Would the 28-70 2.8 be a worthy replacement of the kit lens?

G

GeneR

Guest
The 28-70 is a great lens, and certainly is a worthy replacement for the kit lens. Your choices in f/2.8 Nikkors are either the 28-70 or the 17-55. Your decision should depend on which one best fits your focal length needs. For me, it was the 28-70 over the 17-55. You really can't go wrong with either.

Gene
 
Joined
Apr 6, 2005
Messages
425
Location
Glen Allen, Virginia
GeneR said:
The 28-70 is a great lens, and certainly is a worthy replacement for the kit lens. Your choices in f/2.8 Nikkors are either the 28-70 or the 17-55. Your decision should depend on which one best fits your focal length needs. For me, it was the 28-70 over the 17-55. You really can't go wrong with either.

Gene

would the 24-120 VR not even come close?
 
K

kengo

Guest
I have had the opportunity to try and use the 28-70, and I can't praise the quality of images I get from it but still the widest it can go is only 28mm and on digital thats 42mm. The 24-120, though not nearly as sharp nor as fast, gets me to 24mm or in digital 36mm. I don't mind the tele part much, since its easier to get near to the subject than back up when your already backed up on a wall. In some instances, capture is more important than quality.
 
Joined
May 3, 2005
Messages
3,925
Location
Owings Mills, MD
Hi,

I have the 70-200, 17-55, and the 24-120. If I could do it over, I would purchase the 28-70 and the 12-24 to go with my 70-200. I have reviewed my images for the focal length and find that the 28-70 would have worked better with my 70-200. Oh well, live, learn, and sell your used lenses at a loss. :(

BTW, I love the 70-200. I recently added the Canon 500D close up filter. It makes the 70-200 an expensive macro substitute. I want to see how it compares to my 70-180. I look forward to testing the new combination in the gardens soon. :D
 
Joined
May 2, 2005
Messages
273
Location
Reno, NV
I have a Tokina 28-70 2.6-2.8 ATX Pro II and although the Nikkor is slightly better all around, the price difference is well worth it. $250.00 vs. 1400.00. The Nikkor is a really nice lens just NOT that much better to justify the 6 times the price IMO.
 
Joined
May 28, 2005
Messages
885
Location
Toronto, Canada
I don't have the kit lens so I can't say whether the 28-70 is a worthy replacement, but the 28-70 is my favourite among my collections (perhaps until I acquire the 70-200 :wink: ). You can't go wrong with it if money is not a concern.

sarhento
 
G

GeneR

Guest
Yahtzee:

I have a 24-120 VR that I only use when I want its very handy range. It is not on par with the 28-70, but mine is not a bad copy. Reports were not favorable when the lens first came out, but it appears that Nikon addressed some quality control issues and the later ones are better. Mine gets better as I zoom out. It is AF-S, so it focuses quickly. I used the 24-120 much more than the kit lens. The VR is handy for static subjects, but does not help if you need a fast shutter speed to "freeze" your subject. I found myself wanting faster shutter speeds, so I bought the 28-70.

Good luck,

Gene
 

Latest posts

Links on this page may be to our affiliates. Sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.
Nikon Cafe is a fan site and not associated with Nikon Corporation.
Forum post reactions by Twemoji: https://github.com/twitter/twemoji
Forum GIFs powered by GIPHY: https://giphy.com/
Copyright © Amin Forums, LLC
Top Bottom