Reading mode: Light Dark

Any good standard zoom for FX/D700?

Go to last post
J

Jerry Jongerius

Forum Enthusiast
Messages
311
Reaction score
0
Location
Kissimmee, FL, US
It seems like Nikon only has 'DX' glass in the 'stardard zoom' range anymore.

Of the few FX in the 'standard zoom' range, some are only pro level glass (24-70 2.8) and heavy, or are generally disliked for sharpness (24-120).

Any recommendations for a good standard zoom for FX (as good or better than 18-200 DX)?
 
Jerry, I have a Tamron 28-300 VC arriving tomorrow. Mixed reviews. I bought it as travel lens to replace 18-200vr. Give me a few days. Will try it on my wife's D200 and my D700,D300. I also have 24-85 2.8-4 amoungst others.
Cheers,
--
Tom
http://taja.smugmug.com/
 
The 24-70 is heavy if you read its weight.
But have you mounted it on your camera?
I used an 18-200 VR on my D80- just wanted fully satisfied.

Now have D90 and tried the 24-70. It balances SO WELL I just don't notice the extra weight and the pics are AWESOME. WELL WORTH the extra weight.
 
It seems to me if you're going to go to the expense of a D700, you should be willing to get the right glass for it.

The 24-70 is an awesome lens -- I've been using the Canon version for several years -- it really isn't that big and heavy -- you get used to it.
 
Before Nikkor 24-70/2.8 I used old Sigma 28-70/2.8. Much lighter and pretty good optically.
Jerry Jongerius said:
It seems like Nikon only has 'DX' glass in the 'stardard zoom' range
anymore.

Of the few FX in the 'standard zoom' range, some are only pro level
glass (24-70 2.8) and heavy, or are generally disliked for sharpness
(24-120).

Any recommendations for a good standard zoom for FX (as good or
better than 18-200 DX)?
Click to expand...
--
Rumpis :o)

http://foto.pudele.com/ - Low intensity blog about photography, Nikon and some other stuff interesting to me. Just for fun. In Latvian.
 
I gotta agree with the above poster about the 24-70. It's not much bigger or heavier than the 18-200. When I first went to the camera store and asked to see it, I was surprised to actually see how much smaller it is than what you would think from some of the posts on the web. I use it on the D40x for travel "portrait" work and love it. It's not that big and heavy. As alot of things in these forums, the size and weight issue are a bit exaggerated I think.

John
 
Are you wanting to buy new? If not then the 28-105 is a great choice. Mine sat unused during my DX days but it has now been resurrected it on the D700 and it works great.

Its AF is fast - almost as fast as AFS glass - and its image quality is superb. The build is just OK and the zoom ring isn't as smooth as I'd like, but these are reasonable trade-offs relative to the weight and expense of the 24-70.
 
and i hear the sigma 24-60f2.8 (discontinued) is even better than the sigma 24-70f2.8. they used to go for $200 but you can find some used ones now for $300. i think it ran $500 when it was new.
--
Darrin Lingle
 
darrinlingle said:
and i hear the sigma 24-60f2.8 (discontinued) is even better than the
sigma 24-70f2.8.
Click to expand...
Don't believe everything you hear. It's not. ; )
-
Lora

I've been on Dpreview since June 2006. Unfortunately, some posting history has been lost along the way...

 
You spent the $$$ for a D700, get glass it deserves, the 24-70.

Yes, its expensive, big and heavy. But once you start using pro glass you'll never go back. And, the 24-70 will hold its value much longer than your D700. You'll be using the 24-70 long after the D700 is collecting dust on someone's shelf.

A cheaper alternative, the 28-70. It's another great Nikkor. Check the usual used lens sources. Look for one owned by an amateur who upgraded to the 24-70. Avoid pro-used gear, they wear things out. Avoid any AF-S lenses that squeak during AF. The squeak means the AF-S motor is failing and the repair will cost you about $400 USD.

Cheers,
JB
Jerry Jongerius said:
It seems like Nikon only has 'DX' glass in the 'stardard zoom' range
anymore.

Of the few FX in the 'standard zoom' range, some are only pro level
glass (24-70 2.8) and heavy, or are generally disliked for sharpness
(24-120).

Any recommendations for a good standard zoom for FX (as good or
better than 18-200 DX)?
Click to expand...
 
bought D80 for alaska in summer the 18-200 VR good, but I was not satisfied.
Just upgraded to D90 and bought the Nikon 24-70.
HANDS down get the 24-70- it is an AWESOME lens.

And though "heavy by weight" I can't fully explain but it is not heavy to carry around and use. maybe because it just balances so well with the D90?

It is a GREAT lens.
 
Owning the 18-200VR and the 24-70 2.8 on a DX camera - I have to disagree about the weight of the 24-70 not being an issue. It is a good 400 grams heavier than the 24-70 or as heavy again as an entire standard consumer zoom. You certainly know about it when you are carrying it around. Also it is even more physically massive once you put the big lens hood on. It is not in any way a lightweight or subtle lens. The 24-70 is unbelievably sharp and first rate quality, but it is not in the same weight class as any consumer lens.
 
I find it interesting that people are commenting on lens options for the D3/D700 (FX) that don't own one. :)
--
JAFO

D300, 17-55, 70-200 VR, 50 1.8, SB-800, MB-D10, Think Tank Digital Holster 20
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jafopix/
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top