Leon S Loc: Minnesota

I have and use all four lenses. Each has their place. 24-85 vr as stated is a very nice walk around lens. The 35-70 will do what ever you need it to do. It was the mid range member of the first trinity of pro lenses. That being the 20mm 2.8, 35-70, 80-200 or 210-200 f4. The 28-70 was in the second set along with the 80-200d or 70-200 vri. You know the current set of the trinity. People using these lenses sold pictures and made a good living. All of them will do the job if you learn how to use them. However when you get hired to do a shoot, the customer expects you to have more expensive equipment than they do.

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

Still, the F/2.8 constant aperture would be nice to have.

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

The general rule is that one F/stop up or down means halving or doubling the amount of light coming through the lens.

DaveO Loc: Northeast CT

How right you are! It crossed my mind (Not a big trip), but I have the 35,50 and 85 1.8 primes. I don't think I necessarily deserve the convenience, but it is interesting. My big issue is shooting the grandkids and the need for a faster shutter,which has been pointed out.

Hence,"Just because I need a diet doesn't mean that I can't look at the menu!

jgitomer Loc: Skippack Pennsylvania

I'm watching several of them as I write this.

Let me also ask, I'm looking at f2.8 lenses because I want to shoot indoors at faster shutter speeds (grandkids just being grandkids don't sit still for long) without a flash. Is an f3.5-4.5 lens noticeably slower than an f2.8 lens? Sorry for such a newly question - I'm an enthusiastic photographer, but not at all technical [yet].[/quote]

f/3.5-4.5 lenses are 1/2 to one full stop slower than f/2.8 lenses. For photos of grandkids -- unless you are planning on blowing them up to poster size -- you can get away with the slower lenses by doubling the ISO setting.

Jerry

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

I look at "menus" all the time. It's a cheap way to enjoy photography.

redhogbill Loc: antelope, calif

thanks

:thumbup: :thumbup:

Saycheeze Loc: Ct

I have the 28-70 2.8 and the 24-85 3.5-4.5 VRII.
The 24-85 takes excellent pictures, is tack sharp but is very heavy. I find the 24-85 to be just about as sharp, has VR and is a pleasure to lug around all day. Its get a lot of use on bot of my camera bodies. I got mine from Cametta...what a deal!!

MT Shooter Loc: Montana

How is a 16 ounce lens "very heavy"?

mikecanant Loc: Texas

Aren't you talking about the 28-70 being very heavy?

mikecanant Loc: Texas

Let me also ask, I'm looking at f2.8 lenses because I want to shoot indoors at faster shutter speeds (grandkids just being grandkids don't sit still for long) without a flash. Is an f3.5-4.5 lens noticeably slower than an f2.8 lens? Sorry for such a newly question - I'm an enthusiastic photographer, but not at all technical [yet].

It is less than one stop slower which is easily compensated for by increasing ISO. I shoot grandkids inside all the time with it. My copy is a factory refurb that I paid $ 299 for and I can't tell it from brand new. If you want to see some results, go to Flickr.com and do a group search by typing in the name of the lens. Attached photo is inside action shot of grandkid, no flash.

houdel Loc: Chase, Michigan USA

So your alternatives to the Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8 are:

Nikkor 24-85mm f/2.8-4 - a little more zoom, very sharp, f/2.8 at 28mm only, "macro" function, $250-$350 on Ebay

Nikkor AF-S 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5 VR - a little more zoom, very sharp, $250-$300 on Ebay

Nikkor 28-70mm f/2.8 - great lens, closest to the 24-70mm f/2.8, a little less zoom, extremely sharp, $750-$850 on Ebay

Nikkor 35-70mm f/2.8 - less zoom, extremely sharp, $300-$400 on Ebay

All except the Nikkor AF-S 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5 VR require a prosumer or pro body with a focus motor. So which is your choice?

For myself, I've had both of the 24-85 lenses and sold both. I must have had a bad example of both as they weren't as sharp as everyone claimed. I really wanted a 24-85 as a combo "walk-around" and "go-to" lens but they didn't work for me. So now I have a 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5 (sharp as a tack, about $150 on Ebay) for my "walk-around" lens when I don't want to carry a lot of weight and bulk. Next week I will get a Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8 for my "go-to" lens.

BTW, the 28-70mm f/3.5-4.5 is a great lens too, very sharp, small and light weight, about $50-$60 on Ebay. As mentioned above you are only giving up about 1/2-1.5 stop with a f/3.5 lens which is easily made up with bumping up the ISO on modern cameras.

Nikon_DonB Loc: Chicago

I have the 24-85 f3.5-4.5 on my D610 and find it crisp and good indoors too. There is only a slight difference in maximum aperture. f2.8 to f3.5 between the two lenses and for the difference in $$$ I will stay with my 24-85 until I have $1800. to blow.
The 24-85 is a really nice lens at a reasonable price. I think the advantage of about a half of a stop in the 24-70 is negligible. At 72mm wide the 24-85 gathers a lot of light too. But that's J M H O !
The 24-85 is on my D610, 95% of the time and it takes some "kick-ass" images. I've never heard any one "bad-mouth" it(that knew how to use it).

Saycheeze Loc: Ct

Yeah Guys...I blew that one...I meant to say the 28-70 2.8 was the heavy one...the 24-85 is a delight to carry

Bram boy Loc: Vancouver Island B.C. Canada

what's your take on a 18-105 mm nikon d90 kit . Thom Hogan says it performs just as good as a len's costing twice as much . it's not built as robust as those are . it came with my d90 . I never realized it was one of
nikons hidden gems as far as detail go I can count the hair on a birds chin , maybe I just got a good one . but i been taking it for granted and never payed that much attention to it. was only $365 or so when the d90 came out