I have recently come into the possesion of a bit of money and I am trying to figure out which lenses I should buy. First, I would really like AF-S and really like a constant aperture f/2.8 medium focal length lens. I would also like a good telephoto for enjoyment purposes, i.e. bird/nature photography. I have been wondering what you guys think of the new 70-200 Af-s VR If-ED as oppsed to the 80-400 AF D. I am also wondering if anyone has owned both the 35-70f/2.8 and the 28-70 AF-S f/2.8, and how they compare to eachother. Any information is always welcome as well as any other suggestions for good lenses in these focal ranges. By the way, all of these will be used on a D-100.
p.s. I have been very disappointed with the clarity/sharpness/color of the 24-120D please try and avoid this lens.
I use the 28-70/2.8 and the 80-200 2.8 both are very sharp, A friend has the 80-400 VR which seems to be almost as sharp as the 80-200 but as he says 'it feels kinda cheaply built compared to the 80-200. Harry
...is that the D100 will make the best of lesser lenses becuase of the 1.5X field of view crop, which is essentially using the center 50% of the focused image compared to 35 mm format. So at least some of the extra optical quality of constant f/2.8 lenses is wasted, at least compared to what you gain optically in 35 mm format. So you might find that the 18-35 Nikkor performs competitively compared to the heavier and 3X as expensive 17-35 zoom on a D100, for example. Since your base ISO is 200 for the D100, that extra speed of a constant f/2.8 may not be as important as you think on a D100. The same logic also applies to longer lenses.
What I find the most awkward is that the current stable of Nikkor lenses, except for the 24-85 AFS-G lens, span unusual (for the D100) focal length ranges because of the 1.5X FOV crop. For example, the venerable 28-105 lens (a wonderful range for 35 mm format) becomes a clumsy "42-150" on the D100. Workable, but weird. The 17-35 is a nice lens on the D100, but again an awkward "28-52" effectively. The only good news is a 70-300 becomes a very powerful 105-450 tele zoom suitable for wildlife. If you can stand the focus rate, the 80-400VR should be a monster wildlife lens on a D100. (Think 120-600 image-stabilized at f/5.6 at the long end.)
For a general purpose lens I vote for the AF-S Nikkor 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5G EDIF.
I have been using this lens extensively, and even though it might be considered a "prosumer" lens, it performs very well. The AF-S is fast and quiet, the images are sharp and contrasty. The cost is right, at only about $350.00 or so. It is a jewel in my opinion!
How does the 24-85G compare in terms of sharpness to the 35-70 f/2.8 I have the money for the 35-70, but I would prefer some of the benifits of the 24-85 so it's a very tough decision. I am tempted to buy both, but I don't have that much money since I am thinking about the 80-400VR or the 70-200Vr. Any more help would be greatly appreciated. Also, I was hoping to use the new lens at a convention this coming friday so time is "kinda" of the essence. Damn my indecision.
I have never used the 35-70 so I cannot compare the two.
I do know that this lens is plenty sharp, and fast on focus with its AF-S motor. I think that this lens was designed by Nikon for the D100. Almost every Nikon picture of the D100 has this lens attached. Could there be a reason?
Here is a nice image taken with this lens, with minimal processing:
I asked in the Nikkors forum for some advice on the 24-85G vs. the 35-70 f2.8D I eventually bought the 35-70 (I have an S1 body) and have not regretted it. In fact, I am very pleased with this lens. Check can check it out here:
Can anyone post some unprocessed images from the 24-85AF-S and the same from the 35-70? they would be most appreciated. I am a tad tired of being forced to sharpen each image so any inherent sharpness would be an asset. However, if the 24-85Af-s is as sharp, I think I would save my money and go with that lens.
there is a local shop in cincinnati that has it for 700.00, but nikon is running a 70.00 rebate on the lens currently.
for both guys: what was the exposure info: focal length, aperture, shutter speed, iso, which d1 camera, etc... thanks a lot for everyone being so forthcoming with the lens tests... also what distance (approx) were you from the subjects. Darrel, I am assuming that was with the sb-50dx right?
There is another thread in this forum about this wedding and my opinion of the D100, 24-85mm, and SB-50DX flash, in comparison to my F5, 28-105mm, SB-28 flash. Plus, I have finally found a processor that understands digital processing. See thread below:
These shots were taken at high speed, most likely at 1/60th and f/4.5, and 85mm to fill the frame. I was shooting at ISO 200, Auto White Balance, D-TTL flash mode, +0.7 EV flash compensation, +0.3 EV exposure compensation. As to subject distance...well, I try to fill the frame with a longish lens, so I suppose with the 85mm, I would have been 8 or 10 feet away. For wide angle shots, I would be closer, of course.
Hey fellas. Thanks a lot for your help with the lens choice. A friend of mine at the convention had a 17-35 AF-s f/2.8 that I ended up using instead of my own. I decided that I would rather enjoy the extended range of the 24-85af-s and save my money and purchase the 17-35af-s in about a month.