Mid range zoom questions

[Maestrodawg1]

I have been batting around the idea of getting a 24-120VR or the 28-70 f/2.8. I can get one but not both because I will also be purchasing a wide angle in the next few months. For those with experience in both can you tell me the pluses and minuses of both. Or what would the benefit of getting one over the other be. The reality is that I want the most versatile lens possible. If I had a choice it would be the fanatasy 24-105VR F/2.8. But tha's another discussion.

 

[hillrg]

They are totally different lenses Andy. If you want versatility then the 24-120VR is a no brainer over the 28-70. The 28-70 gets you a faster, heavier lens and a better quality image. You will out grow the 24-120VR, but not the 28-70 IMHO.

 

[Maestrodawg1]

You will out grow the 24-120VR, but not the 28-70 IMHO.

Hmm, that's actually a thought I'd ask you to expand on. That's the answer is probably what I need to hear.

 

[marsh]

I have both. The 28-70 lives on my camera. I used the 24-120 90+% of the time until I bought the Beast. The viewfinder is brighter, focus is faster (at least it seems that way to me), and DOF/bokeh are more controllable with the 28-70 as it is a fixed 2.8 aperture. My 24-120 worked great on a D100, but it seemed overly soft on a D2H, so off it went to Melville. In the meantime, I convinced my wife that I really needed the 28-70 with the D2H. She thinks the pictures look better with the 28-70. The 24-120 is now working just fine on her D70.

If money is a concern here, the 24-85 is a good lens to consider in this range. It is a consumer lens (variable aperture), but it has a faster aperture from about 50 mm or so on out to 85 than the VR lens. And it costs less than the other 2. And it seems to have less QC variation than the VR. It is a nice lens overall. I bought and sold one with my D100.

 

[Maestrodawg1]

Money is and is not an issue. I have the 18-70 kit lens among others. I'd just like to get a better lens. I have the 70-200VR which mostly resides on my camera because it takes the best pictures. I seldom find myself needing the short end of the kit lens. So I was looking at either as an upgrade. I would look to get one soom but definetly not both. I'm also trying to save for the mystical D200 and something along the lines of a 12-24.

 

[marsh]

As I said, the 28-70 is my number one lens, so I am a little biased.

I also have a 28-70 2.8 Sigma EX lens. It currently resides on a neglected (unused) N80. The Sigma is a screw-drive lens (not AFS/HSM) and just doesn't have the magic of the Beast.

I also looked at the 17-55, but I tend towards the long end of lenses most of the time.

With the 70-200, the 28-70 would make a nice (but heavy) set.

 

[Uncle Frank]

I have been batting around the idea of getting a 24-120VR or the 28-70 f/2.8. I can get one but not both because I will also be purchasing a wide angle in the next few months. For those with experience in both can you tell me the pluses and minuses of both. Or what would the benefit of getting one over the other be. The reality is that I want the most versatile lens possible. If I had a choice it would be the fanatasy 24-105VR F/2.8. But tha's another discussion.

I've owned both, and each has its merits.

The 24-120VR is a top end consumer lens, and delivers wonderful results in good light. The range is ideal for a walk-around lens, and since it uses ED glass, its images are contrasty and colorful. It's a fast and accurate focuser (AF-S), and works well with the sb800 speedlight. It's not a very fast lens, though, in terms of aperture size.

The 28-70/2.8 is a top end pro lens. The only negatives I've ever heard about it relate to range, size, and price. If you don't find the cost/convenience daunting, and the focal length range fits your needs, you really couldn't do any better. It's images will blend seamlessly with those from your 70-200VR.

Jmho.

 

[hillrg]

Hmm, that's actually a thought I'd ask you to expand on. That's the answer is probably what I need to hear.

I think the subsequent posts answer the "out grow" issue. It is the age old dilemma - versatility vs quality. The 28-70 attempts to give you quality while only sacrificing a minimum of quality. There are very few photographers who will ever be unsatisfied with the quality from the 28-70, but many photographers "upgrade" from the 24-120 for speed, acuity, bokeh and colour.

 

[greyflash]

Not owning either lens I have read the posts with interest. To me Frank has given a good summation of the two lenses and then Rory gave the emotional reasons.