D610 + 28/70 and 80/200 - Good idea?

[fernando_c]

<p>Dear photo.net members,<br>

i have recently upgraded to the FX world after owning a D90 for over 6 years. i've sold all my DX lenses to decrease the cost of purchasing the new body, and now i am using de D610 with my beloved 50mm 1.4g.<br>

After days of research i have found two lenses that could be the ones to play with for the years to come, they are both second hand lenses <strong>(Nikkor 80-200mm f/2.8D and the Nikkor 28-70mm f/2.8d)</strong>, yes both pretty old but i believe still delivery quality results for what I've read in different forums. i could get both lenses, second hand in perfect shape for USD 1,100. My feeling is that this would be killer combination that would get me covered for a while. <br>

i am an amateur photographer, i enjoy low light photography, taking portraits of my beautiful wife, i want to document my little baby girl growing up (she is barely 3 weeks old), and capture landscapes and city life. It is a hobby that i am passionate about but i not planning to make money out of my work anytime soon. Photography is becoming my passion, but married with a baby girl i don't want to over spend on new glass, so second hand is good alternative for me. I know it's better to put the money on glass, i've learn that experience with my previous reasonably priced acquisitions for my D90, that i ended up almost giving away for free to the pawn shop. <br>

I've also consider not buying the 28-70mm and going for a wide angle zoom (18-35mm) considering i am very happy with my 50mm. But i still feel i would be using more normal range than wide angle on a day to day basis. <br>

I've also consider not buying the 80-200 mm and go for the 70-300 VR, but the 80-200 certainly seems like a better option. <br>

The thing is that, i've always enjoyed more shooting with primes than with zooms, and i've always got better results as i get more involved in the process, but also in the past, my zoom lenses were pretty much cheap options for my D90. <br>

Shall i go ahead with the second hand old but robust glories (28-70 & 80-200)?<br>

Shall i take the primes' road and go for an 85 1.8g and 24 or 28 1.8G? <br>

Shall i find a cheaper hobby? Nah, just kidding, i love photography a little too much :)<br>

Thank you guys in advance. Best, Fernando</p>

[mag_miksch]

<p>The 80-200 is a proven workhorse, the 28-70 I have never used.<br>

If you are looking for primes, the 180/2,8 D sells cheap but is a very good lens, and not that heavy.^^</p>

[fernando_c]

Hi Mag Miksch, thank you for your response. Very much appreciated. Yes I am fairly convinced about the 80-200. Everybody

who has used it says wonderful things about it, a must have. Only negative things I've heard are the weight (not a big issue for

me) and a little softening going on at 200mm, but honestly I don't care, no deal breakers and I really want to own it. I don't need a

superior 70-300 glass, as I am not going to shoot any high speed action neither I am a professional. I've also read wonderful

things about the 180, but I think I could use the versatility of the 80-200. If I could own both, I would be a happy fella.

 

The main concern for me is actually the 28-70. It's the predecessor of the 24-70, as it was discountinued in 2007 with the

introduction of the 24-70. I've read the Nikon 28-70mm f/2.8 AF-S D is a spectacular lens (Ken Rockwell's review). It's just as

sharp as the newest 24-70mm f/2.8 AF-S, and this 28-70 costs much less used today (half of a brand new 24-70 here). I like the

quality look of the lens, and the non plastic feeling. Any lenses that looks like a tank seems to be design for me as I drop things

quite often.

 

My concerns are two:

1) owning a 50 mm, shall I go for a wide angle lense (i.e. 18-35mm) and with that I would be ok covered? Together with the 80-

200.

2) shall I use the 28-70 + 80-200, and leave the 50mm 1.4g for low light and special occasion in which I don't want to carry the

other two heavy lenses?

 

My guts tell me I will be better covered with the 28-70, as it seems like a solid performer and I used an 18-200 lens on the D90

and was quite happy with the 18mm wide angle (equals around 27mm on a fx body). What do you guys think?

