28-70mm F2.8 lense for D2x

[guts80]

I know posts of these kinds are plentiful in this form but I'm looking

for real life experience, especially those that have used these lenses

with a D2x.

 

After looking at the shocking price tag of the Nikon AF-S 28-70/F2.8 I

decided a 3rd party alternative would be more fitting for my budget.

 

After doing some preliminary research I came up with these three

options (prices for B&H)

 

Tamron

Zoom Wide Angle-Telephoto AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di LD Aspherical (IF)

Autofocus Lens

Price : $ 379.00

 

Sigma

Zoom Wide Angle-Telephoto 28-70mm f/2.8 EX DG Autofocus Lens

Price : $ 329.00

*G lens ?? (I saw this lens that did have an aperture ring...)

 

Tokina

Zoom Wide Angle-Telephoto 28-70mm f/2.8 ATX Pro-SV Autofocus Lens

Price: $249.95

*Non 'D' Lens ?

 

Although the lens will be mostly used on D2x, it would best if I could

also use with my F3HP (in which the sigma would not be viable).

However this is a minor point. In terms of priority: Contrast,

Sharpness, color rendition, aperture ring.

 

It seems like the Tokina has the best build quality and cheapest, but

it is the oldest design. My experience with the D2x is that it is VERY

demanding on lenses. Autofocus is a must, but doesn't have to be

exceptionally fast. I don't really want to get a DX lens (I may wind

up getting an AF film body) but if they provide better sharpness and

contrast at these focal lengths then I'll consider it.

 

Appreciate any feedback

[ShunCheung]

With a top-of-the line DSLR that costs well over US$4000, I sure hope that you can afford some zoom lenses that are more than $300 or so. The D2X is indeed very demanding.

[bernard_frank]

I have used the Nikon 28-70/2.8 several times on the D2X and, since I can't afford it, I

bought the Tamron 28-75/2.8. The Nikon gives fantastic results, as is expected. But the

Tamron is not far away optically, believe me. It is nowhere near as solidly built, and it

probably won't stand the same abuse as the Nikon zoom, but it is lighter, smaller, and the

photos are great. It is sharp, the colors are beautiful and it focuses very well.

 

I don't know the two other zooms, but I can heartily recommend the Tamron.

[pauljm]

Since buying a D200 I have dispensed with my old 'enthusiast' lenses (Tamron 19-35 and

28-300) and replaced them with the Nikon 17-55/F2.8 and 70-200/F2.8 VR. However I

decided to keep my Tamron 28-70/F2.8 because it's such a superb lens..

[eric_brody]

I agree with Shun, spending the money on a D2X body and putting 3rd party lenses on it makes as much sense as buying a Porsche to drive only to and from the grocery store. Either you're not as serious about image quality as you think you are, or you made an error buying the D2X. Wait, save, and get the best lenses money can buy, otherwise you should have bought a D50 and saved a lot of money.

[wilsontsoi]

If you have around $400 left after buying the D2X, I'd got fetch an 85 f1.8D and a 35 f2D and call it a day. If you're going with third party, make sure full compatibility isn't an issue.

[bernard_frank]

It is a bit of a surprise ro read comments such as Shun's and Eric's. There are numerous

excellent third party lenses which are perfectly "worthy" of the D2X. The already

mentioned Tamron 28-75 is one. So are, I understand, the Tokina 12-24/4, the Sigma 30/

1.4, etc... And, sometimes, you can't afford a $4,500 body like the D2X PLUS a $1,500 lens

such as the Nikon 17-55. But you choose the top-of-the-line body knowing that you will

find a few good lenses other than top-noch Nikons.

 

To say that third party lenses will inevitably kind of "downrate" the D2X is a snobbish

attitude, and not a very knowledgeable one at that.

[guts80]

Well, there seems to be two camps: the Nikon die hards who believe OEM is the best, and those that think high end 3rd party are comparable at a lot more affordable price.

 

I did get to try out the 28-70 AFS that a friend of mine owned. Yes it is mechanically smoother and better constructed than the the Sigma or Tamron (haven't got the chance to physically handle the Tokina yet) BUT it is also significantly heavier. I do understand that (even for today's entry DSLR) the sensor will in most cases, out resolve the lens, thus the reasoning behind getting a mediocre body and a good lens than vice versa. That being said, I do believe the pro series lens from 3rd party companies are of comparable optical quality to their Nikon counterpart. The macros are a testament to this statement.

 

I'm not talking about a measly $100 here and there; we're talking about a significant chunk of money. Would the difference between a Nikon and 3rd party be significant enough to justify such a price delta? Nonetheless, we are entitled to our own opinion and for that I will not argue against who is right and who is wrong, for both have their merits.

 

I would have sprung for a D200 if it was on offer when I purchased the D2x, but alas it was not. Furthermore, the cost to benefit of selling my D2x now (particularly here in Hong Kong) is not worth it. That being said, I do not wish to enter yet another flame war. I would appreciate real life experiences with these lenses. For those that have responded as such, thank you.

