The "Forgotten" Lens worth a buy?

[0ptics]

Hello all,

I recently been interested in a mid range zoom to accompany my Nikon D7100. The Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8 is definitely what I want BUT the hefty price is way out of my budget. I know Sigma and Tamron have a 24-70mm f/2.8 and I heard overall good reviews, but then I discovered the Nikon 28-70mm f/2.8D ED-IF AF-S (935g/2.06 lbs), some people call it the "forgotten" lens. Anyways the lens seems extremely pleasing; after reading reviews the only con of this lens in its weight, but other than that I heard its very similar to the newer version Nikon 24-70mm and I found it for about half the price (~$800)!! So I have some question for you all to help me determine whether I should get this lens or not.

1) This is my first time considering an older lens, so far I only have G lenses. Since the 28-70mm is an "AF-S D" lens, the auto-focus WILL WORK on my D7100 since the body has a motor, correct? Do I need to somehow set it up on my D7100 and "tell" it that it is an older lens or will the body identify that itself?

2) Since it's an older lens, the aperture is on the very end of it; am I only allowed to use these full stops (2.8/4/5.6/etc.)? Or can I somehow use all apertures via the command dial on the D7100? Again, new to D lenses and don't know if I can changed the aperture electronically or only manually.

3) Though I read some amazing reviews and how it's razor sharp, I couldn't find any full reviews and MTF/Sharpness tests on it. I want to know that it really holds to what everyone is saying, so if anyone else has this lens or know any bar graphs I can see of its sharpness, please help me !

4) I found good prices for this lens, but this lens seems too good to be true. I mean it's supposedly as sharp as the Nikon 24-70mm, half its price (~$800), fast focusing, extremely durable, etc. etc. If I do end up purchasing it from a legitimate dealer off Amazon or Ebay, what should I check to make sure that this old lens is still the condition they described? I know to check if it has any cosmetic damage, any damage on the glass elements, any focusing problems, produces sharp pictures, aperture blades open smoothly, any fungus (how would I check this, shining a light through?), and anything else I should be aware of?

5) I never had a mid range zoom other than the 18-55mm; I am considering this for when I go hiking. I have the Nikon 12-24 f/4 as my wide as well as the 35mm f/1.8 and 85mm f/1.8, but don't want to all three lenses when I go hiking, so that is why I am considering this. If I do bring it on hikes, I'll just bring the 12-24mm and the 28-70mm. But, do you think its worth getting the 28-70mm when I have the 35mm and 85mm already? They are both solid lenses. I know this is entirely up to me, but your input would be very helpful.

It would be extremely helpful if you guys could help me out! Again, this is my first time buying a used old lens; this lens just seems too good to be true! Both the dealers on Ebay are well rated (free shipping, "Hassle-free returns", Ebay "Money back guarantee"). I'm just concerned that though it is durable, I don't want it to crap out on me since it's old. I understand that that's just part of the risk of getting used glass, but any help would be splendid.

Thank you all!!!

EDIT:
I found this review..
(NIKON 28-70mm) http://www.photozone.de/nikon_ff/809-nikonafs287028fx?start=1

(NIKON 24-70mm) http://www.photozone.de/nikon_ff/456-nikkor_afs_2470_28_ff?start=1

I'm looking at the graphs it compares very similar to the modern Nikon 24-70mm; I am assuming these graphs are accurate.

 

[480sparky38 37]

As far a D lenses go, all you really need to remember is to set the rings to their minimum apertures and lock them there. They will then work just like your G lenses.... you use the camera's command dial to change aperture. You do have the option of using the ring (vis a setting in the Menus), but most don't do that.

 

[astroNikon]

This is still an AF-S lens, and has a silent wave motor built in. It just has the manual aperture capability versus a G lens .. as far as I can tell.

I bought its predecessor, the 35-70 AF-D lens, which does require an in-body focus motor.
The 35-70 really is not enough focal length for outdoor work, in general, and I use it in my indoor studio 100% of the time. I use a 24-85/2.8-4 AF-D lens for walkaround .. but the variable aperture, when in manual mode, drives me crazy once you are used to fixed aperture (f/2.8 or f/4) lenses.

The 28-70 was above my price range at the time. But I wouldn't mind adding it now. I was thinking actually of selling my 35-70/2.8 and 24-85/2.8-4 and going to that lens.

FYI, the "D" simple stands for coupling the distance information to the matrix meter. and not that it requires screw drive.

 

[Braineack]

what would you use it for, and do you need the constant 2.8? Have you looked at the 24-85 f/2.8-4?

