Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 28-70mm F2.8 D ED

[mark4583]

I could get one of these for less than $600 in ex con, do you think the trade off for the Tamron SP 24-70mm f/2.8 Di VC USD G2 for about $1200 is worth it? I cant justify me getting the Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 70-200mm f/2.8E FL ED VR for what I do as a non-pro. I was looking to get the Tamron but The Nikon is still some nice glass minus the VR, Optically how do you think the Tamron compares to the AF-S?

 

[Derrel]

The Tamron has a significantly wider 24mm setting. the difference between a 24mm and a 28mm lens is significant. The Tamron also has VC. The Nikon was very large, very heavy, and is now pretty old, perhaps 18 years old or more on early run examples of the 28-70 AF-S. Optically, I expect that the Tamron is better...their G2 series is getting rave reviews, from people who are pretty Nikon-centric. Honestly...I always thought the 28-70/2.8 was ridiculously heavy and overly-large and obnoxious...

Have you owned a honking, 44-ounce, coffee-can-sized lens like this before? I find equipment like that to be...obnoxiously large and interfering in many,many situations. There are smaller,lighter, less-obtrusive options available.

I think many things shot with short lenses like the 24 to 70mm range focal lengths, when shot at f/2.8 look, like crap. So, there's that too. if one _needs_ to shoot at f/2.8....then one needs to do so. But...today we have decent,usable ISO levels that make an f/4 lens workable, often at f/4.5 or f/4.8 or even at f/5.6.

 

[astroNikon]

was that one of the lenses that had AF-S issues ?
I recall that one and/or the original 80-200 AF-S always having the AF-S die.
plus they are heavy - wasn't it their heaviest midrange zoom ever ...

 

[mark4583]

what I meant is the Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8E ED VR Lens not the Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 70-200mm f/2.8E FL ED VR, Had myself confused there for a bit! Lol.. But yes it doesn't have to be a 2.8, looking something in that rang and will produce some nice results.

 

[shadowlands]

I owned it back in the day. It's a great lens, but it's heavy as an elephant. That was my biggest issue. Next time I need a 2.8 zoom, I'm going after the older Tamron 28-75 because it's affordable, small, light and excellent.

 

[greybeard]

Two totally different generations of lenses. The Nikon 28-70 was designed for film cameras and the tamron for today's modern digital ones. The VC alone would be a deal breaker for me.

 

[Call_me_Tom]

The N28-70/2.8 and other AF-S lenses from its generation frequently suffer from focus motor failure.

The AF-S motors have two self lubricating sleeves that can develop oxidation and seize. Unless you have the know how to DIY maintenance on these lenses I’d pass on them unless it’s a very sweet deal.

At less than 70mm I don’t see VR/C being a must have with 2.8 lenses and modern high ISO DSLR’s.

 

[Strodav]

I have the Tamron 24-70mm f2.8 G2 that I use on a D850 as well as a D500. Excellent lens! I am constantly amazed by the experience of our TPF members with virtually any equipment out there. Given the performance of the Tammy and the concerns in the replies about the Nikon glass, it looks like you've got an answer.