DSLRUsers.com

I'm looking for something to replace my Nikon 18-70 3.5-4.6ED

My current kit consits of a
12-24
the 18-70
50mm 1.8
and an el-cheapo 100-300

I have been considering the 24-120 VR from Nikon, would like something a bit faster though. In real world terms how much do I gain by having VR on as opposed to shooting at 2.8?

The only other one that i've come accross is the Tamron SP AF 28-75mm, which is a 2.8, I lose a bit off the long end but it's not often that I find myself wishing for more zoom on the 18-70.
However the build quality of it doesnt look too crash hot, plus its a noisly slow motor drive focus.

I hope this hasnt been covered before, if it has please direct me to the thread.

Depends on what works for you I guess, but maybe the combo of a Nikkor 20-35 and 35-70?

Just a thought.

The Tammy 28-75 is a great lens for the price. It might have screw drive auto focus, but it is one of my fastest lenses to auto-focus. It's faster than the 18-70.

Very sharp and definitely worth considering. The only downsides are, as you say, the plastic build, and in dark conditions sometimes it doesn't lock focus as reliably as, for example, my 70-200VR.. But that is a tough comparison

I used to have the 24-120VR and it was my favourite walkaorund lens. The VR was useful but I eventually decided it just plain wasn't fast enough so I replaced it with the much more expensive 28-70 f2/8. it's buolt like a tank and focusses in nanoseconds. Now the 28-70 is my most used lens by a ratio of maybe 2:1. Of course YMMV especially depending on what you shoot - I'm not a portrait person with the bulk of what I shoot being landscapes (which means my #2 lens is the 17-35 f2/8 )

I replaced my 18-70 with a 28-70 2.8, The Beast. fabulous lens.

Tamron 17-50 f2.8 is a excellent piece of gear. Thom Hogan reccomends it in a DX pro on a budget kit.

Thanks for all the replies, didnt expect it to get that much attention!

17-50 is getting a bit on the short end for me, a 24-120 2.8 would be ideal however I think the nikkor 28-70 may get a look in if i can get it at a reasonable price or the Tamron 28-75.

Are there any other options in the 24-120 range as I've been thinking about it a bit more and a little more reach without having to swap lenses would be great as I don't think i'd use a 70-200 often enough to justfiy it.

I also replaced my 18-70 with the nikon 28-70. Its become my most used piece of glass, the 50mm 1.4 and 28mm f2.8 primes almost never get any action on my camera.

I love the 70-200, but its bulk and 5 foot min focus means that it isnt that versatile indoors. Great lens though.

I have the 18-200VR and it was too slow at any focal length, but worst for me in the 18-70 area.... That was where I seemed to take most shots.

So I bought a Nikkor 28-70 f2.8 -- love it. No reason to have VR at that range really from what I have seen in the few photos I have taken with it.

I would really say for me f2.8 is more important.

Obviously the 28-70 f2.8 is discontinued now, for the 24-70 f2.8


And then one day, it will tie in with a 70-200VR if I buy one.

And at that time the 18-200VR will be sold I reckon. I'll just carry the extra weight I suppose.

If the $ are too high, also consider the Sigma f2.8 lenses from HK - the 24-70 would have been my pick, and I was goign to when the Nikkor came up 2nd hand. The only downside with this lens is the 82mm filter thread, when 77mm is a sort of standard for the lens lineup I am looking into.

Hope that helps

jamesw wrote:Tamron 17-50 f2.8 is a excellent piece of gear. Thom Hogan reccomends it in a DX pro on a budget kit.

I have this as my walk-a-round lens at the moment. It's great value and it's an amazing lens for the money that I have paid. It's fast and the images are very sharp. Not sure, as you say it might be a little short for your needs but it's worth a look.

I'm seriously considering the nikkor 28-70 at the moment, although the loss of 10mm on the wide end has me concerned. Will take out the 18-70 and not shoot below 28, see how that goes.

I've had a look at the sigma 24-70, its slightly more expencive than the Tamron, is it really worth it? I've started plowing through reviews but im open to other opinions too.

One way to fill the gap -> get a UWA lens.

I have the Sigma 10-20mm (a DX lens), then jump to 28mm-70mm zoom.

I don't seem to use that middle ground as the feet or a crop can take care of it often.

I can choose the 18-200VR to fill that gap currently too, but don't.

If you want a FF UWA - There is the Sigma 12-24 or the Nikon 14-24mm.

I also think there might be a Tamron or 2 for sale 2nd hand around?

While I would recommend the Nikon 2.8 28-70 or 24-70 as a mid range zoom, I reckon you'll find them very difficult to obtain. The 24-70 is like hens teeth and I reckon people will be hanging onto their 28-70 as they are discontinued. Both these lenses are even more attractive now that Nikon has made a FF DSLR.

Best of luck in your quest.

Cheers
John

I've got the 28-70 Nikor f/2.8 on my D300 and love this lens. It's a tank (as many reviewers have stated), but realize that this lens will get you a lot of attention. Especially when mounted on a d2/300. Mine seems to balk at auto focus at around 28-30mm, but as it is still a new kit (camera and lens) I may be at fault here.
I purchased mine from Adorama in the states as a reconditioned unit. Fantastic bit (well, not really a bit, more like Fantastic LOT) of glass.

hope this helps...

GB

I think my quest for a bargain 28-70 will be a waste of time, I think im going to go for the Tamron 28-75, read a few reviews on the sigma and apart from build quality the tamron seems to win.
Anyone have any exprience with either of the two?