Mid range zoom lenses

Arich

Has anybody any advice on lenses as far as the mid range telephoto region is concerned? Around the sort of 30-70mm range. I have lenses which cover most ranges i.e. long telephoto and wide angle. But i have nothing that covers the 30-70mm range. I have just given my father my old 55-200mm and 18-55mm :-& kit lens as I have passed on my old D3100 to him as I have upgraded to a D7100. I have bought a 50mm 1.8 and 35mm 1.8 to fill the gap where the kit lens covered. But i want to buy a lens that would cover the whole 30-70mm for when i cant take my primes (like on holiday where space is limited). Just for reference the lenses I have are: Sigma 10-20, Sigma 15-30, Nikon 35, Nikon 50, Sigma 70-300.
The type of lens I am after would be something that would be great for landscapes primarily as that is the sort of photography I 'do.' Also the lens would have to be an FX lens NOT DX as when I move to FX in the future then I would like to be able to keep most of my lenses. I was looking at the old 24-120AFD, or the 28-80AFD, but i thought someone may have a better idea here. I unfortunately can't afford the 24-70AFS as I don't have that much money floating around! I would say something that is pre-owned is best for me as price wise I cant afford any of the nicer top end lenses. I think price wise something below the £300 mark would be about as much as i can reasonably lay out (I know that's nothing but cash is tight). (I am not some stupid newbie who knows nothing about photography, I would love a nice fast lens like the the 24-70AFS but I just can't afford those kinds of lenses at the moment, or at least justify spending that much on a lens for the time being)

thanks in advance for any help given

Golf007sd

@Arich: Welcome NRF. The lens you are seeking is my 24-70 2.8. It is an amazing lens and my favorite in the Holly Trinity Set.

As for price, by all means have a look on the secondary market (a.k.a used market) for some good pricing. You should be able to find one with the $1300-1400 price range.

PB_PM

The 35-70mm F2.8D might be just the lens you are looking for. Not sure what the prices are now days.

sevencrossing

Hi Arich The old 24-120AFD does not get good reviews
but the new one is brilliant

spraynpray

Coincidentally, I read on DxO mark earlier that the old 24-120 is much better when used on the D7100 so as they are very cheap second hand, that may be a good way to go.

Arich

The 35-70mm does look and sound tempting, the prices are good now. at a glance about £140. That may well be what I'm after for the price.

PB_PM

Just be aware that there are two 35-70mm lenses, one is variable aperture (3.5-4.5D) and one is fixed (F2.8D). I used to own the F2.8 version, but have no experience with the variable aperture version.

tcole1983

I think the Tamron SP 28-75MM F/2.8 Di might be in the price range you are looking. No idea on quality though.

Good luck...the FX lens in this range is one reason I haven't even thought about going FX.

PB_PM

Good luck...the FX lens in this range is one reason I haven't even thought about going FX.

Good thing the OP has a D7100, not a FX body. :P

Photobug

+1 to Golf. I would buy a used 24-70 F2.8. You will not be sorry.

I saw a factory refurbished 24-120mm that was a few hundred less than the cost of a new one. Both would work and fill your requirements.

haroldp

The 24-85mm f3.5-4.5 is quite good within it's range but requires a body with focus motor.

The 24-70 2.8 is brilliant, but I almost always mount the new 24-120 / f4 VR, which is very close. If I had gotten the 24-120 / f4 VR first, I would not have added the 24-70.

.... H

tcole1983

Good luck...the FX lens in this range is one reason I haven't even thought about going FX.

Good thing the OP has a D7100, not a FX body. :P

OP said he wanted it to be FX compatible for the move later on.

PB_PM

I'll just throw this in, because I tried and owned several lenses before getting the 24-70mm F2.8G, but none of them even come close. That said, most of them are capable of good results, and if you have a limited budget they are good enough for most tasks.

