Nikon 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5 G AF-S or to 28-70mm f2.8 ?

[raffal]

Out of those two which one i should choose ? Mostly i am interested in lens

with shallow DOF, used for portraits and group photos. I already have 18-200 VR

that covers this range, so does make sense to purchase one of those lenses

anyway?raf

[niccoury]

the 24-86 is one of my fav mid-range Nikons. It's inexpensive, sharp and contrast-y. With a flash, it works wonders.

 

the 28-70 will def. give you a shallower DOF, due to the f/2.8, but it's 3x more expensive, much heavier and larger.

 

~ nic

[jose_angel]

I like the 24-85, but it`s a very different thing when compared with a f2.8 zoom.

About DoF, the f2.8 lens will give you a bit more isolating power especially at the longer end... not so much at the widest. But it will give you many things more:

 

AF on F2.8 lenses is really much better.

 

The 24-85 manual focus ability is made only-to-justify this characteristic at the brochures.

 

The 24-85 must be called f/4-5.6. I don`t see f/3.5 on many cameras.

 

The 24-85 runs up to 85mm, an advantage over the 28-70, but probably softer over 70mm, sorry I can`t speak about the 28-70, but the 24-70 at 70mm is a wonder in comparison.

 

IMHO, if you are a 18-200 owner, forget the 24-85. If you really want a f2.8 zoom, I would go for the 24-70. The main issue here is size and weight. The 28-70 is a monster-lens; probably there are many of this zooms over the shelves or into closets for this reason. Why not a prime?

[niccoury]

you may also want to check out a 35-70 f/2.8 for an inexpensive pro lens. It's sharp and small.

[stuartwilliams]

There is no question that the 28-70mm is a superior piece of glass, however, it depends on budget and need for portability. The results produced with the hugely inexpensive 24-85mm are remarkable and best of all, the lens weighs nothing.

If you're looking for better build quality and a touch more DOF, speak to the bank manager.

[dave_petley2]

go for tamaon 28 70 2.8 nice lens

[dan_brown4]

The 24-85 has pretty crazy distortion at the 24mm end. Make sure you can live with that,

otherwise it is a remarkably sharp lens.

 

Also, if you are seriously considering the 28-70/2.8, might as well pony-up the extra view

hundred $$ and get the new 24-70/2.8.

[brooks_lester]

Both have made great portrait shots for me. They both have good (24-85) to great (28-

75) bokeh. The slightly less good bokeh of the 24-85 is offset by its greater

compression realized by its 10mm longer length.

 

I prefer the Tamron, because I can set aperture to 2.8 anywhere in the zoom range in

order to compose the frame I want.

 

With the 24-85mm AFS you need to be on the long end to get the bokeh and

background defocussing. On digital, the distortion at 24mm is minimized due to the crop

factor. On full frame, I wouldn't shoot architecture with it. It's a great wedding lens on

digital because you have a 36-127mm equivalent lens with AFS. Shoot most of the

wedding with that and have a wider lens on standby if you need it.

 

The 24-85mm AFS is also really cheap used. I got one in mint condition for $150.00.

The Tamron was $370 new. Sure, I'd love a new Nikon 24-70 or an old 28-70 but I'd

buy a medium format rig at those prices.

[raffal]

Thanks everyone!raf

[Peter_in_PA]

17-55 is better for a DX camera. 24 only gets you to fov equivalent of 36mm. I find that

sometimes too limiting for group photos.

 

For shallow DOF portraiture, ( I assume you don't want shallow DOF for GROUP photos) try a

50mm f1.4 or 1.8. Or a 60mm f2.8

 

I don't think either of the lenses you are looking at are good with DX.

[vincenzo_maielli]

Nikkor AF D 28-70 mm f/ 2,8 absolutely.

Ciao.