 

[pixmedic]

This is still an AF-S lens, and has a silent wave motor built in. It just has the manual aperture capability versus a G lens .. as far as I can tell.

I bought its predecessor, the 35-70 AF-D lens, which does require an in-body focus motor.
The 35-70 really is not enough focal length for outdoor work, in general, and I use it in my indoor studio 100% of the time. I use a 24-85/2.8-4 AF-D lens for walkaround .. but the variable aperture, when in manual mode, drives me crazy once you are used to fixed aperture (f/2.8 or f/4) lenses.

The 28-70 was above my price range at the time. But I wouldn't mind adding it now. I was thinking actually of selling my 35-70/2.8 and 24-85/2.8-4 and going to that lens.

FYI, the "D" simple stands for coupling the distance information to the matrix meter. and not that it requires screw drive.

you could always just set the 24-85 to f/4 and then it would act as a constant f/4 lens :mrgreen:
plus, you get a little more light on the low end if you need it.

 

[astroNikon]

you could always just set the 24-85 to f/4 and then it would act as a constant f/4 lens :mrgreen:
plus, you get a little more light on the low end if you need it.

:thumbup:
yeah, yeah, yeah .... I really like the macro mode of the 24-85 too. I've been learning the macro mode with super closeups of flowers right now. Bugs don't like macro closeups .. they're flying away

 

[The_Traveler]

it is big and heavy

 

[astroNikon]

it is big and heavy

From Ken Rockwell' website ... Nikon 28-70mm f/2.8 AF-S

This 28-70/2.8 offers spectacular performance, and the price you pay is huge size and weight. If you're shooting all day, by all means get this lens, but if your camera spends more time dangling around your neck than in you shooting hands, you might prefer something lighter like the tiny 28-70mm f/3.5-4.5 AF-D instead.

I'm afraid of this 28-70mm lens because it is so big and heavy. It is Nikon's heaviest midrange zoom ever. I'd never want to walk around with this thing hanging off the front of my camera. If you spend more time shooting than carrying it, it's a great lens. The Nikon 28-70mm AF-S is not a lens for taking on vacation or for the timid. It's a lens to use all day long shooting.

​

[SIZE=+2]Weight[/SIZE]​

1999-2005 version (serial numbers 200000 - 399999): 32.190 oz (912.5g), measured.​

2005-2006 version (serial numbers 400000 and above): 31.265 oz (886.3g), measured.​

Nikon specifies 31.3 oz. (890g) or 33.0 oz. (935g) in various places. That's TWO POUNDS!!!!​

 

[astroNikon]

I don't think the weight would be bad. But then, I like my 80-200/2.8 lens which is 1300 grams anyways.

 

[Mach0]

What do you plan on shooting ?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Braineack]

you could always just set the 24-85 to f/4 and then it would act as a constant f/4 lens :mrgreen:
plus, you get a little more light on the low end if you need it.

:thumbup:
yeah, yeah, yeah .... I really like the macro mode of the 24-85 too. I've been learning the macro mode with super closeups of flowers right now. Bugs don't like macro closeups .. they're flying away

yes, have close focus is nice.

Another option is the 28-105 f/3.5-4.5. Not joke, that old, beat up, lens travelling for our Lens Across America is a nice little lens and can be had for around $100 in great condition.

Sometimes I think about selling my 24-70 for something like that, pocketing a whole lot of change, and ending up with a lens that's still very sharp and has a much more usable range on a FX body.

 

[pixmedic]

0ptics, if you are thinking "budget minded", and still want to keep with getting a nikkor lens, you might also consider the 35-70 f/2.8 AF.
ive had this one for many many years and it is still a great performer. its a push/pull lens, but that doesn't bother me too much.
great optics, and the AF is pretty snappy. (you need a camera with a focus motor though) its an older pro lens that can easily be had for <$400.

 

[shadowlands]

It's my main lens. Love it!!!

 

[Derrel]

It's a lot like having a 32-ounce sturgeon fishing sinker on the front of your camera. It'll make a light small body like a D7100 strengthen your right wrist after about six months of regular use. It will ensure a light, small camera like a D7100 will nose-dive every second that your hand is not firmly reining the camera in. It is a lot like a coffee can, with a two-pound lead ball inside. Every time you go to take a photo with it, people will look and think, "Ohhhh, he must be a paparazzi! I wonder if Lady Gaga is in town!?"

 

[Patrice]

20-35/2.8, 28-70/2.8 and 80-200/2.8 : impeccable performance, solid build, 77mm filter size, not for the limp of wrist or the timid.