Third party normal (24-70/28-70/etc) f/2.8 zoom.

[toan_pham1]

Hello everyone.

 

It's been 3 years since I last posted on photo.net (or did anything photography) and boy has things change. Now I've

graduated from Uni, I've decided to pursue my photography hobby again.

 

Current set up is F801s (N8008s) + Nikon 35-70mm f/2.8 (non-D), Tamron SP 90mm f/2.5 macro, Nikon 50mm AF

f/1.8D, Sigma 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 AF (dinosaur), Tokina ATX AF 20-35mm f/3.5-4.5.

 

I've just acquired a D700 kit with 24-120mm and I intend to sell the lens to get a better lens. I can't afford Nikon's

latest 24-70mm 2.8 so I was hoping for recommendation for walk about normal zoom preferable with 24mm wide end

(but 28mm is ok) and 2.8 for <$1000. The Nikon 35-70mm has good IQ but not wide enough. I would like to change

lens as little as possible as I am worried about dust on sensor.

 

Since I haven't been following photo gears for 3 years and I'm sure alot has changed, I am open to all suggestions.

 

Thank you very much in advance.

 

Toan.

[greytata a.nogueira]

Sigma do have two interesting proposals: the 24-70 f/2.8 EX DG Macro and the 28-70 f/2.8 EX DG.

 

Cheers

[greytata a.nogueira]

Sigma do have in my opinion, two interesting proposals: the 24-70 f/2.8 EX DG Macro and the 28-70 f/2.8 EX DG.

 

I have seen results on images captured with the 28-70 - I do not own any of the above - and IQ was very good.

 

Cheers

[simon_baker2]

Hi Toan,

 

Are you looking for a "constant" f2.8 or will be happy with F2.8 at the wide end only ? If at the wide end, then the Nikkor 24-85 ED "D"

lens would be an ideal choice and it is of reasonable size and weight, it is also still available new, the AFS version is a F3.5/4.5 optic

and while it is smaller and lighter again it is not as fast.

 

If you want a constant F2.8 then there are several possible ways to approach this,

 

1) 1000 USD should but you a nice second hand Nikkor 28-70 F2.8 AFS, its a superb performer ( I use one on a D3 ) but be warned its

a "beast" of a lens ..... almost 5" long without the large hood, weighs close to 1Kg and takes 77mm filters. To be honest I try not to

use it that often because the combined weight of it and the D3 tends to make "walk about" a bit of a chore . That said, IQ wise it is

superb and one of Nikons finest zooms.

 

2) If you would like the lens to be similar in size to your 35/70 then take a look at the current Tamron 28/70 F2.8, its constant, weighs

somewhere around 500g and is small, takes 67mm filters.

 

3) This is what I would do if I were you ....... your 35/70 is a super lens, its fast, small and light .... KEEP IT. Look for a Nikkor 20/35

F2.8 to pair up with it. Here in the UK a mint secondhand one sells for around 400GBP ( about 750 USD ) in a dealers shop and you'll

get a warranty too. I know you have the Tokina but its not a F2.8 which is what you seem to want, also do not sell the 50mm as its fast

and very useful. It would also be wise to keep the Tamron 90mm as its a great little macro lens and again very useful, you will then

have a very nice set up ( albeit not the latest AFS Nano Coated optics) that will cover a good range.

 

Simon

[toan_pham1]

Thanks so much for all the detailed replies.

 

Now I have 2 queries:

 

1. how do those sigma lenses perform? I was reading up on them and the general concern have been the 24-70mm is soft from 40mm-70mm even stopped down. Does Tamron/Tokina etc make any good 2.8 zooms?

 

2. Following on from the Nikon 20-35mm 2.8 recommendation, how would a 17-35mm 2.8 fit as a walkabout? is it to wide?

 

Thanks.

[dmitry_kiyatkin]

Toan, The Nikon 17-35mm work well on my D700. Although if I venture out with 1 body, I would rather have the 24-70mm. 17-35mm is also very heavy and large. Not a good casual travel or walking lens (at least in daylight). Nikon's 24-70mm is awesome, but be aware that it is also VERY LARGE and HEAVY. Not really a travel/walk about lens either for most people. If I were you, I would try the 24-85mm AFS lens and keep your 35-70mm for those dark moments. A cheap small 24mm f/2.8 AF-D could also be a good combo with the 35-70mm. If you must have a 2.8 zoom, I think Tamron 28-70mm is a good choice - light, good IQ, not so great built, but OK for most people's uses. I never had that particular Sigma lens, but the other's I've owned made me not want to buy another (not so with tamron though).

HTH, Dmitry

[simon_baker2]

Nikon 17/35 F2.8 AFS would indeed be the best partner for the 35/70, I've also owned this lens and it is superb, however here in the UK at

least, it commands a high price even second hand, a very nice example sells for 700-800 GBP ( around 1300 - 1500 USD ) and this would

be well above the "sub 1000 USD" budget Toan has and this is why I did not mention it. However items in the US are generally cheaper

than in the UK and if a nice 17/35 can be found for 1000 dollars or less then it is "The only" lens to consider and should be bought without

hesitation.

 

Simon

[eric_arnold]

another alternative is the tamron 28-75/2.8. it's a bit wider than your current 35-70 and newer. it performs well on a D300, but is a bit short on the wide end for DX. it should be an excellent walkaround lens on the D700. it's only about $400 new.

[beartooth1]

I just got the the Tamron 28-75/2.8....Haven't done any scientific testing but... looks good so far and is very sharp... and I like bokeh..smooth and pleasant.....Not as good as my 50/1.8 but for my intended uses it will provide nice results for the money.

[SolaresLarrave]

I have the Sigma 24-70, and find it very good. In fact, it's the lens on my F5 (and I have the 24-85 and the 24-120 VR as

well).<div></div>