Sell a 28-70 2.8 and get a 17-35 and 80-200?

Hi Guys,

I know this is a hard question, but I'm looking for advice. I have a great 28-70 2.8 that is a lovely, sharp specimen. At the same time, I often find myself at the wide end or the long end of the lens.

It's the only lens I have, and I'm contemplating selling it to fund the purchase of a 17-35 or 17-55 2.8. I feel like that would get my wide end sorted and still give me a fair bit into the 'normal' range. I'd then be looking for the long lens, which would cover me as well. Considering the 80-200 push-pull because it's supposed to be crazy sharp and a great deal used on KEH.

I shoot portraits (setting up a dedicated home studio soon) where I think the long lens would get a lot of use, and I also shoot environmental/travel/documentary-type personal work.

Would love any advice. I've done a search, read some opinions, and would really appreciate any more.

Thanks!

One or more versions of the 80-200 had problems when focusing at close distances (10ft). That is right there in the key portrait range.

--
Catallaxy

I have a 17-35 f/2.8, 35-70 f/2.8, and 80-200 f/2.8. As much as I like the 35-70, it does not get a lot of use on my D300. For most of my shooting, I can get by without it. So I think your plan is a good one.

But I don't shoot portraits. I would think for shooting portraits in a studio something in the mid-range would be important to have.

i own both the 17-35 and 80-200 but have primes to fill in the rest. although to be honest, i've always had my eye on a lens like the 28-70.

the 17-35 is a hugely handy tool for me, as is the 80-200 so you should definitely go for it. maybe also spring for a fast 50 to sit in between the 2 if you're looking to sell your 28-70. i also have the sigma 50 1.4 (also the 35 f2, 85 1.8) and all my needs are basically more than covered.

Sigh. All good points.

The 28-70 is an outstanding lens, no question. I had always wanted one as well. I guess the question is why I always find myself on either end of it whenever I'm outside of a studio setting...wanting longer and shorter. In the studio, it rocks.

I have the 28-70 and use it on FX, where it is sufficiently wide for general (event) use -- I like this lens a lot. For me, 70mm on FX is a little too short for portraits. I would have thought that the 28-70 on DX would serve as a great portrait lens for you. So i don't quite understand your need for an 80-200 for portraits (indoors?).

Clearly, no single lens is going to serve all your needs at the IQ you want (otherwise you would've settled for something like the 18-200 DX).

I would think you need to complement your 28-70 with a good UWA such as a 10-24 or 12-24 DX.

Selling the 28-70 and getting the 17-55 would not serve all your needs i think. I believe you will soon find that the 17-55 is not wide enough outdoors and not long enough for portraits

Hope i'm making some sense here and not adding to your problems...

You have some tough choices. I was happy with a 17~35 and 70~200 for a while but eventually bought the 28~70 to fill the gap. As time went by I got asked to do weddings, baptisms, parties and other events. The 28~70 is my first choice for events and I couldn't do without it. Likewise I couldn't do without my 17~35 as my everyday lens, nor my 70~200 when I need more reach. I have plenty of lenses I could give up and not miss, but not these 3.
--
http://www.andrewsandersphotography.co.uk

Don't get the push-pull version of the 80-200. It has a few things which will bug you the more you use it over time. Namely, the lack of tripod collar and the extremely slow autofocus (even for portraits).

You might think those things do not matter to you, but believe me they will. Eventually you will want to upgrade to a 2-ring or AF-S or VR lens, and the money you had put into one ring will have been wasted.

Or since you are mainly shooting portraits, go with a prime like an 85 f/1.8. That would be lighter, faster and cheaper then any of the 80(70)-200 zooms.

--
http://www.southfloridapics.com

slimandy said:

You have some tough choices. I was happy with a 17~35 and 70~200 for a while but eventually bought the 28~70 to fill the gap. As time went by I got asked to do weddings, baptisms, parties and other events. The 28~70 is my first choice for events and I couldn't do without it. Likewise I couldn't do without my 17~35 as my everyday lens, nor my 70~200 when I need more reach. I have plenty of lenses I could give up and not miss, but not these 3.
--
http://www.andrewsandersphotography.co.uk

Click to expand...

I have to agree with 'slimandy' the only difference with me is that I have an 80-200mm f/2.8 2 ring version. I tried various lenses over the years and found the 17-35mm, the 28-70mm and the 80-200mm cover all that I need, give me excellent results, and are 3 lenses I could not give up.

Personally I think you may end up regretting selling the 28-70mm.
--
Cheers,
Jack

What body are you using?

If you are using a DX body, why not get a 50mm f1.8 as a replacement for your 28-70 for portrait shots? Also, as other have suggested, 85mm f1.8 is a good portrait lens that you can give it a try.

Selling your 28-70 to finance 17-35 and 80-200 is understandable, but I would suggest you to spend a little more to get the two-ring version of 80-200.

--
Regards, Matthew
===================
http://www.gicphotography.com
http://www.flickr.com/photos/matt_so/