I have an itch for a new lens. I want one that will be on my camera most when not shooting birdies. I have considered 17-35 2.8 28-70 2.8 35-70 2.8 I just do not know what to do. I want it to take pics of my kids, and other stuff that might get close up where I cannot use my 70-200vr. Any suggestions? I've thought about getting the 35-70 and a 10.5dx because I really want a fisheye. I probably will not use it often though. I would like to stay with Nikon branded lenses but could be persuaded to go another route if the quality is good enough. Thanks for your help, Lens addict, I admit it.
Patrick, I love going out with just a 50mm f/1.4 as a walk around lens. I have the 17-35mm but find it doesn't fit the range that I want most of the time. Due to that reason I'm really eyeing the 28-70mm f/2.8.
Patrick, I find myself carrying most of the times the 17-35 or the 28-105 (60%-40%) but I believe the 17-55 would be a more handy every-day lens. The 17-35 is a state-of-art lens with great characteristics, on the other hand the 28-105, although a medium level lens, is a tele with a macro! Bottom line, I don't think there is just ONE every-day-lens...
Thanks for your input Todd and Panos. I'll look at the 28-105 and see what it looks like. Any other suggestions?
Great responses. I'm really looking hard at the 17-55 and the 28-70. I would really like to hear what everyone says about the 28-70. Rich, is the overlap in focal length the only thing that draws you to this lens?
For a walkaround lens there is nothing quite like the 600mm f/4 - this lens has it all, size, girth, charm, and flare! Forget the little dinky 400mm f/2.8 - this one is too small and just won't cut it. There is no other lens that will yield the kind of attention that the 600mm lens gives. 8) Women will flock to you by the truckload! Women love BIG lenses!! 8) (just make sure you have it mated to a large camera like the D2x or D2h and not that puny little plastic D70 toy camera)
I had my D2H with me in the camera store, Ace Photo, and by chance Mo, the owner, had the 28-70 sitting behind on the shelf. He let me try it out on my camera (I had a 1GB CF card in it..hehehe). It took great pictures, fast focus and nice color balance. The lens has a good, solid feel, like the 85 f/1.4 but a little larger, of course. A MANLY lens! I'm torn between that and the 28 f/1.4. When the wife and I travel we enjoy old castles, ruins, monasteries, cathedrals, all low-light stuff. I know His Holiness King Ron of Reznick really likes the 28 f/1.4 but I am not a pro and really wonder how the 28 f/2.8 of the zoom will compare with the prime 28 f/1.4. I understand the value of the extra stop; but that's a compromise one has to make. Will it (28-70) make very good pictures in settings like the British Museum Ron took some time ago, or in a cathedral with stained glass windows? I'm not interested in capturing a place like a dark, dank torture chamber or dungeon though. I suppose the trick is to try them both out at Ace and see for myself. I can print up to 13 x 19 so that should be the deciding factor. Hope that helps. (Ron, my jest is out of very high respect for your work, of course....and that pet gorilla you show in your avatar! :roll: ) Rich
Speaking of "big" lenses. Did anyone notice Gordon changed his Avatar to the one holding the huge telephoto right after I joined the forum and used a shot holding my 70-200VR. Talk about lens envy! Rich :lol:
Hey Todd, I take it that you are not married. The single women that you know / meet may love big lenses, but wives absolutely hate them.... :roll: Frank
Patrick, I too live with the 17-55mm F2.8 DX lens. It is a great lens and covers a wide enough range as to be really useful. See my current post in People Photograph on this forum and every one of the 6 pictures were shot with that lens. I use it far more than any other lens. Not cheap however.
