Nikon Lens upgrade :)

[PEC]

I know topics like this are beaten to death but here is my question.

I want to upgrade my "normal" 18-70 consumer zoom.

My choices will be 17-55, 24-70 or 28-70

I have a friend that will sell his 28-70 for $1K. But I am not convinced this is the best option.

Other lenses: Sigma 10-20, Nikon 70-200, Nikon 300 2.8, 18-70, 70-300, 105 Macro and 55 Macro.

I welcome your comments.

BTW, why is the 24-70 so much higher then the others?

Thanks!

[jeffkohn]

24-70 is a new release, it's price will eventually come down but maybe not for a year or two. The 28-70 used to sell for about $1400 (or maybe it was $1499). Weakness of the US dollar probably doesn't help.

That said given the other lenses you have I think the 24-70 is the way to go if you can swing the extra dough. You'll get an extra 4mm, plus a modest improvement in image quality compared to the 28-70. (Slightly better sharpness and contrast especially at wide apertures, better flare resistance, and better overall performance near 70mm).

The 28-70 is no slouch though, so if 1K is your budget you can't go wrong with the 28-70.

Personally I can't see spending over 1K on a DX lens when FF is becoming more prominent, so I wouldn't bother with the 17-55 especially since you already have 17-20mm covered.

[photonewb]

a friend will sell you the 28-70 is that the 2.8? if you're not gonna buy it for that price let me know his contact info! :D

if you're not looking for faster (the 2.8 versions), then I'd recommend either an 18-135 or the 18-200vr

both lenses will offer you more reach and give you the same performance or better as you're getting now. I personally have the 18-135 on my D80, and I'm working on getting myself an 18-200VR. This is a great lense from everything I've read and has plenty of reach as well as being wide enough on the back end. You could theoretically get all you want without ever changing lenses.

The 70-200/2.8 is a beauty to look at, and being a faster lens as well as a longer zoom you'd have a great time with it IMO, it's another on my list lol.

as for why the 24 is more expensive than the 28? I believe that this is the newer version and it's also got a little more on the backend, just my guess though.

[Dakinetx]

Out of all my glass,
The "Beast" 28-70 f/2.8 and 70-200 f/2.8 VR get ALL the love from Portraits to street to landscape.

[Dakinetx]

You did'nt mention the 35-70 f/2.8 which although older is a great lens too. Just so happens (now having the "Beast") mine gets no love and will sell it.

[Wes]

First of all, I don't really consider the 70-200, the 70-300, or the 300 2.8 to be viable alternatives to the 18-70 since they all offer considerably longer focal range.

Of the items you listed that ARE an alternative to the 18-70 I would recommend the Nikkor 28-70. For the money it simply cannot be beat. The 24-70 is a superb lens, but is it really $700 better than what you could be the 28-70 for? Most people that I know would say, "no". Heck, if you want to spend $1700 get the 28-70 from your friend, and also buy the 70-300.

[Ahh!]

Originally Posted by photonewb

...and I'm working on getting myself an 18-200VR. This is a great lense from everything I've read and has plenty of reach as well as being wide enough on the back end. You could theoretically get all you want without ever changing lenses.

I have said lens and it is great in every aspect you mentioned. I use it in the studio, too.

[PEC]

Thanks everyone for your thoughts.... I am leaning toward saying YES!

I will let him know in the morning. :)

[Wes]

What are you saying, "Yes" to?

[PEC]

I think i will get 28 - 70 for a couple of reasons.... image quality and build quality plus, the longevity of using the lens on Full Frame some day :)

[Ahh!]

Ahh, 'tis true, the 18-200 VR is DX. But I will probly always keep a DX body around as a back up, since the FX is pretty pricey.

[PEC]

i actually have the 18-200 that i use as a 1 lens "walk-about" lens... snapshots generally :) which it is very good for :)

[mongoose777]

I am new to Nikon, but had an opportunity to try out the 28-70 lens, while its a nice lens, its not even close in comparing it to the newer 24-70. The lens focused faster and the color appeared nicer while the overall image was sharper when used w/ a D3.
Here is a link on what one opinion states about the lens, I know there are others, but there is no need to over do it. Truthfully, just because I am a professional, I really didn't want to shell out more money if the 28-70 would have been good enough for my needs.

http://www.moosepeterson.com/D3/new_lenses.html#24-70

[srwatters]

I've shot thousands of images in the studio with both the 24-70 and 28-70. To be brutally honest with you, the difference for me is in the weight and balance of the newer lens. The IQ is so darn close, I can't really tell the difference.

As with any AF-S lens, make sure to listen for the tell tale squeak of a failing focusing motor. If it's quiet, has no zoom creep, and the glass is clean, the 28-70 is a fine lens and will hold good value for a long time. I purchased mine used for $1100 and sold it three years later for $1000. Pretty cheap rental if you ask me.

That said, on my D3, the 24-70 is one of my two most used lenses. The other is the 70-200 of of course.

Good luck!

[mongoose777]

Then thats who you should listen to more so then me since Srwatters has had tons of experience with real world experience with shooting both. Thanks for the update and yes it is nice to just be out only $100 bucks after so long, I hope my 24-70 will hold its value as well in the next 3-yrs., but who knows, right now I am enjoying it quite a bit.