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

Jeremy Z

Jeremy Z

Well-known
Local time
4:20 AM
Joined
Feb 10, 2007
Messages
558
Here's the situation: I shoot probably 70% family photos, with the rest mixed between street, cityscapes and landscapes. I'll shoot this with film bodies only; I have an FG body, and a few nice manual focus lenses:

  • Nikkor 35/2 AI
  • Nikkor 50/1.4 AI
  • Nikkor 50/1.8 AI-S
  • Nikkor 50/1.8 Series E
  • Nikkor 105/2.5 AI
  • Tokina AT-X 28-85/3.5-4.5 AI-S
  • Vivitar (Kiron) 75-205/3.8 AI-S

I just won an N90s as a second bodyon ebay and am looking to add an AF lens or two. I don't need anything super fast, as I have fast primes, at least up to 105 mm.

I believe one of the latest G lenses would cripple me, as I wouldn't be able to use S or P. Happily then, I look at the AF-D series lenses.

I want to keep it affordable, as I'm also busy buying Christmas gifts and funds for this purchase are limited.

So far, I've considered:

  • Nikkor 28-70/3.5-4.5 D - Good reputation, compact, but I find 70 mm a bit limiting. Price is good.
  • Nikkor 28-85/3.5-4.5 - Good reputation, but larger and heavier. Price is good. Exact same range as the Tokina AT-X I've already got though...
  • Nikkor 35-105/3.5-4.5 D - Good reputation, but I sometimes find 35 mm limiting on the wide end. 105 is a nice short tele on the other end. Price is good. I have a 35-135 for EOS, and it is quite useful!
  • 28-105/3.5-4.5 D - Seems like Goldilocks, if I can find one in my price range...

Any others I should cosider that are equal in quality, ex. Tokina?

Any particular recommendations based on my use?

It will probably stay on the N90s body 90% of the time.
 
Last edited:
28-70 if you prefer compact

28-85 is a absolutely stellar lens - forget the Tokina!
 
Of those options I've only used the 28-70, but it is wonderful. Really really compact and for what I shoot the 70 end was plenty. Have always been happy with the results.

Also, nice pick up with the n90. It's a bit of a lug, but it's such a great camera.
 
B-9 said:
28-70 if you prefer compact

28-85 is a absolutely stellar lens - forget the Tokina!
Click to expand...

Thanks! One thing I noticed about the aftermarket lenses is that they're either f/2.8 or f/4-5.6. Nikkors are f/2.8 or f/3.5-4.5. I figure they stuck with max. f/4.5 so that the AF has enough light to work properly on the bodies.

So yeah, I think I'll stick with a Nikkor, as there doesn't seem to be too much of a "Nikkor Tax" in this class of lens. (going to the f/2.8s is a different story, and the reputation of Tokina in that class is excellent)


twvancamp said:
Of those options I've only used the 28-70, but it is wonderful. Really really compact and for what I shoot the 70 end was plenty. Have always been happy with the results.

Also, nice pick up with the n90. It's a bit of a lug, but it's such a great camera.
Click to expand...

N90s, I used to sell these new at Ritz Camera for $1,000 in the mid-90s. Now, they don't cost any more than a Rebel or N6006*. I needed one like another hole in the head, as I've got EOS for film autofocus, but for $30 shipped, I could NOT resist! I've always liked the control layout.


* This has the same excellent control scheme as the N90s and they were good cameras, but I remember them being noisy and feeling quite cheap, compared to an N90s...
 
Huss said:
I have the 28-70 and 28-105.
Both are excellent but the 28-70 is much nicer to carry around as it is a lot smaller.

I bought it based on this review and no matter how some like to dismiss him he is on the money when it comes down to the nuts n bolts:

https://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/287035af.htm
Click to expand...

Agreed on Ken Rockwell.

Thanks for the size comparison, as it's one of those things that's hard to tell from isolated photos online.

I'm thinking size is not going to be a big factor, as the N90s body is largish and heavy to begin with, and if I want to go light, I have the primes. Also, I was (briefly) considering f/2.8s, so any of these will seem small & light in comparison.
 
You can't go wrong with either of the 28-70 or 28-105 Nikkors. I use both on F100 & D700. As said above, the 28-70 makes a more compact kit for walkabout.
 
lens choice

lens choice

When I acquired an F100 some years ago, I went though this analysis. I have a number of highest quality Nikon primes, both manual and AF, but no AF lenses. I wanted to assemble a three zoom lens kit for general use with good quality at a frugal cost. I picked the 35-105mm 3.5-4.5D Nikkor. I think its optical design is superior to its similar manual predecessors and when found, they seem to be dirt cheap. It's light and small enough to pass as a full time "normal" lens. I've no regrets. Use the money saved for the latest 18-35mm Nikkor, a real winner.
 
Looking at 35-105s now.

I see there is a D model, which is a one-touch. I don't really like one-touch zooms. They've got to be REALLY cheap...

Is it the same optically as the previous two-touch?
 
Thanks for that photo, Fraser. That lens is a little bigger than I expected. It makes sense though, since it is an f/3.5-4.5 and not an f/4-5.6.

Not big enough to turn me away, mind you, but no longer what I think of as 'compact', since my digital system is µ4/3...
 