[Hector Javkin]

<p>These are choices you have to make yourself, but here go some recommendations.</p>

<p>First, since you enjoy low-light photography, don't get the 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 VR, or the 18-35mm f/3.5-4.5.</p>

<p>There is nothing wrong with a 28-70mm f/2.8D and 80-200mm f/2.8D combination on a full-frame body. It allows you to cover almost anything, and the f/2.8 aperture will aid in autofocusing as well as give you good options in low light. Since these are older used lenses, make sure you have the right to return them after checking them out thoroughly. One concern: since you have thus far used primes and lightweight zooms, I wonder if you will enjoy hand-holding the three pounds of an 80-200mm f/2.8 together with your D610.</p>

<p>Should you get a combination of primes, a 24 or 28mm and an 85mm, to go along with your 50mm f/1.4g? You do describe the 50 as "beloved," and the current crop of Nikon FX f/1.8 is very nice. There is a hint in what you write that these might be the best choice. Between the 24 and the 28, I suggest the 24 unless you're also thinking about the 20mm.</p>

[Richard Williams]

<p>One thing to look out for in older AF-S lenses like the 28-70 and the last version of the 80-200 is the dreaded 'squeak', which if serious probably means the motor has to be replaced. There are several older versions of the 80-200. The later '2 touch' AF-D version is probably the most desirable of these, and continued in production well after the AF-S was replaced by the newer 70-200 lenses. The plastic M-A ring on the AF-D seems to be a potential weakness - if this breaks (and there are quite a few reports of this - someone on ebay even sells a third party metal replacement ring to address the problem), it's an expensive repair. The older '1 touch' versions apparently focus more slowly and the 'trombone' effect is presumably more likely to suck dust on to your sensor.<br>

Edit: Regarding primes vs 2.8 zooms - yes, the zooms are certainly large and heavy! One option would be to buy a couple of the new 1.8 primes instead and perhaps supplement them with a lighter zoom for when you need the versatility - the old 28-105 actually performs very well on FX, and can be picked up cheaply. </p>

[fernando_c]

@Hector Javkin, Thank you for your comments. I agree with you on not thinking about the 70-300/18-35 mm. Weight is

not a big issue (for now) and if they are well built better for me, as I know I will drop them sooner or later. Primes are

special and they make me feel more involved in the creative process. My thoughts (please don't tell my wife) were to

complement the three lenses with a cool prime (maybe ultra wide) once I needed a new toy. 20/24 were in my mind as fun

lenses to have. The 14mm from Samyang/Rokinon also looked pretty fun to play with, but I know I wouldn't be buying a

great quality lens to stay with me for many years.

 

@Richard Williams, thank you as well. I've tested 3, 80-200 af-d two touch and that squeak was present in 2 of them. The

third lens was the one I had in mind as it was obviously the one with a higher price tag. The 28-70 worked smoothly and I

loved it the moment I played with it. Seemed like the lense to use on a regular basis for most of the simple stuff I do. My

biggest concerns are the same as yours. What if something goes wrong buying second hand gear... I've used the same

dealer in the past, and they seem to be reliable, although their return policy is like 24 hours... Fixing things were I live is

not very expensive compared to Europe/US (I am in Asia now), so I feel, that as long as there is nothing major, I can rely

on getting it fixed without breaking my bank account.

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Well... I'm the exception to the rule when it comes to the 80-200. I've tried a mk1 (push-pull AF) and the mk3 (two ring AF-D). The former sample was broken, but optically the same; the latter is good at a distance, but has problems both with focus accuracy and absolute sharpness at shorter ranges. It's not awful, but it's clearly worse than the 70-200 VR2 even on a D700 (when I was buying mine I tried them side by side); it's okay as an f/5.6 lens, but I didn't get on with it at f/2.8. Others seem to have had more luck. Obviously there's no VR, which may be an issue for some of your subjects. The AF-S version has different optics, but I gather there are issues getting parts for repair. If you can't afford the VR2 (and I'd only recommend the VR1 on DX, because of what happens to the corners on FX at 200mm) I'd look at the Tamron or Sigma versions, which are quite well respected - mostly I've heard the biggest advantage of the Nikkor is focus speed, and you don't mention sports or wildlife. You may be happy with your first choice, but all I can report is that my 80-200 got traded in out of frustration. There's the occasional rumour that the 70-200 VR2 will get updated before long, but a) that's just a rumour, and b) "before long" may still take a while - but just a heads up in case you feel you can wait.<br />