[mawz]

The Tamron is a superb lens. It does lack the build quality of the Tokina, but is optically

excellent (damn near as good as the Nikkor IMHO). The light build and IF contributes to good

AF performance. I owned this lens in KAF2 mount and used it on an Pentax *istD and MX, and

intend to buy it in F mount in the near future (For use with my F3, FA and whatever Digital I

acquire). It does handle quite nicely on MF bodies as well, although I did miss Full-time

manual focus on the AF bodies, which even my cheapo Pentax 18-55 had (All Pentax DA

lenses do FTM)

[lex_jenkins]

There are different viewpoints on this issue, all of them valid.

 

Unless you expect to take 100,000 or more photos during the next several years it might make better economic sense to buy a less expensive body and use the rest of the budget to buy the best lenses you can afford.

 

On the other hand, if you do anticipate putting a camera to hard use and long term reliability is somewhat more important than maximum image quality, it makes good sense to get the best body and compromise a bit on lenses. That was my approach when I got a D2H. I wasn't expecting to make large prints and I had lenses that were good enough. But I did want a body that would hold up under heavy use. And I can add better lenses in time.

 

And, well, there was the D2H blowout last year. Couldn't pass up that deal. Nikon doesn't offer such deep discounts very often.

 

It is possible to get top quality third party lenses and save a little money. Tokinas impress me as having a consistently good feel - very solid, not cheap feeling. So do some of the high end Sigmas and Tamrons. Shop around, read as many reviews as you can find and you'll be able to get some very good lenses within your budget.

 

There are certain advantages to Nikkors, other than optical performance, that can justify the higher price. For one thing, AF-S Nikkors with the Silent Wave Motor are generally regarded as having the best autofocusing capability. Judging from the many reviews I've read, Sigma's HSM lenses vary a bit in AF speed - some models are very quick, some aren't. The Tokinas I've tried autofocus about as quickly as a typical AF Nikkor with the screwdriver mechanism. These might be fast enough for some situations, especially with higher end Nikon bodies having stronger AF motors. But usually AF-S Nikkors provide the quickest autofocusing.

 

On the other other hand (I'm running out of hands here), some of the desirable AF-S Nikkors are G types and I still use my F3HP and FM2N quite a bit.

 

And there are a handful of unique third party lenses that don't have any Nikkor equivalents: the Sigma 150/2.8 macro and 120-300/2.8, for example.

 

The closest Nikkor in terms of focal range and price to the three zooms you mentioned would be the 35-70/2.8D AF Nikkor. Not quite as much focal range but a top notch lens for autofocus or manual focus cameras.

[bernard_frank]

Very good, Lex. Right, the Nikon 35-70/2.8 should not be forgotten. More expensive than

Tamron or Sigma, but still "affordable". And I also like Nikon "cheap" 18-35/3.5-4.5 AF-D

on the D2X, despite some chromatic aberrations. Of course, if I could, I'd buy all the top-

of-the-line Nikons: the 17-35/2.8, the 28-70/2.8 and the 70-200/2.8 VR. But, since I

can't, the passionate amateur that I am is perfectly happy with the high-end D2X and

primes like Nikon 24/2.8 AF, 35/2 AF, 50/1.8 AF, 85/1.4 AF plus a couple of affordable

zooms. Not to forget some great AI oldies which you can use on the D2X. This feature

alone is reason enough to buy the D2X, even if you then have to "compromise" on some

zooms. And I am considering Tokina 12-24 AT-X as we speak, not Nikon 12-24 DX.

[brandonhamilton]

I have the Sigma 28-70, and find it pretty average. Unless I am shooting down the middle at f8, it is pretty soft. I don't recommend it.

[chris_leck]

For many of my subjects, the fast, quiet focusing of AF-S is worthwhile. The Nikkor 28-70mm is very heavy and very expensive. Yet it still is my favorite lens (even with the 17-55mm). YMMV.

[guts80]

Just wanted to update everyone on my final decision.

 

Well today, taking advantage of the 4 day holiday, I went to my trusted store and got to handle all four the lenses I was considering! After much consideration and deliberation I finally went for the Nikon AF-S 28-70/F2.8

 

On the bright side at least I am lighter...in a sense.

 

Anyways for those considering between the sigma 24-70, tamron 28-75, and tokina 28-80, I highly recommend the tamron unless the extra 4mm on the wide end or 5-10mm extra on the telephoto range (which truth be told is essentially insignificant). The physical construction and movement of the rings is far better than either one. For the sigma, not only do the rings bind (the zoom ring in particular) but the touted push-pull AF-M is pretty much a gimmick. Switching between AF and M with this lens will require some taking used to. So in my humble opinion, you should either go for the Tokina and Tamron. Can't speak much about optical performance though.

 

Just thought everybody would like to know and once again, thank you for all your comments and advice. What a great community we have here