop' or brilliance. Still, I use it a lot, and I have tons of choices available to me.

[roland_vink]

I have the 28-70/3.5-4.5 and find it's a decent mid-range zoom. I like the range it covers. 28mm is wide enough for scenics or interiors without too much distortion. Some might comment that 28mm is not wide enough, but I think it's a good focal length. The 70mm long end again is good enough for people shots and closeups, although I usually use this lens in combination with a telephoto.

 

This lens is relatively compact and it takes 52mm filters in common with may other Nikon lenses. Wide open the sharpness is ok, better stopped down to f5.6 and very good from f8-f11. Light fall-off can be seen wide open especially at the wide end but it's gone when you stop down a couple of clicks. At the wide end barrel distortion is noticeable, but from 35mm upwards distortion is gone. It is very resistant to flare so you can safely shoot backlit subjects and sunsets. It has no separate macro mode, macro focusing is simply an extension of the normal focus range so it's simple to use and available at all focal lengths.

 

I've tried a few other mid range zooms including the AiS 35-70/3.3-4.5 and AiS 25-50/3.5. Both have similar performance but I feel on balance the AF 28-70/3.4-4.5 has the most good points and the least faults.

[hayward]

I've had the Tamron 28-75 XR mentioned for about a month. I went to it away from primes because I felt I was missing shots changing lenses or not having the right one with me. The Tamron is good optically, though seems just discernably inferior to the primes I was using. While the lens is light, it is a bit too plasticky for my taste - more like a cheap consumer zoom than a pro lens, although the optics seem to be at pro level.

[ivan_verschoote1]

I have the 28-105/3.5-4.5 for 6 years now and I'm still amazed of the quality of my images even with my D70. I've bought the 18-70 dx kit lens together with my D70 and I sold it because I left it in the bag more often than my 28-105. The sharpness of the 18-70 couldn't match the 28-105. It's a great allround lens for a very grood price, excellent results and compact. Don't buy it for the Macro ability, its the only thing that is disapointing.

[ian_gordon_bilson]

Roland - I have the 28-70 too. It has noticeable focus shift when zoomed.Is this true of your example? - Thanks.