Nikon Zoom vs Nikon Zoom

Gwolf64Gwolf64 Posts: 15Member
edited February 2014 in Nikon Lenses
70-210mm f/4-5.6 vs 28-105 f3.5-4.5
I shoot travel, landscapes, architecture on the D600.
I currently don't have a zoom. One of these might be my first.
I am leaning toward the 210mm.

What would you pick and why?

I currently own 24mm 2.8D and 50mm 1.8
Post edited by Gwolf64 on
«13

Comments

  • Golf007sdGolf007sd Posts: 2,840Moderator
    edited February 2014
    Don't get either of them because of the variable aperture.

    For the long end go with the 70-200 f/4. For the short end go with a wide angle lens. 16-35 f/4 or 14-24 2.8. If on a budget consider a prime....the new Sigma 35 1.4 will do the job and them some.
    Post edited by Golf007sd on
    D4 & D7000 | Nikon Holy Trinity Set + 105 2.8 Mico + 200 F2 VR II | 300 2.8G VR II, 10.5 Fish-eye, 24 & 50 1.4G, 35 & 85 1.8G, 18-200 3.5-5.6 VR I SB-400 & 700 | TC 1.4E III, 1.7 & 2.0E III, 1.7 | Sigma 35 & 50 1.4 DG HSM | RRS Ballhead & Tripods Gear | Gitzo Monopod | Lowepro Gear | HDR via Promote Control System |
  • PB_PMPB_PM Posts: 3,968Member
    @Golf007sd As much as I agree that variable aperture zooms are not great, considering the difference in price between the lenses the user asked about, and the ones suggested I suspect it is a little out of line.

    @Gwolf64 In the past I owned both of those lenses, so I can give first hand experience with them. Both of those lenses are decent, but wont knock your socks off. Both have poor contrast, and sharpness wide open. If you do go for one of them, stop them down to F8 for the best results. You'd be better off getting the more modern 24-85mm VR and 70-300mm VR for a light travel kit.
    If I take a good photo it's not my camera's fault.
  • AdeAde Posts: 1,071Member
    @Gwolf64

    Which lenses do you have now? And how tight is your budget?

    Of the two I might pick the 28-105 "D".

    For travel, landscapes and architecture you will want a lens much wider than 70mm. Even 28mm might not be wide enough, but it is much better than 70mm.

    Also I believe the 28-105 can also be used for close ups; not quite "macro" but up to 1/2 life-size.
  • Golf007sdGolf007sd Posts: 2,840Moderator
    @PB_PM: Your point is very valid.

    Yet, the end user does have a FF body; and if he or she wants to take advantage of the sensor, when shooting landscape and/or architecture, those two lenses, from my perspective, fall way short.
    D4 & D7000 | Nikon Holy Trinity Set + 105 2.8 Mico + 200 F2 VR II | 300 2.8G VR II, 10.5 Fish-eye, 24 & 50 1.4G, 35 & 85 1.8G, 18-200 3.5-5.6 VR I SB-400 & 700 | TC 1.4E III, 1.7 & 2.0E III, 1.7 | Sigma 35 & 50 1.4 DG HSM | RRS Ballhead & Tripods Gear | Gitzo Monopod | Lowepro Gear | HDR via Promote Control System |
  • PB_PMPB_PM Posts: 3,968Member
    Since Gwolf64 has not stated what lenses he/she has now, which from the sounds of things are primes, it's hard to say what would best meet their needs.
    If I take a good photo it's not my camera's fault.
  • TaoTeJaredTaoTeJared Posts: 1,306Member
    Why so old of lenses?
    D800, D300, D50(ir converted), FujiX100, Canon G11, Olympus TG2. Nikon lenses - 24mm 2.8, 35mm 1.8, (5 in all)50mm, 60mm, 85mm 1.8, 105vr, 105 f2.5, 180mm 2.8, 70-200vr1, 24-120vr f4. Tokina 12-24mm, 16-28mm, 28-70mm (angenieux design), 300mm f2.8. Sigma 15mm fisheye. Voigtlander R2 (olive) & R2a, Voigt 35mm 2.5, Zeiss 50mm f/2, Leica 90mm f/4. I know I missed something...
  • PB_PMPB_PM Posts: 3,968Member
    My guess, they are cheap. Both can be had for under $200.
    If I take a good photo it's not my camera's fault.
  • sevencrossingsevencrossing Posts: 2,800Member
    edited February 2014
    Nothing wrong with variable aperture lenses, just look at the new 80 -400

    but both the 70-210mm f/4-5.6 and 28-105 f3.5-4.5, are of dated design, nether have VR and will not be as sharp as a modern equivalent

    My recommendation would be the 24 - 120 f4 VR or if you cannot afford that, the 24 -85 kit lens
    others will recommend the equally good 24 -70 f 2.8
    Post edited by sevencrossing on
  • Gwolf64Gwolf64 Posts: 15Member
    @Gwolf64

    Which lenses do you have now? And how tight is your budget?

    Of the two I might pick the 28-105 "D".

    For travel, landscapes and architecture you will want a lens much wider than 70mm. Even 28mm might not be wide enough, but it is much better than 70mm.

    Also I believe the 28-105 can also be used for close ups; not quite "macro" but up to 1/2 life-size.


    I have 24mm 2.8D and 50mm 1.8.
  • Gwolf64Gwolf64 Posts: 15Member
    Why so old of lenses?
    Cheap cheap and cheap. Ha.
  • Gwolf64Gwolf64 Posts: 15Member
    Don't get either of them because of the variable aperture.

    For the long end go with the 70-200 f/4.For the short end go with a wide angle lens. 16-35 f/4 or 14-24 2.8. If on a budget consider a prime....the new Sigma 35 1.4 will do the job and them some.

