1. Welcome to NikonCafe.com—a friendly Nikon camera & photography discussion forum!

    If you are thinking of buying a camera or need help with your photos, you will find our forum members full of advice! Click here to join for free!

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

Discussion in 'Lens Lust' started by yahtzee, May 30, 2005.

  1. About to buy another lens and after shooting over 350 this weekend with the 70-200VR im wondering what it will be? suggestions?
  2. GeneR

    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.

  3. would the 24-120 VR not even come close?
  4. kengo

    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.
  5. 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 
  6. Preston


    May 2, 2005
    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.
  7. 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.

  8. GeneR

    GeneR Guest


    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,

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.