Nikon Zoom vs Nikon Zoom

Gwolf64

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

Golf007sd

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.

PB_PM

@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.

Ade

@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.

Golf007sd

@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.

PB_PM

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.

TaoTeJared

Why so old of lenses?

PB_PM

My guess, they are cheap. Both can be had for under $200.

sevencrossing

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

Gwolf64

@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.

Gwolf64

Why so old of lenses?

Cheap cheap and cheap. Ha.

Gwolf64

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.

Ironheart

I think the 70-300 blows both of those away for not much more $$

Gwolf64

I might be taking a whole different direction to the Nikon 80-200mm f/2.8. Thoughts?

WestEndBoy

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.

sevencrossing

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 ?

Gwolf64

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/

sevencrossing

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_JZ

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

Gwolf64

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.

Ironheart

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 :-)

Vipmediastar_JZ

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.

NSXTypeR

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.

WestEndBoy

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.

Gwolf64

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....)

haroldp

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