AF 28-105mm F3.5-4.5D: Good performance. Not a lot of distortion at the either end of the zoom range, and sharpness is decent throughout, even wide open. Works best at F8 though. Contrast is really poor in backlit situations. A nice light lens for travel photography. (owned this for several years)

AF-S 24-120mm F3.5-5.6G: Love the focal range. Lots of distortion at 24-35mm. Overall, soft even stopped down to F8. No amount of focus calibration would help. I had the lens for 6 months and dumped it. Not even worth the used price.

AF 35-70mm F2.8D: Again, good sharpness and overall performance. Poor contrast in backlit situations. Uses a push pull zoom mechanism, this takes some getting used to. It's a little stiff at some parts of the zoom range, but not unacceptably tight. A little weak at 70mm, F2.8. (modern equivalents AF-S 28-70mm F2.8D & current AF-S 24-70mm F2.8G) (I had this for a few years)

Sigma 28-70mm F2.8 EX: Not worth it, end of story. (Tested in store)

Sigma 24-70mm F2.8 EX DG HSM: Better than the 28-70mm f2.8 EX, that's about all I can say for it. (Tested in store)

Nikon 24-70mm F2.8G: Very good, but as noted by the OP, it is expensive. It has flaws, without a doubt, but it does deliver excellent image quality overall.

Fritz

I use a 24-70 2.8 for events photography and find it a first class lens particularly between f5.6-11. If price is an issue you might consider the Tokina 24-70 2.8 which has an excellent reputation and is perhaps a best value for the price.

heartyfisher

I have the 35-70 F2.8.. great portrait lens on DX.. the "low contrast" gives a nice feel to a portrait :-) on FX its a nice 35-70 mid range zoom .. does everthing it should do well except for the low contrast/lense flare.. I have bought a lens hood for it so its better but it rotates when focusing.. at 35mm its very sharp edge to edge, great for landscape. Its a bit of a problem for me cos its so good! I have no excuse to upgrade !!

I have looked at the following lenses
1) Nikkor 24-70 F2.8 - great lens but too expensive for me especially bec i am not a "normal" shooter. although 24 mm is nice.

2) Nikkor 28-70 F2.8 - may still get one.. on the look out for a cheap second hand one.

3) 28-75 tamron - i would get this if I didnt have the 35-70 although the 35-70 is sharper and less distortion the 28-75 has better flare control and its really quite decent optically.

4) the new 24-70 VC USD Tamron - definitely worth looking into this one. reviews very well not as good as the nikon or canon but very very close and it has VC/VR.

5) sigma 24-70 F2.8 . reviewed better than the old canon 24-70. Of course the new canon is great.

6) 28-105 nikkor F3.5-4.5 - nice lense has 1:2 macro so pretty good in that department. and I love macro!

7) NIKKOR 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5G ED VR AF-S - kit lens with the D600/D610 - seems a great value lense.

8) Nikkor 24-85mm f2.8-4D IF - Widest of the variable aperture lenses.

9) 24-120 F4 AF-S VR -- Nice lense. great range.

As you can see there are lots of good choices !

If i were to upgrade my 35-70 F2.8 I will probably get the 24-120 VR F4 however that 28-105 with 1:2 macro capability is cheap and tempting! the Tamron 24-70 VC is also good value.

If you were to keep within or close to your budget
1) nikkor 35-70 F2.8
2) tamron 28-75 F2.8
3) nikkor 28-105 F3.5-F4.5
4) Nikkor 24-85 F2.8-F4.0
5) Nikkor 24-85 F3.5-F4.5 VR

Photobug

If i were to upgrade my 35-70 F2.8 I will probably get the 24-120 VR F4 however that 28-105 with 1:2 macro capability is cheap and tempting! the Tamron 24-70 VC is also good value.
=======================
I spent an hour using the Nikon 24-70 and the 24-120 a few months ago. Based upon my experience and IMHO, I would buy the 24-70 if I had the 70-200. Why...ERGONOMICS. The zoom collar is in the location on both the 24-70 and 70-200 lenses. On the 24-120 they swapped the zoom collar and focus ring. If I did not have the 70-200 then the 24-120 is a better less expensive way to go.