<br />

As for the 28-70, I gather it's not quite up there with the 24-70 (either version - and I thought even Hynoken said that), and I'm not blown away by what I've seen of either of those. If you don't mind an 82mm filter thread, I can say good things about the Tamron 24-70 that I recently bought - it has VR (well, VC) and it's respectably sharp, especially at the wide end (where you won't be covered by your longer zoom). It's also half the price of the Nikkor versions. That may still blow your budget, but it's probably the best 24-70 you can put on a Nikon body.<br />

<br />

Or you could look into the 24-120 f/4. It's not quite as good as the separate lenses, and obviously you're going to be limited at the long end and in absolute aperture, but it's more portable and cheaper. And 24mm vs 28mm is significant - at the long end you can always crop. It may be you don't need hugely telephoto for what you're mentioning. And sadly, many lenses that have a good reputation on film or older bodies just don't hold up as well on a high megapixel body.<br />

<br />

Re. the primes, the 85mm f/1.8 AF-S is lovely and sharp and has nice bokeh, but it also has quite a lot of LoCA - so shoot where you don't mind the background going green if you go down that route. The latest Tamron looks better, but it's twice the price. My route in this area was to use my 90mm Tamron macro (f/2.8), then get a Samyang f/1.4, then get frustrated with manual focus and get the Nikkor AF-S f/1.8 (the AF-D is sharp but the bokeh always put me off). I may yet save up for the Tamron once I've seen more of it.<br />

<br />

As for build quality, bear in mind that even Nikon's pro lenses are quite plastic these days. There's a reason - if you bash a plastic lens it tends to bounce; if you bash a metal one, it tends to dent, which is more of a problem. Plus there's something to be said for lightness, although the glass means none of these are all that light.<br />

<br />

That's probably just caused more confusion, but I hope it helps anyway. :-)</p>

[Richard Williams]

<p>Just to clarify, the infamous 'squeak' (or 'squeal') I meant is specific to the (early?) AF-S lenses and comes from the AF-S motor itself, so this particular problem won't affect any of the AF-D versions of the 80-200, which don't have built-in motors. But of course an AF-D lens that needs lubricating could also make a noise, so I'd also avoid any that do - I suspect this is what you heard. I'm apparently not allowed to link to a site that I agree isn't always accurate, but Ken Rockwell has a handy article that in this case gives a fair overview of the various versions of the 80-200 (AF-D and AF-S) and 70-200 (search for '80-200mm history').<br>

Here's an earlier discussion of the other (breaking M-A ring) problem with the 2-touch AF-D version:<br>

http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00CBPd<br>

The third party fix is ebay item 121310027769. That this even exists, and they've apparently sold quite a few of them, probably tells us something, though it's impossible to say how common the problem is in lenses that haven't been used carelessly.<br>

I buy a fair bit of stuff second hand, but most of the dealers around here offer a warranty of several months, so I'm well protected should anything go wrong. Which is lucky, as repairs in the UK aren't so cheap!</p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<blockquote>

<p>I've tested 3, 80-200 af-d two touch and that squeak was present in 2 of them.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Impossible, since the AF-D lens does not have a motor inside, it is screw-driven by the motor in the camera. Whatever "squeak" those lenses exhibited was likely just normal noise from the screw-driven AF operation (or from a lack of lubrication, in which case it would also be present when manual focusing). The "last version of the 80-200" that Richard mentioned was indeed AF-S, but you are considering what is the "second-to-last" 80-200 (which does have the A-M-ring issue Richard mentioned).<br /> <br /> $1100 for both the 80-200 and the 28-70 seems like a good deal, given what they normally sell for. You stated that the weight of each doesn't bother you - I hope you feel the same after a long hike carrying them. I owned the 80-200 and it stayed home most of the time unless I knew I needed the f/2.8 (the 70-200/2.8 saw more use but eventually got replaced by the f/4 version). Personally, the 28-70 (and even the 24-70) is not something I would purchase - the range is too narrow (specifically, too limiting at the long end for both, and at the short end for the 28-70).<br /> <br /> You mentioned that you enjoy low-light photography - which will prompt many to recommend f/2.8 zooms even though, if you shoot from a tripod and don't need fast shutter speeds to stop action, this isn't a necessity. From the rest of what you shoot, it appears that a 24-120/4 VR night be a good option - though even used they don't come cheap (but adorama currently has refurbished ones on sale for $530).</p>

