Best 2.8 midrange zoom for D70/D200

[mksnowhite]

I'm wanting to buy a faster lens in the 24-100 (give or take) focal

range zoom For D70 and D200. I currently have a 24-120 ED VR (a very

nice lens) but the vr is pretty uselss for me as I primarily shoot

motion without a tripod (handhold about just about everything.) I

also have a 17-70 kit lens I never use...so figured I sell these and

get a constant 2.8 near the same focal range. Would like to hear

your input on lenses currently on the market...Nikon only...and your

experiences. The faster focusing the better too. I realize this will

be more $$$$ No dx as I have a 8008 too.

 

Thanks guys!

[michael_ferron1]

If you don't need to go real wide with your D70 then I suggest the 28-70 2.8 AFS. Pricey but it's the best you can get for your Nikons.

[mksnowhite]

What do you like about it Michael....the AFS? How big is it (mm wise)

[ShunCheung]

Melanie, please see the discussion in the following thread today:

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00ECOJ

 

We are talking about lenses in the US$1300 range, though.

[frank_skomial]

"The 17-35mm 1:2.8 AF-S Nikkor is an excellent" - Yes.

 

I like the unusual humpback on the back of the doctor standing on the right in the enclosed picture. May be he has posture like that ? This excellent lens costs about $13oo.

[lilly_w]

Mel - you've nailed it in your question. <...faster lens in the 24-100 range...vr useless...constant 2.8...Nikon only...no DX...faster focusing the better> You've got to like simple decisions.

 

I think it's safe to assume you've done your homework if you're pondering a big-ticket lens. What more to say? You don't need to read about specs and CA and distortion and flare and blah-blah-blah. You need a nudge. My 28-70/2.8 sees faaaaar more mileage than my 24-120 VR..nudge-nudge.

[david_h._hartman]

This is pretty obvious: The 28~70/2.8D ED-IF AF-S is the best

choice. If the budget is tight or if the extra 200g or so will

break your back the 35~70/2.8D AF is the choice. If I'm hiking I

might prefer the 35~70/2.8 (which I own). Id also carry a

20/3.5 AIS. For low ambient shooting the extra weight of the 28~70/2.8

adds mass and mass equals inertia.<br>

<br>

I don't own the 28~70/2.8 as I think it cost about $1,650.00 (USD)

when I was in the market for an f/2.8 midrange zoom. I paid about

$400.00 for my 35~70/2.8D AF.<br>

<br>

<a href="http://www.naturfotograf.com/lens_zoom_02.html"

target="_new"><u>http://www.naturfotograf.com/lens_zoom_02.html</u></a><br>

<br>

Regards,<br>

<br>

Dave Hartman.

[chris_leck]

Yup, 28-70 f/2.8. It's big, heavy, expensive, and exquisite. Overall, my favorite lens.

 

You didn't say what kind of motion you shoot. I use mine for dance and music in low light, among other things.

[ShunCheung]

As I said in the other thread, I have most of the f2.8 zooms Nikon offers. The 17-55mm/f2.8 DX on DSLRs is essentially the equivalent of the 28-70mm/f2.8 for film bodies. On DSLRs, I by far prefer the 17-55 DX as 28mm is not all that wide on a DX sensor DSLR. On film bodies, the 28-70mm/f2.8 AF-S is great.

 

Since Melanie mentioned an N8008, please keep in mind that anything from the N8008/F801 family cannot drive AF-S lenses. AF-S lenses become manual-focus only.

[mksnowhite]

OK....28-70 it is....I'm afraid to look at the price but business has taken a big turn and time to step up to the plate ;)

[lex_jenkins]

Melanie, take a look at comments/reviews for the Tokina 28-80/2.8. It's very reasonably priced compared with the equivalent Nikkors and, apparently, better regarded than Tokina's 28-70/2.8. I'm considering this Tokina myself, as along as the autofocus is reasonably quick and certain on my D2H.

[patricks]

i'd recommend that you try the 17-55/2.8 DX anyhow. It is usable between 30-55 on a film body but stellar on a DSLR. Can be had for about $1,000 used in mint condition.