I own the predecessor lens to this model (Nikon AF-S Nikkor 28-70mm f/2.8) and am wondering if the image quality is much better? Also is it as heavy?
1357470
I never owned 28-70 but been told that it's a great lens with excellent image quality. I have the 24-70 and it's my go-to lens for all purpose shooting on a full-frame body. Superb IQ at premium price but has no VR.I believe 28-70 is slightly heavier, shorter and fatter than 24-70; however, build quality of both 28-70 and 24-70 is excellent. Are you not satisfied with the IQ of 28-70? Do you need something wider than 28mm? Are you using DX or FX body? Like the last commenter, I too would miss 24mm wide angle if I had 28-70. If I had a 28-70, I would sell it and buy 24-70 Nikon, but that's me.http://betterfamilyphotos.blogspot.com/2012/04/nikon-28-70-28d-vs-nikon-24-70-28g.html I never owned 28-70 but been told that it's a great lens with excellent image quality. I have the 24-70 and it's my go-to lens for all purpose shooting on a full-frame body. Superb IQ at premium price but has no VR.I believe 28-70 is slightly heavier, shorter and fatter than 24-70; however, build quality of both 28-70 and 24-70 is excellent. Are you not satisfied with the IQ of 28-70? Do you need something wider than 28mm? Are you using DX or FX body? Like the last commenter, I too would miss 24mm wide angle if I had 28-70. If I had a 28-70, I would sell it and buy 24-70 Nikon, but... » Read More I never owned 28-70 but been told that it's a great lens with excellent image quality. I have the 24-70 and it's my go-to lens for all purpose shooting on a full-frame body. Superb IQ at premium price but has no VR.I believe 28-70 is slightly heavier, shorter and fatter than 24-70; however, build quality of both 28-70 and 24-70 is excellent. Are you not satisfied with the IQ of 28-70? Do you need something wider than 28mm? Are you using DX or FX body? Like the last commenter, I too would miss 24mm wide angle if I had 28-70. If I had a 28-70, I would sell it and buy 24-70 Nikon, but that's me.http://betterfamilyphotos.blogspot.com/2012/04/nikon-28-70-28d-vs-nikon-24-70-28g.html « Show Less
1357471
my old work has the 28-70 2.8... personally I took it out of my bag n use the old 35-70 2.8... that is much sharper then the 28-70 <-- might be the worst 2.8 ever... but they got it right with 24-70 sharp n wide... oh n weight less then the 28-70...
1357472
I can't compare image quality to the 28-70, but I am happy with the quality. I would really miss the 24mm if I had the 28-70. It is solid and relatively heavy, but is does not have VR which makes it feel fairly compact.
1357473
I can't answer to the quality compared to the 28-70, but it is better than the 17-55 f/2.8 (DX), which was very good. And, yes, it is heavy!
1357474
I never owned 28-70 but been told that it's a great lens with excellent image quality. I have the 24-70 and it's my go-to lens for all purpose shooting on a full-frame body. Superb IQ at premium price but has no VR. I believe 28-70 is slightly heavier, shorter and fatter than 24-70; however, build quality of both 28-70 and 24-70 is excellent. Are you not satisfied with the IQ of 28-70? Do you need something wider than 28mm? Are you using DX or FX body? Like the last commenter, I too would miss 24mm wide angle if I had 28-70. If I had a 28-70, I would sell it and buy 24-70 Nikon, but that's me. http://betterfamilyphotos.blogspot.com/2012/04/nikon-28-70-28d-vs-nikon-24-70-28g.html
1200245
I'm going to suggest a different question. Do you really want a newer version? I recently bought a used 300mm F4 for 950. Its sells new for around 1300. This lens has been due for replacement for quite some time. So i had to ask myself the same question you have, when will a replacement come out, because it is certainly overdue. Problem is, when it does come out, it will be of lesser build quality, it will remove the aperature ring(G lens), add VR, and cost well over 2000. While I would like the VR on this lens, is it worth the huge proce difference, and the reduced build quality. I also used the same logic on a 17-35 i just bought. So what I would suggest, is to judge the current lens on its merits. The only gripe I would have with this lens is that it is AF and not AF-s. It will be much cheaper than a new one, probably much better build quality, and who knows when a replacement might arrive.
1594405
I have never used the 11-16 but did research it before buying this lens. I think you will be quite happy with either one and can't really go wrong. They are both sharp, excellent lenses. In my mind the principal trade off is whether you want a slightly wider angle view (there really is a pretty big difference btwn 12mm and 11mm) and a wider aperture or whether you want the extra versatility on the other end since the 12-28 lens goes up to 28mm. Pics are definitely usable at 28mm in my opinion. Ken Rockwell has a great review of both. The only thing I don't agree with him on with regards to the 12-28mm is that I am noticing some CA that I have to remove in post processing (not a big deal to me but worth noting). I will try to post a few sample pics later today. Hope that helps and happy shooting!
1251771
i bought that lens for my d7000 and had great success with it . i gave my daughter the camera and lens and since have bought the d800 and liked the lens so much i bought it again for that camera . with that said i recently sold that lens and am in the process of getting the newest nikon lens the 80-400mm . to sum up my reply great lens but its my understanding that because of the wide range the sensor area is always affected but should work fine when used on your d700...i believe this lens is a great buy
1239594
Is it crisp? Yep, I'd say so. I'm getting so many compliments on my photo's. One thing to note, it's a little heavier than the original lens I had (28-55?) so you'll need a good camera bag (it's about the same size though which is good.) I'm really happy with it.
