Seeking recommendations for an AF-D Nikkor "walk-around lens"

[Jeremy Z]

Why zoom? Go prime. Heaps cheaper, more versatile than the G range (my local dealer refers to these as "castrati" lenses) and far fewer optical etc problems.

Sure, a bit more discipline is required, more careful composition, legwork. One learns to actiavte brain before trigger finger. A useful exercise in many things in life, not just photography...

Get a 28mm 2.8 D. These are often available at discounted prices on Ebay - I bought one in 2017 for $99.

Superb image quality, colours and mid tones. In all, a very, very underrated lens. One of Nikon's very best.

If you want a little more 'width' in your images without too much distortion, the 24mm 2.8 D may suit you better. I have both the 28 and 24 but I use the former 98% of the time.

Best lens I've ever had for almost everything I shoot. It lives on one of my D700. (Okay, so you wanted to know - my second D700 wears a 85mm 1.8 D.)

Thanks for the detailed reply, ozmoose.

I have a bunch of primes, and I like them, everything you said is true.

I guess a big part of the reason I want this zoom is that a big part of what I shoot is family candids. If I zoom with my feet, esp. with a 24 or 28, the moment will have passed (as I switch lenses) or I will have influenced the candid nature of what I was going for. (if I have a 24 or 28 and get close enough)

As a side note, I'm thinking of a 35/2 for either my EOS or N-AF, but they're spendy, right around $200. In my local shop, there are 3 different f/2.8 wide angle zooms for $150. They're not as light, but they cover ultra-wide, too!

 

[narsuitus]

In my local shop, there are 3 different f/2.8 wide angle zooms for $150.

Is Central Camera your local shop?

 

[Jeremy Z]

Is Central Camera your local shop?

I guess it's one of three; using the term 'local' loosely:

• Central Camera (Chicago Loop) is a 1 hour train ride + 20 minute walk
• Helix camera (Itasca, IL) is a 45 minute drive, but not much film stuff
• Rode's Camera (Kenosha, WI) is a 5 minute drive from work. They're the ones I really consider local.

 

[Jeremy Z]

Just to close the loop, I wound up with the Nikkor 28-105 f/3.5-4.5; love it!

It's enough faster than an f/4-5.6 to be noticeable, esp. in AF performance in low light.

I also picked up an old Nikkor 75-300 f/4.5-5.6 pumper zoom. Developed the first images from it last night. Can't wait to see the scans. Might add a 50/1.8D just to have something fast, light and AF.

 

[splitimageview]

I have one of those on the way, too. Looking forward to trying it, apparently it's well-corrected and an excellent performer.

 

[Jeremy Z]

I have one of those on the way, too. Looking forward to trying it, apparently it's well-corrected and an excellent performer.

Here's my assessment of it (28-105) so far:

+ Sharp
+ Well-corrected
+ A good compromise between speed, size, weight and price
+ As always, it is a good range of focal lengths, without getting so rangey that optics suffer. 28 is a proper wide angle, 105 is noticeably closer than 85; a proper telephoto.
+ Good build quality & coatings

- Due to gearing, manually focusing is not realistic
- Macro focusing takes some deliberation; look at how the orange markings are laid out.

= Might seem a bit heavy on a lightweight plastic body, but is perfectly balanced on heavier bodies.
= 62 mm filter threads
= Might make you too lazy to use primes... 😱

 

[lynnb]

Get the AF 50/1.8D - it's a no-brainer for the price, assuming you prefer 50mm. If you prefer something a bit wider the AF 35mm f/2D is very nice (but costs more).

 

[james.liam]

No one mentions the 17-35/2.8 AFD. Great film lens.

 

[Chris101]

No one mentions the 17-35/2.8 AFD. Great film lens.

It is. I bought mine with an N80 body attached. But I must admit, that camera likes the 24-120 f/3.5-5.6 G VR better. That's the lens that everybody loves to hate, so my poor N80 is an outlier.

By the way, Smaug already has a great walk around camera:

 

[kxl]

I believe one of the latest G lenses would cripple me, as I wouldn't be able to use S or P.

Actually, only P and S modes are usable on the N90 with G lenses. DX G lenses are widely available and are perfectly compatible from a certain FL and longer. xample: the 18-55mm DX works as expected from about 24mm to 55mm.

 

[splitimageview]

No one mentions the 17-35/2.8 AFD. Great film lens.

Are you referring to this one?

