Talk me into (or out of) a 28-70 f/2.8 lens

Peeb

Semi-automatic Mediocrity Generator
Supporting Member
Joined
Jul 16, 2015
Messages
4,026
Reaction score
4,613
Location
Oklahoma
Can others edit my Photos
Photos OK to edit
Shooting FX. Currently using a very nice older Nikkor 28-105 (f/3.5-4.5) as my 'walkaround lens' which has nice range of zooming but it's a bit slow and dated. Very small and light tho.

I simply will not lay out the cash for a brand new nikon 28-70 (an excellent lens), but I am pondering perhaps a used tamron, sigma, or tokina. I realize I'll be taking on a bigger and heavier lens (especially the tokina) but I'm wonder if the focusing will be faster and more accurate with perhaps(?) more resolution? Was hoping to use the 28 end for landscape and/or astro-photography; hoping the 70mm wide open would work for portraits...

Whatdaya think??
 
Ima say yes. Yes, I want one too, for similar reasons but mine will be Canon and for covering focal range at events shooting dual bodies witht the 70-200 and on full frame perhaps within a decade.

Are youbgoing to miss the extra range and compression of the 105 end? Do you do walkabout street stuff or portraits? 70 really isnt optimal for portraits nor is wide open usually.
 
Yes, yes, yes!!!
My Nikon 24-70mm 2.8G is just wonderful, its my most used lens, in weddings it gets most of the action.
In trips it gets most the action, in landscape which I have a wider lens I still use my 24-70mm 2.8 most of the time.
Even in the little studio work that I do I will use it unless I go for head shots and for that I use either my Tami 70-200mm or 85mm 1.8G

If I was in the market now for a 24-70mm 2.8 the Tamron would be definitely on that list next to a well used Nikon, both are very, very, very good lenses!!!
 
The 28-105 is "slow and dated" on a camera like a D610, but on the D2x and D3x, that lens is like "BAM!" focused! The D610 and other lower- and mid-tier cameras do not have really fantastic AF modules in them...so..yeah...you'd get better operformance in focus with an AF-S zoom lens, for sure. The "big Nikons" drive those older screw driver lenses very fast, and have a high-bandwidth CPU to run the camera, so I understand what you mean. I have used the 28-105 AF-D; what it has is a great range AND a pretty cool close-up AF mode.

For SMALL size and reasonably light weight, I just picked up a 24-50mm f/3.3~4.5 for $30 from STUFF, my local pawn shop. This is an AF-era lens, screw driven. Weight is pretty good on the 24-50 AF. This balances well on a grip-less body like a D90 or D7000 or D600.

The older 28-85mm AF-D lens from the 1990's is the lens I would look at for small weight and low-ish cost.

The 28-80mm plastic-mount lens in AF-D is surprisingly GOOD at f/8...I have one...again, pretty good for a $45 lens! There is also a newer, G-mount version 28-80 zoom. These were the film-era kit zooms of the 1990's. Plastic, wobbly, but optically, pretty good, especially considering the current prices.

The 28-70 f/2.8 AF-S is a HEAVY, HUGE coffee-can lens; on a D610, it will front nose-drive so badly it will make your wrists ache after 10 minutes; it was designed to balance with a HEAVY, Nikon F5 and eight AA batteries in the grip..it is a horrible lens on a grip-free, small body. On a HEAVY, "pro" Nikon, the balance is acceptable. Weight is like 44 ounces, IMMSMC.
 
Last edited:
There isn't a brand new 28-70
I had placed an order on a 24-70/2.8E but then changed my mind a day later and ordered the 105/1.4E
the older 24-70/2.8G is very sufficient unless you need the VR
 
check the sigma arts. i have been buying the ARTs and selling zooms since: click on to zoom and inspect this so-so pic of a random kid at the farmers' market: _RAL8837
 
Last edited:
There isn't a brand new 28-70
I had placed an order on a 24-70/2.8E but then changed my mind a day later and ordered the 105/1.4E
the older 24-70/2.8G is very sufficient unless you need the VR
True dat. Mostly 24-70 theses days (which is preferable).

I've been looking at the 28-70 Tokina AT-X pro glass on ebay. You can get them all day long, every day for $250 from 100% rated sellers. That's, what- $1,000 less than the new nikon 24-70? 1/3 the cost of a new sigma.

Not an outrageously large risk to take, IMO.
 
The 28-105 is "slow and dated" on a camera like a D610, but on the D2x and D3x, that lens is like "BAM!" focused! The D610 and other lower- and mid-tier cameras do not have really fantastic AF modules in them...so..yeah...you'd get better operformance in focus with an AF-S zoom lens, for sure. The "big Nikons" drive those older screw driver lenses very fast, and have a high-bandwidth CPU to run the camera, so I understand what you mean. I have used the 28-105 AF-D; what it has is a great range AND a pretty cool close-up AF mode.

