Best "bang for buck" 28-100mm zoom

[elek_ludvigh]

Hi All,

 

The title pretty much says it all. I am looking for a good affordable walk

around lens in this approximate range to use with my somewhat beat up N80 for

mostly landscapes and portraiture.

 

I have researched the major lens testing web sites but have not seen any info

on how lenses in this category from Sigma, Vivitar or Tamron compare with the

Nikor versions. I plan to buy used from Ebay and would like to spend no more

than $100 or so. I have a Nikkor 24-120 which I use on my F100 and like a

lot, but I am looking for a lighter, cheaper lens, which if damaged or stolen

along with the N80 would not cause serious depression.

 

I bet someone out there in photo net land knows about a sleeper lens that

would meet these needs.

 

Thanks in Advance,

 

Jay L.

[Sanford]

I sometimes use a 28-80mm AF Nikkor zoom as a walk around lens on my D80. An all plastic piece of junk that happens to be one of the sharpest lenses I have ever owned. It added $10.00 to the price of a kit when I ordered my D50 from B&H.

[Sanford]

PS - This is on a digital camera which uses the "sweep spot" in the center of a lens, I don't know how good it's performance would be on a film canera.

[Ed_Ingold]

The Nikkor 28-105/3.5-4.5 is an outstanding performer for its price, and can be used with either film or digital. The 28-80 is a dog - poorly constructed and mediocre performance. It is cheap, if you can find one, since most owners dumped this kit lens as soon as possible.

[Sanford]

28-80 "dog" on a D80...<div></div>

[dan_brown4]

KEH has tons of the Nikkor lenses like the 28-85/3.5-4.5; 28-80/3.5-5.6; and 35-105/

3.5-4.5 all for under $100. Trusts me, Nikkors from KEH will be far more satisfying than

brand-x from ebay.

[studor13]

I took the shot below with "the dog" just after I got a D70 and I was only starting out. Have to admit though that I did dump it for the 18-70 DX which is better in many respects but not necessarily sharper.<div></div>

[studor13]

Not only can I tell what the time is, I can just about count the number of red bricks on that chimney.<div></div>

[Ed_Ingold]

Andy,

 

Like I predicted, you dumped the 28-80 for the 18-70, which is a slow but reasonably good lens with a METAL base. Sharp! Perhaps, but how would you know unless you used a tripod, much less from a image on the web?

[rffffffff]

the nikon 28-200 (newer version) seems to get reasonable reviews and can likely be had really cheap. Its not going to be the best lens, and many people will tell you that others with shorter ranges are better, but I would argue that the extended range can make for better pictures that a little more contrast or less distortion would in a shorter zoom...

 

check nikonians.org for a review...

[radfordneal]

Regarding the comments above... There are several versions of the

Nikkor AF 28-80mm. I have the "D" version, with 0.4m closest focus,

and its seems pretty good. The "G" version (with no aperture ring,

for electronic bodies only) is said to be worse.

[photo5]

I had the Tamron 28-80mm before I bought my Nikon 28-105mm AF-D IF, and the Tamron was a great little lens! I think I paid $78 for it new. I paid $325 for the Nikon 28-105mm lens new, so the best bang for the buck was the Tamron for sure! I would buy another one in a heartbeat if I still shot film with an AF Nikon body (F3HP sits in the closet waiting to be used again, the D80 has taken over now).

 

Dave

[studor13]

Edward, we both know that at the end of the day you get what you pay for. All I wanted to say was that for $100, 28-80 can give decent results. Actually, I still have it and recently used it on my f50. The main reason I went for the 18-70 DX was that for landscapes 28mm just isn't wide enough for me.

 

So Jay, I would still recommend the 28-80 since it is light, cheap and highly unlikely that someone would actually steal it. ;)

[jeff h.]

If I were in your shoes I'd get a Nikkor 28-105/3.5-4.5D from KEH and never look back.

[eye-of-searle]

Another vote for the Nikon 28-105mm 3.5-4.5 AFD. It's a great lens and also has a "macro'ish" macro feature that comes in handy for close ups. Great "bang for the buck" lens. I have used one for a few years now with great results. I only recently started using the 18-70mm more with my new D80 since 28mm is not wide enough on a DSLR. I still carry with me quite often for it's macro ability and zoom range.

 

Jim

[mawz]

For cheap and good, the older 28-85 kit lens is better than the 28-80 (Especially the G). The obvious choice is the 28-105, but that's not really a disposable lens.

[fred_bonnett2]

Elek: The Nikon 28-100 is the sharpest lens ever tested by Pop Photo in that particular focal length range. It can purchased new for around $100 and works well on FF and digital bodies. It is light, rugged and small and its results are completely professional in quality. How much more can you ask for!

[elek_ludvigh]

Many Thanks to All,

 

After reviewing the Pop Photo test referenced by Fred above, I have decided that is the way to go for me, but all suggestions are appreciated. Photo Net is great!

 

Cheers,

 

Jay L.

[fred_bonnett2]

Elek: BTW if you read Pop Photos review of your N80 --- they say it has the most accurate shutter they ever tested --- that includes the F5 and all other Nikons, Canons and other makes of cameras.

[wyman_ladd]

As mentioned earlier the 28-105 3.5-4.5D is a awesome lens with very good sharpness,contrast,and color saturation,plus it also has a macro setting.At about $140-$180 on ebay you cant go wrong.Make sure glass is in excelent cond.The 35-105 3.5-4.5D is also a very good lens and would be my second choice(make sure you get the "D"spec lens.)Good luck

[wyman_ladd]

Just in case I didn't make it clear both the lenses I mentioned above are the NIKON lenses not an off brand.

[tong_sun2]

I used to have both 28-85 F3.5-4.5 AF and 28-80 F3.5-5.6 (second version which focuses down to 40cm). The 28-85 is much better built with a lot of glass inside (something like 15 elements in 11 groups). On the other hand, the 28-80 has a plastic mount, is less than half the weight of 28-85, and feels really cheap. And if I remember correctly, only 8 elements in 8 groups.

 

But in actual shooting, the 28-80 just blows its big brother out of water. The edge of the 28-85 is very soft, where 28-80 is decent. Talk about the advances in zoom lens design in the last 15-20 years.

 

I'd go with the 28-100 without hesitation.