    I do prefer primes. BUT, a zoom would help me in the travel/walking around department. Without having to change lenses.
  • IronheartIronheart Posts: 3,017Moderator
    I think the 70-300 blows both of those away for not much more $$
  • Gwolf64Gwolf64 Posts: 15Member
    I might be taking a whole different direction to the Nikon 80-200mm f/2.8. Thoughts?
  • WestEndBoyWestEndBoy Posts: 1,456Member
    edited February 2014
    It is a professional grade lens with solid build an IQ, but an older one. However, there is a reason it has survived for more than 15 years in Nikon's lineup. This lens is good value. The IQ is almost as good as the 70-200 but the autofocus is a little slower. Also, it has no VR if that is important to you and will only take the older teleconverters, so it cannot auto-focus with a teleconverter.
    Post edited by WestEndBoy on
  • sevencrossingsevencrossing Posts: 2,800Member
    I might be taking a whole different direction to the Nikon 80-200mm f/2.8. Thoughts?
    This seem an unusual choice for travel, landscapes, architecture
    what else are you up ?

  • Gwolf64Gwolf64 Posts: 15Member
    I might be taking a whole different direction to the Nikon 80-200mm f/2.8. Thoughts?
    This seem an unusual choice for travel, landscapes, architecture
    what else are you up ?

    I also take my family photographs during events and holidays. I also, enjoy night landscapes showing stars. Use the following link for a star example.

    http://www.flickr.com/photos/97348131@N05/12040096594/

  • sevencrossingsevencrossing Posts: 2,800Member
    Thanks Gwolf64 some fine, sharp shots
    none of you subjects would seem to benefit from, or need a 80-200mm f/2.8.
    but on tripod or with flash, it would be a fine portrait lens for your family
    but if you are going to hand hold, with available light @ 200mm, I would seriously consider a lens with VR
  • Vipmediastar_JZVipmediastar_JZ Posts: 1,708Member
    I like your architecture shots. I actually want to go wider like the 14-24 2.8 or 16-35 f4. I can see how some landscapes can be done with the tele end but for travel I would suggest the 24-70 2.8 as an option.

    I had the 70-300 when I had the ap-c cameras and sold it when I upgraded to FX. You can still use that lens but it will be cropped.

    I can't comment on the lens you are looking for as I have no experience with them. Sorry if this didn't help with your original question but something to consider.

    You did a great job with the 24mm
  • Gwolf64Gwolf64 Posts: 15Member
    I like your architecture shots. I actually want to go wider like the 14-24 2.8 or 16-35 f4. I can see how some landscapes can be done with the tele end but for travel I would suggest the 24-70 2.8 as an option.

    I had the 70-300 when I had the ap-c cameras and sold it when I upgraded to FX. You can still use that lens but it will be cropped.

    I can't comment on the lens you are looking for as I have no experience with them. Sorry if this didn't help with your original question but something to consider.

    You did a great job with the 24mm

    Thanks for the complement.
  • IronheartIronheart Posts: 3,017Moderator
    edited February 2014
    The 70-300 is an FX lens, with VR and costs about $500
    Nikon AF-S VR Zoom-NIKKOR 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G IF-ED Telephoto Zoom Lens
    http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/449088-GREY/Nikon_2161_AF_S_VR_Zoom_Nikkor.html

    There is a grey market one for $120. At that price you can afford to not have the warranty :-)
    Post edited by Ironheart on
  • Vipmediastar_JZVipmediastar_JZ Posts: 1,708Member
    Yes that is correct it is FX. I actually thought it was DX when I picked it up many years ago. I still sold it to help finance the current Camera and lens lineup. I actually liked that lens with my cameras and the last camera i used it was with the d7000.
  • NSXTypeRNSXTypeR Posts: 2,039Member
    I would say if you were thinking about the 80-200 2.8 you might as well think about the newer 70-300. Very nice lens for not so much money at half the price of the 80-200.
    Nikon D7000/ Nikon D40/ Nikon FM2/ 18-135 AF-S/ 35mm 1.8 AF-S/ 105mm Macro AF-S/ 50mm 1.2 AI-S
  • WestEndBoyWestEndBoy Posts: 1,456Member
    The 80-200 is better optically and mechanically. In fact, it is almost on par with the 70-200 2.8 optically and you could argue it is superior mechanically.
  • Gwolf64Gwolf64 Posts: 15Member
    Well this brings me to my ultimate questions.

    If you were to buy the Cadillac of Travel Zoom Lenses what would you buy? (considering I have a 24mm and 50mm prime)

    If you were to buy the most cost effective Travel Zoom Lens what would you buy?

    (I am sure this questions has been asked over and over again....)
  • haroldpharoldp Posts: 984Member
    I think the 70-300 blows both of those away for not much more $$
    I have 70-210 and 70-300 VR and it is not even close. At F8 (300mm) and f5,6 (70-200) the 70-300 VR is quite good, and in a different league than the 70-210. It is also VR and under 400 if you shop well. The new 8-400 outclasses anything prior to it in it's lengths, I had to go to the 400 2.8 to beat it, and at 400mm f6.3 it is very close.

    In a wide zoom, cheap the old 24-85 F3.5-4.5 is also very good, much better than the 2.8-3,5 that replaced it, and probably $100 on ebay (I paid $75).

    ... H



    D810, D3x, 14-24/2.8, 50/1.4D, 24-70/2.8, 24-120/4 VR, 70-200/2.8 VR1, 80-400 G, 200-400/4 VR1, 400/2.8 ED VR G, 105/2 DC, 17-55/2.8.
    Nikon N90s, F100, F, lots of Leica M digital and film stuff.

Sign In or Register to comment.