If you can handle the limited range the Nikkor 35-70mm f2.8 AF D is superb. It was the choice of many pros back in the day and when I travel, this is still a lens I often use on my D700 in lieu of the later 28-70 AF f2.8 which is much bigger and heavier and more difficult to lug around on foreign shores. It produces comparable images to the later lens and these days is also pretty cheap to buy especially for a pro lens. It is comparable in size and weight to the Nikkor 28-85/3.5-4.5 you mention which I also have and which was my main non-prime lens back in the day when I mainly shot a Nikon f801s. There is little wrong with the latter lens though, apart from a slower max aperture and its tendency to flare badly if the sun or bright lights get into its front element. Oh and a bit of image curvature at the wide end though that seldom worried me.

I also agree with your suggestion of the AF D version of the Nikkor 35 - 105mm f3.5-4.5. It is tiny by comparison to most other lenses in a similar range and according to Moose Peterson has an aspherical element which no doubt helped make a smaller lens. It is said to be by far the best Nikkor in that specific range though it was only around for a relatively short time due to the market moving in a different direction not long after its advent. Its a sleeper. There is a review at Ken Rockwell's site and though his images are always horribly over colored the images give a good idea of what it can do in terms of contrast, sharpness etc.
 
peterm1 said:
If you can handle the limited range the Nikkor 35-70mm f2.8 AF D is superb. It was the choice of many pros back in the day and when I travel, this is still a lens I often use on my D700 in lieu of the later 28-70 AF f2.8 which is much bigger and heavier and more difficult to lug around on foreign shores. It produces comparable images to the later lens and these days is also pretty cheap to buy especially for a pro lens. It is comparable in size and weight to the Nikkor 28-85/3.5-4.5 you mention which I also have and which was my main non-prime lens back in the day when I mainly shot a Nikon f801s. There is little wrong with the latter lens though, apart from a slower max aperture and its tendency to flare badly if the sun or bright lights get into its front element. Oh and a bit of image curvature at the wide end though that seldom worried me.

I also agree with your suggestion of the AF D version of the Nikkor 35 - 105mm f3.5-4.5. It is tiny by comparison to most other lenses in a similar range and according to Moose Peterson has an aspherical element which no doubt helped make a smaller lens. It is said to be by far the best Nikkor in that specific range though it was only around for a relatively short time due to the market moving in a different direction not long after its advent. Its a sleeper. There is a review at Ken Rockwell's site and though his images are always horribly over colored the images give a good idea of what it can do in terms of contrast, sharpness etc.
Click to expand...


I agree that the 35-70mm f2.8 AF D is superb EXCEPT that some have a problem in that an internal element becomes cloudy. I had one such. I had it repaired by Camera Clinic in Melbourne with a new Nikon part and a few years later it developed the same problem. This was not a cheap exercise! I gave up and have reverted to a manual focus zoom in a similar range.


For walking around I use a 35mm/f2 AF. I like compact.


The F90x (F90s) is the most ergonomic Nikon body ever IMO. I love mine, although I have an F100 and an F6, both good but there's something about the earlier one, maybe it's my small hands.
 
john_s said:
I agree that the 35-70mm f2.8 AF D is superb EXCEPT that some have a problem in that an internal element becomes cloudy. I had one such. I had it repaired by Camera Clinic in Melbourne with a new Nikon part and a few years later it developed the same problem. This was not a cheap exercise! I gave up and have reverted to a manual focus zoom in a similar range.


For walking around I use a 35mm/f2 AF. I like compact.


The F90x (F90s) is the most ergonomic Nikon body ever IMO. I love mine, although I have an F100 and an F6, both good but there's something about the earlier one, maybe it's my small hands.
Click to expand...

Thanks for sharing your experience with the 35-70/2.8; I'm scratching that one off the list.

I already have a 35/2 AI, so I hesitate to spend again on that exact same focal length. Especially considering how easy it is to focus a 35/2 and how forgiving the DoF is.

I see myself only having one or two AF lenses, so I was thinking they'd probably be a moderate wide-to-short tele and a short-long tele. That's still up for consideration.

Agreed on the ergonomics of the F90/N90 family. I liked the ergos of its prececessor too, the N8008/F800 also, but the N90/F90 family is a clear step up.

So far, the only camera I've found that beats it is the EOS 620/650/630 family; those are really perfect in the hand, though they won't sit flat on a table, because of how the grip protrudes down past flush.
 
I have not seen a bad review of the Nikon AF 28-105 3.5-4.5 D lens. I have a copy and I have been very pleased. Used on an aps-c camera there is little to no distortion. On FX a little at the wide end only.

https://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/28105af.htm

As mentioned elsewhere, Rockwell is pretty on target with lens reviews. But there are loads of other good reviews for this lens.
 
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
 
Guys, thanks a lot for all your opinions and recommendations. I happened across a 28-105/3.5-4.5 D from ebay for $99 + $12 shipping and dropped the hammer on it just now.

I will end up with a similar outfit to narsuitus soon.

He's got an EM backup, I've got an FG.
He's got an F4 pro body, I've got an N90s.

I won't have any f/2.8 zooms though.

The plan is to eventually add an AF telephoto zoom for the action shots that are too far away for the 28-105, and just use my legacy glass for the rest. MAYBE add a 35/2, just to have a fast AF prime.
 
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.)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom