Nikon-mount D70 zoom lens advice needed

[Kevin]

Hi all,

I have a Nikon D70 with the kit zoom lens and am looking for a replacement auto-focus zoom that fulfills the following criteria:

1. Medium-Range Zoom
2. f/2.8 constant aperture
3. Macro
4. Very good to excellent image quality
4. Good to excellent build quality
5. VR/IS would be a plus but not absolutely necessary
6. Usable on full-frame body would be a plus (might get a FF in 2010)

I have looked at the current offerings and see these interesting lenses:

Nikon AF-S Zoom-NIKKOR 24-70 mm 1:2,8G ED
Nikon AF-S Zoom-NIKKOR 28-70mm 1:2,8 IF-ED
Sigma 18-50mm F2.8 EX DC HSM Makro (APS-C)
Sigma 24-70mm F2,8 EX DG Asp. Macro (Full-Frame?)
Tamron SP AF 28-75mm F/2,8 XR Di LD Aspherical [IF] MACRO

I have a budget of approx. 500 Euro. I would also buy a used lens.

Could anyone offer me some advice please?

Thanks, Kevin

 

[Arvay]

If you can find one for EUR 500 go for Nikon AF-S Zoom-NIKKOR 28-70mm 1:2,8 IF-ED.
Do not spent money for Sigma.
By the way you'll not find zoom Nikkors of this parameters (f 2.8) that will be a macro as well

 

[Kevin]

Thanks for that suggestion!
Is Nikon's 28-70mm less costly than its 24-70mm offering or does it have better image quality?

 

[Yammerman]

Been round and round in circles with this myself searching Google for opinions and really didn't come to any definite conclusions except that the 18-70mm kit lens is very good for the money. Tamron and Sigma seem to cause love and loathing in equal measure while the Nikon's are very expensive. In the end I started using an old MF Tamron SP 35-80 f2.8 zoom (with macro) on my D300 but I don't think that would meter on a D70.

I use an 18-200mm VR but the distortion's a bit annoying while the 16-86mm VR has its followers. I've started using primes when I want that extra speed.

Hope you get some more opinions as I'd be interested too.

 

[pesphoto]

i hve a nikon 20mm AF 2.8 D lens for sale if interested

 

[newsgrunt]

If you're contemplating going fx down the road, then I can't say enough about the Nikkor 24-70. Superlative. Cost might be an issue however. If this is the case, then look at the older 17-35. Will do well on dx (used it for years on D1 and D2 cameras) fx cameras.

 

[fidget]

I was also looking to get a lens or two which would be good for my film SLR as well as my DSLR (was D70 now D80).
The Tamron 17-50 2.8 looks good for the money, but maybe not THAT much better than the 18-70mm 3.5 Nikon.
When I tried my Nikon 50mm 1.8 prime for a few shots the question of which zoom I should get just vanished. I added the sigma 30mm 1.4 to my kit instead of a zoom. Now I want a 20mm prime.......

 

[Kevin]

Thanks for the replies so far.

I realize this is a difficult lens question and for that reason I am in no rush to make a decision.

Of course I have started looking at prime lenses from the Nikon lineup, such as the 35mm f/2.0 and the two 50mm primes (1.4D and 1.8D). The 50mm 1.8D seems to be an inexpensive, low-light lens that I could add to the purchase of a zoom.

I also found out about this Nikon lens but it seems to be older and might not meter and autofocus on my D70:

Nikon AF Nikkor 24-85/2,8-4 D IF Aspherical Macro

Does anyone know anything about this lens? 2.8-4.0 would be okay!

Best, Kevin

 

[ncd_photo]

What's the main reason for replacing the 18-70 (a very underrated lens)? Going to a 2.8 costs a fair bit in both size, weight and cost for basically one stop of light. Shooting at 5.6 to 11 I think you'd be hard pressed to tell the difference unless you go for the latest 24-70.
I'd be more inclined to pick up a used D300 and stick with the 18-70 for the time being. Unless you need to shoot at iso 3200 all the time FX is a bit pricey at the moment and you need exceptional glass to make it worth the switch.

 

[Wiyum]

You want the DX 17-55 2.8. Anything else is going to be too long at the wide end (the 24-70) or too short on the long end (the 17-35) to actually be midrange.

 

[Kevin]

If I were to go with the DX 17-55 2.8 is there a possibility to turn that into a macro using an extension tube?

Back in approx. 2 hours.

Thanks!

 

[ampguy]

I like the 18-70 as well

I like the 18-70 as well

but the 3.5 creeps up as you zoom really fast, so indoors, or out with narrow DOF really requires a faster lens, which is probably what the OP is looking for.

For now I'm carrying around a 105/2.5 PC prime with the kit lens, but will probably add the 35/1.8 AFS, and maybe consider a 12-24 AFS or Sigma 10-20 down the road.

I was also looking to get a lens or two which would be good for my film SLR as well as my DSLR (was D70 now D80).
The Tamron 17-50 2.8 looks good for the money, but maybe not THAT much better than the 18-70mm 3.5 Nikon.
When I tried my Nikon 50mm 1.8 prime for a few shots the question of which zoom I should get just vanished. I added the sigma 30mm 1.4 to my kit instead of a zoom. Now I want a 20mm prime.......

 

[Kevin]

What's the main reason for replacing the 18-70 (a very underrated lens)? Going to a 2.8 costs a fair bit in both size, weight and cost for basically one stop of light...

For weddings I have been using my R-D1 with off-camera lighting for just over a year now. I use a 35mm lens for the most part and in between the 15mm and 75mm.

I've had best results with very low flash output levels, iso 200-400 and apertures from 2.0 and 2.8 and would like a zoom that retains the same aperture throughout the range.

So I guess that I'll look more closely at the DX offerings and forget about the FX lenses. None of the DX Nikkors have VR or macro, correct?

 

[kully]

🙂 I've never known a thread where lens advice was asked for and a majoritive answer given.

I don't know if the newer versions of the Sigma 18-50/2.8 are better or worse (they certainly focus closer) but I had this quandry back in later summer 2006 and I went for the first version of the Sigma (on a D70 as well).

It's been great, no reliability issues, also good on a D200. Used for some paying work and some favours and the only bad things I can say are the focussing speed, focussing noise and softness at f/2.8 (already going at f/4) - but I hear the newer versions have HSM and at f/2.8 the softness is nothing to complain about unless you're taking some photos that really need the detail.

Of course, not so good when you go to full-frame - but then you're not going to get a zoom with the range you need now that will also be good for FF (unless 24mm is wide enough for you).

 

[pvdhaar]

So I guess that I'll look more closely at the DX offerings and forget about the FX lenses. None of the DX Nikkors have VR or macro, correct?

The 18-105 has VR, but it's not a constant f2.8 aperture lens..
http://www.bythom.com/Nikkor18-105lensreview.htm

 

[Kevin]

Thanks, Peter!

I found a website in NZ that has lots of Nikon lens data, in case anyone else is interested:

http://photosynthesis.co.nz/nikon/specs.html