131464
The reviews I have seen (the in-depth for real ones, not the ones on sales sites) talk about the P80's lens slowness while trying to take pictures. I'm sure it's not as slow as the old (3-4 years ago) digital cameras but evidently it is a glaring issue in certain light situations. I am a Nikon shooter for over 30 years and have D200 DSLR now which I am very happy with, but I bought a FZ28K for a trip to Paris and am so far very happy with it. The iA mode is really pretty amazing - great exposure in almost all situations.
1253597
Strictly image quality, Nothing a non professional would notice. The lens is much more sturdy and the IS has saved me on more than one occasion, especially in low light. The IS version is worth it IMHO
79348
I have used a 70-300mm EF and a 55-300mm AF lens with my D5100. Though the 70-300mm EF is a higher grade lens, I think that upon looking back at my results, the 55-300mm AF lens option gave me clearer images than the 70-300mm lens does. You will, however, be happy with either one. My 55-300mm lens was stolen last summer and I replaced it with a refurbished 70-300mm EF lens. If I were going to do it again, I'd probably get another 55-300mm lens. But on the other hand, the 70-300mm lens has a larger lens aperture and so it works better under lower light conditions than the 55-300mm AF lens. Life always seems to be about choices and trade-offs doesn't it.I hope this was helpful. I have used a 70-300mm EF and a 55-300mm AF lens with my D5100. Though the 70-300mm EF is a higher grade lens, I think that upon looking back at my results, the 55-300mm AF lens option gave me clearer images than the 70-300mm lens does. You will, however, be happy with either one. My 55-300mm lens was stolen last summer and I replaced it with a refurbished 70-300mm EF lens. If I were going to do it again, I'd probably get another 55-300mm lens. But on the other hand, the 70-300mm lens has a larger lens aperture and so it works better under lower light conditions than the 55-300mm AF lens.... » Read More I have used a 70-300mm EF and a 55-300mm AF lens with my D5100. Though the 70-300mm EF is a higher grade lens, I think that upon looking back at my results, the 55-300mm AF lens option gave me clearer images than the 70-300mm lens does. You will, however, be happy with either one. My 55-300mm lens was stolen last summer and I replaced it with a refurbished 70-300mm EF lens. If I were going to do it again, I'd probably get another 55-300mm lens. But on the other hand, the 70-300mm lens has a larger lens aperture and so it works better under lower light conditions than the 55-300mm AF lens. Life always seems to be about choices and trade-offs doesn't it.I hope this was helpful. « Show Less
583554
I found that the photo's I've taken with this lens are much sharper. It's almost like the kit lens was looking through a double paned window in comparison. The color saturation seems to be better too, but it could be due to the crispness of the image. If your unsure - rent one and compare, or find a friend willing to share and try it for a day. This lens is much heavier to carry (more elements means more weight). I don't find this a fault.
933399
This is one of the best lenses I have ever owned. I am not sure about the 35-70 2.8 version because there is no macro application on the 24-70. I use this lens for both fx and dx cameras how ever I would assume that it is a little sharper than the 35-70 due to the fact that it is newer technology. I can't find any current reviews for your lens. I agree with Marty in LA, buy the Nikon 105mm or 200mm if you want macro and if you need a versatile wide angle buy the 24-70 2.8 and the 70-200 in either F2.8 or F4...
608745
I have both for my Pentax K-5iis. The 17-70mm practically stays on my camera as I find I need it for its macro abilities as well as the extra reach. I suggested it to a friend who owns a Nikon when she was ready to upgrade from her kit lens and she loves it. I don't feel like f/4 at the longer end of the 17-70mm is limiting for most of my images. I use it outdoors shooting various subjects and indoors at concerts every week. I use the 17-50mm mainly during school classroom events because of its f/2.8, but always wish it had more zoom.
1713457
The 300 F2.8 is one of the best lens Nikon has ever made and is better. The added reach and the fact that the 300 F 2.8 works perfectly with 1.4, 1.7 and 2.0 converters makes it the perfect choice. I have tried the 500 F4 and it is way to big to carry around or hold. The 300 f 2.8 is still large but can be handheld which is huge. Thanks for asking.
1936776
I've had absolutely no issues. This is my second most go to lens when shooting portraits. I prefer the 70-200 more, but that's just my style.
1609778
Good timing on your question, because DPReview.com JUST posted their review last week on that lens:http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/tamron_70-200_2p8_c16/Optically it appears to be quite good. AF is slow and noisy, but for 694 bucks at Amazon you can't beat the price if budget is a concern.
1551101
That is exactly why I purchased this lens and I love it! The focus is a bit soft if you try and go below f2.2, but as I'm generally shooting moving children I usually keep it around f2.5 or 2.8 anyway. Hope this helps!
305766
The 28 1.8 is sharp starting at f2.2 and better corrected. At 1.8 it is a little soft. Distortion is better than 28-300 and the lens is significantly lighter but just as well made.
2183426
Hi, Here is a good review from Ken Rockwell. This Nikon 18-300mm VR is a smaller, lighter version of the original 18-300mm VR. The original 18-300 was very good, so good in fact that I sold an image I made with it to McDonald's - and they are using it on a billboard. This new lens is as good, and is smaller, lighter and less expensive, so it's even better! My only real complaint about the original 18-300 was that it weighed a lot more than my camera, and this new 18-300 weighs ten ounces less! This new 18-300mm also offers Vibration Reduction (4 stops) and instant manual-focus override. It's very slightly slower at the 300mm end (f/6.3 versus f/5.6) than the older lens, and for ten ounces off my shoulder, that's nothing. By taking off 10 ounces, I now can carry this new lens everywhere I never bothered with the old 18-300. This new lens do everything, and it even does macro. At 300mm, it focuses to within just inches of the front of the lens.