For SMALL size and reasonably light weight, I just picked up a 24-50mm f/3.3~4.5 for $30 from STUFF, my local pawn shop. This is an AF-era lens, screw driven. Weight is pretty good on the 24-50 AF. This balances well on a grip-less body like a D90 or D7000 or D600.

The older 28-85mm AF-D lens from the 1990's is the lens I would look at for small weight and low-ish cost.

The 28-80mm plastic-mount lens in AF-D is surprisingly GOOD at f/8...I have one...again, pretty good for a $45 lens! There is also a newer, G-mount version 28-80 zoom. These were the film-era kit zooms of the 1990's. Plastic, wobbly, but optically, pretty good, especially considering the current prices.

The 28-70 f/2.8 AF-S is a HEAVY, HUGE coffee-can lens; on a D610, it will front nose-drive so badly it will make your wrists ache after 10 minutes; it was designed to balance with a HEAVY, Nikon F5 and eight AA batteries in the grip..it is a horrible lens on a grip-free, small body. On a HEAVY, "pro" Nikon, the balance is acceptable. Weight is like 44 ounces, IMMSMC.
I am looking at a refurbished new-model nikon 24-85 as to primary alternative to the Tokina 28-70. The Nikon costs double (but still only 500.00) but is MUCH lighter, and probably preferable in most ways....
 
I have the Tokina 28-70 and the Nikon 28-70. Although the Tokina performs well, I prefer the Nikon.
 
Peeb said:
I am looking at a refurbished new-model nikon 24-85 as to primary alternative to the Tokina 28-70. The Nikon costs double (but still only 500.00) but is MUCH lighter, and probably preferable in most ways....

The new-model you speak of is the latest in a longish line of 24-85mm Nikkor lenses. This "new model" has VR, and was offered in kit form with the D600 a while back; and for one, brief time, it was offered almost FREE, to get rid of dealer stock of D600 cameras, before the free shutter replacement/update with new D610-for-free make good program that Nikon did was announced, so used prices on this lens can vary quite a bit, since some people payed a LOT for this lens, while others got it, well, pretty much for free!

My current 24-85mm is the f/3.3~4.5 AF-S model, whch was a fine lens until it got out of center, and now one corner is whacked, so it just sits. It's moderate-sized, 67mm filters as I recall, has no VR, handles good, was a go-to lens for me on the D2x body for a while.

I expect that the new 24-85mm AF-S VR-G model is the best of the lot (of Nikons that is) on DIGITAL cameras of the current era. I owned the Tamron ATX-PRO 28-70mm f/2.6~2.8 model maybe fifteen years back....focus clutch broke on it, so I gave it away to a friend's kid who was just starting out and who had nothing much.

I dunno....I try to shoot at f/6.3 or f/7.1 a LOT, so to me, most lenses offer more or less the same image quality, but some are heavier, or better made, or will last longer,etc.etc.. I have little use for an f/2.8 44-ounce zoom lens in this focal length range, and it seems that the slower, variable maximum aperture lenses are where most buyers are at these days. To me, having the VR is the deal-sealer on a lens like this: hand-held, stopped down, for DOF, with VR, and no need for a tripod on-location; good for slooooow-speed panning due to VR.
 
The one nice thing about a 24-85 is you get the 24, 28, 35, 50 & 85 prime ranges in it. Just in case you even think about getting those Primes you can at least see if you use those ranges.

I have an older 24-85/2.8-4.0 AF-D - a tad soft here and there but priced appropriately and covers the range to my 80-200/2.8. The D750 focuses the lens faster than the D600 too.

DXO's take on the 24-85s with 24-70s
Comparison | DxOMark

and ironically the 24-85/2.8 comes up as #3 in the "Standard Zoom" section
Standard zooms and primes | DxOMark
^^ the above test scores makes me hesitant to get rid of it, considering how little $$ it was used.
 
Last edited:
There isn't a brand new 28-70
I had placed an order on a 24-70/2.8E but then changed my mind a day later and ordered the 105/1.4E
the older 24-70/2.8G is very sufficient unless you need the VR
True dat. Mostly 24-70 theses days (which is preferable).

I've been looking at the 28-70 Tokina AT-X pro glass on ebay. You can get them all day long, every day for $250 from 100% rated sellers. That's, what- $1,000 less than the new nikon 24-70? 1/3 the cost of a new sigma.

Not an outrageously large risk to take, IMO.
but what if 28mm is not wide enough and you really want/need that 24mm?
I decided to just share the 24-70 f/2.8G with my GF rather than sell it to her and get the E version.
I just wanted that 105mm so very much.
 

Most reactions

Back
Top