[2Oceans]

Fernando, I currently have owned both of these lenses for more than ten years. I think that the price and the condition you

described is a reason to buy them. Optically I think they are very good. I also have the newer 70 - 200 vr II but have not

chosen to buy the newer 24-70. The only issues include the age of these lenses because that might effect getting them

serviced in the future. The two touch 80-200 I have owned for a while has a wonky switch for af/manual. Mine has been

repaired/replaced and I keep it covered with a thin strip of gaffers tape now in manual for my purposes. The push pull

version has no tripod mount and when I owned that version I had an L&M bracket. The 28-70 is a real presence in my

camera bag. It is not a lense for traveling light but I have been happy with it on a d3s and d800e with a grip. I shoot from

a tripod most of the time. Both of these lenses are well made.

I think for the price you will be able to sell these lenses in a few years with out taking much of a loss.

I would buy them if you feel they meet your needs. My Nikon stuff has held up and that is why I still have these lenses.

Good hunting.

[ShunCheung]

The 28-70mm f2.8 AF-S is still a fine lens. I continue to use it recently and get good results.

[robert_bouknight1]

<p>I currently have the 28-20/2.8, and have owned the 80-200/2.8 AFD (push-pull) and AF-S.</p>

<p>The 28-70 is a very good lens, I am always happy with the results, the images seem to have a nice rendition that lesser mid range zooms don't seem to have. I am sure that the 24-70 versions are a little better for a lot more $. It is large and heavy, so I do not typically wind up using it as a general purpose lens. The weight and size disappear when I am focusing on photography, but the lens becomes a boat anchor when taking the occasional photo while doing other things. I did have to repair the AF motor which was expensive. Think I would also consider looking at various Tamron versions of the mid range 2.8 zoom, also.</p>

<p>I am just not enthusiastic about the various 80-200/2.8 zooms in 2016. The version 2 AFD push pull was OK, focusing is slow but OK and better than the early Pre-"D" version with focusing limiters. It seems that the push-pull versions are more rugged than the faster focusing 2 ring version.</p>

<p>I replaced the AF-D with the AF-S 80-200, which was notably better up close and near 200mm. The AF-S is heavy, and seems prone to af motor failure.</p>

<p>I replaced the 80-200AFS with the 70-200/2.8 VR1. Since the VR1 does not have a perfect reputation for use with FX cameras, the VR1 used is I think a bargain. The corners are not great as per the reputation, but that does not bother me at all for portraits and sports. The sample I have has seen plenty of use but works great and seems very rugged. VR can be very helpful. I would recommend one of these over the 80-200AFD.</p>

<p>The other lens to consider is the 70-200/4 AFS VR. Since I got my sample that seems outstanding a while back, the large/heavy 2.8 zoom does not get much use.</p>

<p>BTW, $1100 for both in great condition does seem a good deal, I would probably be tempted. Maybe add a prime or 2 later on.</p>

[fernando_c]

Guys, you are making really great points here.

 

 

@Andrew Garrard, well noted, I will check it out tomorrow. My dealer mentioned that she just got her hands on a 70-200

VR (the first model I believe) and is offering it for 900 dollars. I will try it out tomorrow and as see if I am willing to spend

double than what the nikkor AF 80-200mm 1:2.8D is being offered. Thank you for the other recommendations, I will most

certainly keep them in mind.

 

 

@Richard Williams, thanks for pointing out the infamous 'squeak'. The two other lenses were rather noisy at focusing and

didn't look as well preserved as the first one. I will carefully look for any potential flaws on the 80-200.