 

[Huss]

.. But I must admit, that camera likes the 24-120 f/3.5-5.6 G VR better. That's the lens that everybody loves to hate..

I have the latest version of that lens (current version) and it is superb. I have a feeling that someone on the web b!tched about it, then others chimed in thinking because they heard it was bad from some rando.. then they have to agree as it shows they also know what they are talking about. Lemming mentality.

It has been great on my D850, and on my F6.

F6, 24-120, Fuji C200, Z7 scan, negativelabpro

 

[splitimageview]

The current version is f/4, is that the one you have?

It's far better than the first two versions, which were pretty much crap. I owned the first version unfortunately...

 

[SolaresLarrave]

Well... I was about to suggest a lens that left sweet memories in me until I switched bodies and went the dSLR route: the Nikon AF-G 24-84 f3.5-4.5 VR. I used it with my F80, later with my F100 and I think my F5. Replaced it with a Sigma AF 24-70 f2.8, and then got the first version of the Nikon AF-S 24-0 f2.8. But I digress... I think if the OP wants another lens in the future, the AF-S 24-85 f3.5-4.5 will work with the F90.

Also, it's a good idea to stay away from any of the early versions of the AF 24-120. They can be disappointing...

Enjoy your camera and lens! 🙂

 

[james.liam]

Are you referring to this one?

Yes indeed. Get a newer copy and no squeaking issue. It really is a fantastic lens for film.

 

[Jeremy Z]

It is. I bought mine with an N80 body attached. But I must admit, that camera likes the 24-120 f/3.5-5.6 G VR better. That's the lens that everybody loves to hate, so my poor N80 is an outlier.

It was the "pre-G" versions of the 24-120 that people hated.

The G version (a $1,000 lens) is actually quite good. It wound up being my favorite lens for my D610, when I was doing full frame digital. I still remember it fondly. When I was looking for a "street-sweeper" lens for µ4/3 digital, I got the Panasonic equivalent, and it's awesome too.

Ken Rockwell did a good job of summing it up. Look under the 'History' heading here: https://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/24-120mm.htm


By the way, Smaug already has a great walk around camera:

[/QUOTE]

I started back into Nikon with the FG, as I needed a cheap body with which to dip my toes into the Nikon waters again. (having just found a couple of nice F-mount lenses at the thrift store for $10) It was $30 on ebay, near mint. Pretty outstanding feature set, too: OTF TTL metering, incl. flash, A and P modes, mechanical 90th and B, small and light... The only thing missing is DoF preview. The small and light thing got me started looking for another body that would not be so tough to handle with even moderately heavy lenses. I wanted an FM2N, but they're too expensive, so I got an N90s. (great camera, but it's the opposite of small and light.)

I just got an FE2 yesterday; this seems to be the Goldilocks camera between the FG and N90s.

For the FG and FE2, I have the Tokina AT-X 28-85/3.5-4.5 and for the N90s, I've got the aforementioned AF-D Nikkor.

 

[Jeremy Z]

I’d just stick with fast primes at this time of the year. I find slow zooms too limiting with film in winter. I use a 50 1.8D that I rotate around my af bodies

Reading through this thread again, this post struck a chord. I went on a photo walk in Hyde Park, Chicago this past weekend with a bag full of slow glass:

• Sigma 28-80 f/3.5-5.6
• Sigma 100-300 f/4.5-6.7 (ouch!)
• Quantaray (Sigma) 24 f/2.8

That 24/2.8 was noticeably better. I could hand-hold at 1/30s because it's a 24 (4-stop shutter speed advantage, compared to the 300 mm f/6.7) then another 2.5 stop advantage from the larger aperture.

I was pretty much crippled on that cloudy day with the 100-300, even with 400 film. If I had more experience with such slow tele zooms on cloudy days, I would have pushed the whole roll to ASA 1600. Or brought a tripod.

 

[narsuitus]

I went on a photo walk in Hyde Park, Chicago this past weekend ...

The Washington Park camera club meets at 7pm on Tuesdays at the Washington Park Recreation Center on Garfield and South King Drive. You may want to check them out.

 

[Pál_K]

It was the "pre-G" versions of the 24-120 that people hated.
...

Right. KR mentions straight-line distortion with it. However I have the 24-120 AF-D on my D700 as it's main lens and have used it for motorsports and general photography and the lens seems fine. Perhaps I have a good specimen or I consider any distortion to be of no significance considering the image as a whole.