Horatio
Masked photographer
Mr. Rockwell is a fan of the 28-70 f3.3-4.5 AF D zoom. Any other AF models worth considering for a Nikon film camera? How about Sigma or another brand? I'd like something with an aperture ring. Thanks in advance.
Nikkor AF-D 28~105 F3.5~4.5, Aspheric Optics, Internal Focus. This lens has low distortion compared to several of my other Zooms.
I picked up one of these for my Nikon Df, had the 28~85 F3.5~F4.5 when it first came out, traded it off. THAT lens was $450 in the day, picked up the AF-D 28~105 for under $100 in like new condition last year.
I picked up one of these for my Nikon Df, had the 28~85 F3.5~F4.5 when it first came out, traded it off. THAT lens was $450 in the day, picked up the AF-D 28~105 for under $100 in like new condition last year.
Ditto what Brian said. I have both the 28-70 and the 28-105.
28-70 when I want to travel light, and 28-105 for more reach or when the extra size/weight doesn't matter.
28-70 when I want to travel light, and 28-105 for more reach or when the extra size/weight doesn't matter.
Horatio
Masked photographer
I also had the 35-70/2.8 for many years. Really liked it, but I think I'm favoring the 28-105 for more reach, even though it's a variable aperture.
Phil_F_NM
Camera hacker
My favorite was always the 20-35mm f/2.8.
Phil Forrest
Phil Forrest
peterm1
Veteran
I have used the 35-70mm f2.8 for years and still have it. When I want to travel light I use it instead of my 24-70mm AF f2.8 which is much much bigger. It was the lens of preference for a generation of photo journalists back in the day.
Another one which I am a fan of, but which is consistently overlooked because it is not taken seriously is the 35-105mm f3.5-4.5 AF D. This lens is really very small and discrete and is regarded as being the best of this range of AF lenses (35-105mm I mean) . It has a push pull action (unlike the earlier non D ones) and had substantially redesigned optics including, according to the MIR site (and I believe, Moose Peterson) it was one of the early Nikkor lenses using molded aspherics for better correction. Although it was in Nikon's line up from 1995 - 2003 I get the feeling that the lens never really seemed to tget the credit it deserved for various reasons (not due to its quality or performance) but it's well worth owning even today - and it is cheap, cheap, cheap to buy. I will not sell mine as its worth far more than the $100 or so I paid for it.
https://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/nikon/nikkoresources/AFNikkor/AF35105mm/index2.htm
https://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/35-105mm-afd.htm
Another one I still own and like is the 28-85mm f3.4 - 45. AF. The one I own is the second AF version and this lens was never made in a D version. I have always found it to be a very good carry about lens with a decent zoom range. The only small gripe I have with it is that it has a tendency to flare in adverse light. Other than this it is more or less in the class of the 35-105mm I mentioned above.
https://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/nikon/nikkoresources/AFNikkor/AF2885mm/index1.htm
Another one which I am a fan of, but which is consistently overlooked because it is not taken seriously is the 35-105mm f3.5-4.5 AF D. This lens is really very small and discrete and is regarded as being the best of this range of AF lenses (35-105mm I mean) . It has a push pull action (unlike the earlier non D ones) and had substantially redesigned optics including, according to the MIR site (and I believe, Moose Peterson) it was one of the early Nikkor lenses using molded aspherics for better correction. Although it was in Nikon's line up from 1995 - 2003 I get the feeling that the lens never really seemed to tget the credit it deserved for various reasons (not due to its quality or performance) but it's well worth owning even today - and it is cheap, cheap, cheap to buy. I will not sell mine as its worth far more than the $100 or so I paid for it.
https://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/nikon/nikkoresources/AFNikkor/AF35105mm/index2.htm
https://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/35-105mm-afd.htm
Another one I still own and like is the 28-85mm f3.4 - 45. AF. The one I own is the second AF version and this lens was never made in a D version. I have always found it to be a very good carry about lens with a decent zoom range. The only small gripe I have with it is that it has a tendency to flare in adverse light. Other than this it is more or less in the class of the 35-105mm I mentioned above.
https://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/nikon/nikkoresources/AFNikkor/AF2885mm/index1.htm
Austintatious
Well-known
+1 for the Nikkor AF-D 28~105 F3.5~4.5. I use it on a DX and it is impressive.
Horatio
Masked photographer
How about the AF 28-80 f3.5-5.6, or the AF 28-120?
Last edited:
Austintatious
Well-known
Don't know about a 28-120, but there is a Nikon AF Nikkor 24-120mm f/3.5-5.6D. It is well built and compact. And it distorts like crazy. Perhaps the 28-80 is better ?
I used to have the 24-120 AF D, much prefer the smaller/lighter 28-105; 62mm instead of 72mm filters.
Don't know about the 28-80, looks like a plasticky low-end lens, but Rockwell seems to like it.
Don't know about the 28-80, looks like a plasticky low-end lens, but Rockwell seems to like it.
Horatio
Masked photographer
Sorry. It is the 24-120 I was curious about. All the combinations are running together in my head.
Horatio
Masked photographer
Roberts has a 28-80 cheap. I don’t mind plastic if the optics are ok. I picked up a 35-70 for $30 locally, mainly to test some 8008 bodies. It’s plasticky and pretty soft, but I’ve only used it in low-contrast conditions to date. Perhaps it will do better in stronger light where I can stop down the lens. There’s noticeable barrel distortion at 35mm.
Rob-F
Likes Leicas
Another vote for the 28-105 3.5-4.5. It really lacks for nothing.
I liked the 20-35/2.8, although it has been faulted for too much CA. Now I have the 17-35/2.8. It's a boat anchor, but apart from he weight it's a perfect lens. I just lift dumbbells for 3 days before I shoot with it.
I liked the 20-35/2.8, although it has been faulted for too much CA. Now I have the 17-35/2.8. It's a boat anchor, but apart from he weight it's a perfect lens. I just lift dumbbells for 3 days before I shoot with it.
p.giannakis
Pan Giannakis
I used the 28-70 f3.3-4.5 AF D for years. It was a very nice zoom lens which was focusing fast on my Nikon bodies (F4, F5, F90x). Here are some samples.
ronnies
Well-known
There are two versions of the 24-120. The later constant max aperture version is said to be better. Are they both not G lenses though so would limit functionality on some film cameras?
Ronnie
Ronnie
keytarjunkie
no longer addicted
There are actually three versions of the 24-120. The AF-D version (1996-2002) and AF-S VR G version (2003-2010) are not very good lenses, from my experience. The latest version with constant f/4 aperture is a much better performer.
Dogman
Veteran
I agree with the Nikkor 24-120 ƒ/4 VR. It's really a very good lens with a practical range of focal lengths and decent to excellent performance. It's also a little heavy but it's manageable. Used copies can be found online at various photo dealers at considerably lower prices than a new lens.
Horatio
Masked photographer
Horatio
Masked photographer
Just a quick update. Yesterday I received a Nikon 28-105 AF-D lens from Roberts Camera. There was no obvious damage, but the AF doesn’t work for some reason. All my other AF lenses work fine. The screw turns when adjusting the focus manually, so it’s not disconnected. Not sure why the cameras are not turning it. Guess it will go back.