 

 

@Ditier Schaefer. I actually agree with the weight issue. Each lens would be around a kilo each, plus the D610 is another

one... The 50mm is super light, but I have to say when I go on holidays my camera bag becomes really heavy, as I pack

all my electronics on it. if I were to add 2 more kilos to it, plus all the baby stuff... Things might get complicated. I will do

some research on the 24-120/4 VR tonight.

 

 

@Edward Woods. Reviews like yours were the ones who really made me consider buying these lenses. Thank you. If you

don't mind me asking. If you were to choose/keep only one of them, which one would you choose? The 28-70 or the 80-

200?

 

Thank you all again for your input here. i am really appreciating all the honest feedback being shared here.

[fernando_c]

@Shun Cheung. Thanks! You corroborate my feelings towards the 28-70.

 

@Robert Bouknight. I will check the 70-200 VR1 tomorrow and see how it goes. I will look know at the 70-200 4/ AFS VR.

 

Maybe to add more confusion to de discussion. Shall I replace the NIkon 80-200 for any of the two models that are also available at the shop?

 

1. SIGMA 70-200 1:2.8 APO DG MACRO HSM

2. TAMRON 70-200 1:2.8 Di LD IF

 

Both are selling 100 dollars cheaper than the 80-200 mm f/2.8.

[Dieter Schaefer]

<blockquote>

<p>Each lens would be around a kilo each, plus the D610 is another one</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Not quite correct, but the sum evens it out: 80-200 is 1300g, the 28-70 is 930g and the D610 is 760g; so call it 3kg altogether. Note that both versions of the 70-200 are even heavier than the 80-200; but they do balance better on the camera as the 80-200 which is actually quite front heavy.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Shall I replace the NIkon 80-200 for any of the two models that are also available at the shop? 1. SIGMA 70-200 1:2.8 APO DG MACRO HSM 2. TAMRON 70-200 1:2.8 Di LD IF</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Can't comment on either of them as I haven't used them. The main question that seems to take shape now is whether you really want/need f/2.8 lenses.</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Fernando: I have to say I've not used the Sigma or Tamron 70-200 - though the latter especially has a good reputation; I decided I'd thrown enough money at f/2.8 zooms that I didn't like, and went for the expensive one. As others said, if you don't need the f/2.8 (as much for subject isolation as light gathering) then the 70-200 f/4 gets rave reviews - but you did say you like low light.<br />

<br />

Are those the <i>current</i> Sigma and Tamron 70-200 zooms? I think they've both gone through a few generations. I'd take the latest ones over an 80-200 in a heartbeat, but then I may have been more unhappy than usual with my 80-200(s). I'd have to check reviews about previous versions, though - the current one is on Tamron's site as "SP 70-200/2.8 Di VC USD" (of which "VC" - "vibration compensation" - is probably the distinguishing bit of the name). The latest one may blow your budget, I'm just reporting that not everyone finds the 80-200 perfect and you might want to consider alternatives! That said, I'm much happier with optical limitations in a lens I spent less to acquire - which is why I have the 85mm f/1.8 Nikkor but not the f/1.4 version.<br />

<br />

Oh, and if we're counting, the Tamron 24-70 is 826g, and noticably smaller than what I remember of the older 24-70 AF-S (let alone the VR version). :-)</p>

[fernando_c]

For the little research I've made, the SIGMA 70-200 1:2.8 APO DG MACRO HSM and the TAMRON 70-200mm f/2.8 Di

LD (IF) Macro Lens, are the old generation lenses, with very mixed reviews, and clearly far behind from the Nikon 70-200 2.8

VR1. I've read many positive reviews regarding the TAMRON SP 70-200mm F/2.8 Di VC USD.

 

I am way far from being a professional photographer, and I will be lucky if one day I get half as good as you guys. I liked

the two options proposed on this threat because they seemed like good quality options, reasonably priced second hand

and fun to play with and learn/improve. They also seemed that they will retain some of the investment value if I manage to

take good care of them.