When your shooting and moving back and forth between lens, you want your hands to go to the same position each and every time. I don't want to have to think which lens is on the body and turn the wrong collar and miss the picture. I just don't understand why Nikon switched them for the 24-120 lens. Dumb from an ergonomics perspective but probably cost related.

In addition, And I found I could zoom across the zoom range faster and easier with the zoom collar in the same location as on the 24-70/70-200 lenses. In balancing the camera and lens I could zoom quicker with the 24-70/70-200 lenses than the 24-120 lens.

From my perspective, ergonomics is apart of the equation in making a lens decision.

Pistnbroke

If you are dong landscapes dont you want to go wide? so 24mm on DX is no good to you ..you need a 12 -24mm zoom or similar. FX lenses do not work well on DX (just check DXO) and anyting not Nikon cannot be garanteed to work on your D7100 or your future upgrade to FX ....a grey market DX nikon lens is cheap and sell it on when you go FX

spraynpray

Interesting @PitchBlack. OK, so it isn't an f2.8 but what is it like flat out at F4?

spraynpray

@PitchBlack: Thx.

What is a sexy lens BTW? :-/

PB_PM

@PitchBlack: Thx.

What is a sexy lens BTW? :-/

Good question. I wonder the same thing when people say a phone or any other inanimate object is "sexy." Usually it means, looks good to the eye (aka eye candy).

TaoTeJared

I unfortunately can't afford the 24-70AFS as I don't have that much money floating around! I would say something that is pre-owned is best for me as price wise I cant afford any of the nicer top end lenses. I think price wise something below the £300 mark would be about as much as i can reasonably lay out (I know that's nothing but cash is tight). (I am not some stupid newbie who knows nothing about photography, I would love a nice fast lens like the the 24-70AFS but I just can't afford those kinds of lenses at the moment, or at least justify spending that much on a lens for the time being)

I just love how everyone just ignores others budgets here.

AF-S 24-120mm F3.5-5.6G/VR - do not bother unless you want a unspectacular shots from a lens. Worth £100? Sure! It is a very useful range but the optics really are not that great and it shows. The new F/4 VR version is a great lens though - but that is out of the price range.

I would also stay away from Sigma's offerings in that price range as well. I tried most, and the IQ and focus speed just isn't their. Certainly not as good as their Art lenses.

Honestly for your budget I would say the 18-105vr or even a used 18-200vr. Overlap is not a bad thing at all and it sounds like you want something more convenient than swapping lenses. The VR will help compensate for the slower aperture. And you have primes to get shallow DOF when you want it so this would complement your kit.

The other lens that you might look at is the 17-50 Tamron (VC and non-VC). They both are great lenses 2.8 lenses and probably could be picked up for a hell of a deal used. Ignore the idiot reviews that the VC version is "not as sharp." I have used both, and it is just not true at all in actual use.

spraynpray

That is it in a nutshell PitchBlack.

Msmoto

@PitchBlack

+1

"Pony Up"…… must mean > > $1000….. for those who are wondering….LOL

cowleystjames

Got to say that for £300 your not going to get to the realms of the 24-70 f2.8 or 24-120 f4 which are both superb lenses.
As a matter of fact, the 24-120 is on my D800e most of the time, but your budget would get the NIKON AF-S NIKKOR 16-85MM F3.5-5.6G ED VR. Nice lens for a DX camera and T4 cameras have one going for £350

spraynpray

I have the most expensive DX lens Nikon make, and in comparison to the 18-35mm Sigma which is half the price, it is 'meh'. Especially after the launch of the new DX sensors, I wish Nikon would improve their DX mid-range lenses.

May have to get the flare prone 14-24 next, but being an FX, it is not a great range choice for DX IMHO.

sevencrossing

spraynpray

I wish Nikon would improve their DX mid-range lenses. -

Arich
Also the lens would have to be an FX lens NOT DX as when I move to FX in the future then I would like to be able to keep most of my lenses.

Could the lack of "high end" Nikon Dx lenses be because people buying lenses want something that will be suitable for a future "upgrade " ?