 

Shall I stick to 2.8? I went for the 2.8 because I'd rather take photos with natural

light than needing to add a flash to the equation, although I already own a Nikon SB-910. Is 2.8 a must? Not really, I feel

like it's a good to have rather than a must have.

 

In 12 hours time I will head to the shop and check the goods again, it's taking me 2 weeks to make a final decision, so I

hope the owner doesn't kill me during the visit if something doesn't look right and I don't buy them.

 

Thank you Dieter and Andrew for supporting/advising and following up. Cheers, Fernando

[fernando_c]

And I forgot to highlight an important point. Most of my photography (but not all) is going to be done indoors for the next

12 months or so. It's basically going to be little baby girl photos, documenting her growing up. The 50mm 1.4g is so far

doing a great job but i thought I could use some extra help.

[2Oceans]

Fernando, congratulations on your little girl. The 50mm 1.4 will serve you well for your baby. You asked me which lense I

would choose. I am emotionally attached to the 80 - 200. On a tripod locked down it would be great. I use it for

landscapes all the time. That said you will be chasing a whirl wind for the next few years and shooting hand held no

doubt. The 28-70 will have better results simply because it has a shorter focal length and you can shoot at slower shutter

speeds. There you have it, but if you have a chance to get a 70-200 vr it will be soooo nice as your child becomes older

and you want candid images from a distance. You no doubt will have a need for speed, and sleep. The 2.8 lenses will

isolate your young'un from the back ground better when you photograph wide open. Good luck on your choice.

[ShunCheung]

<p>Forgot to say earlier, congratulations on your new baby girl.</p>

<p>If you shoot parties, weddings, etc., those f2.8 zoom are great. For family pictures, I would consider those f4 alternatives, especially for the 70 (or 80) to 200mm zoom. The f4 is much lighter. I assume that you'll be posting those family images to Facebook and e-mailing them to family and friends.</p>

[Two23]

<p>Unless you photo in very low light, you are probably better off with the 28-70mm f2.8. The Tamron 24-70mm f2.8 is another outstanding lens that might be in your budget. Personally, I'd rather have that one between the two. I've been using single focal lenses as an experiment, and they match my very slow, always use a tripod, style. However, I do miss fast breaking shots fairly often because I don't have time to do a lens change. For travel photography I've been finding them a pain as I constantly have to stop and change lenses. For landscapes and other slow subjects, less problem.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

[rodeo_joe1]

+1 to the Tamron SP VC 24-70 f/2.8. The extra

coverage at the short end is really useful, as is the

vibration control feature.

 

I'd also recomment a Tamron SP 28-75 f/2.8 over

the old 28-70 Nikon D lens. It's smaller and lighter and arguably delivers better IQ. It can be bought new for what you'd pay for a used Nikkor.

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>I'll just second that the 80-200 (pre-AF-S) lenses are weakest at close range, in my experience (and I don't think I'm alone). For landscapes, if you needed an f/2.8 lens, I'd not be scared of using one; for tracking a small child, I'd be less convinced. I'd really try to find a way to stretch to one of the Nikon 70-200s or the Tamron VC version. For so long as you're currently not needing to follow too much running around (belatedly, congratulations from me as well!) I'd start with the 24-70 and save up from there! You might find you want to propritise a macro lens for details in the short term instead (do you want to fill the frame with your daughter's tiny hand?) - and for what it's worth, I got the 150mm Sigma OS macro before I bought the 70-200, and it's extremely good if you don't need too much flexibility in rearch. One more option to consider. Or you could just stick a close-up diopter on an existing lens...<br />

<br />

Best of luck with whatever you get. I'm sure you'll be able to record lovely memories.</p>

[dan_brown4]

<p>The 28-70/2.8 AF-S is a big honking lens, and I sold it for that reason.</p>

[RaymondC]

<p>Just to chime in with the 80-200 2.8D. Myself a and a few guys here found that the lens isn't that in focus when you are using 105mm or longer anywhere from about a few metres. I did sent it for check up by came back within specs. Had it on my D70 and D2h. I now use a 70-200 F4 and it is fantastic. </p>

<p>Closing down the aperture doesn't help. </p>