09-03-2010, 05:01 PM
[quote name='mst' timestamp='1283532432' post='2465']
Well, that is a creative way to put it <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' />
Seriously: yes, the 35-70/2.8 was Nikon's fast standard zoom in the 90s. That part is now played by the 24-70. However, if we're talking about predecessors, there is only one to the 24-70 IMO: the AF-S 28-70/2.8.
Don't expect wonders from the 35-70. Price seems to be ok and in line with other offerings I've seen. But IMO you'd be way better off with a AF-S DX 16-85 VR (if you decide to get the D300s). Not that fast, sure, but optically certainly superior and a lot larger focal range (especially at the short end). Sells for around 460 EUR in the Netherlands.
-- Markus
[/quote]
Thank you Markus, the D300s with the 16-85 seems to be the way to go for me now. What do you think of a 70-300 to accompany it? vieux loup
Well, that is a creative way to put it <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' />Seriously: yes, the 35-70/2.8 was Nikon's fast standard zoom in the 90s. That part is now played by the 24-70. However, if we're talking about predecessors, there is only one to the 24-70 IMO: the AF-S 28-70/2.8.
Don't expect wonders from the 35-70. Price seems to be ok and in line with other offerings I've seen. But IMO you'd be way better off with a AF-S DX 16-85 VR (if you decide to get the D300s). Not that fast, sure, but optically certainly superior and a lot larger focal range (especially at the short end). Sells for around 460 EUR in the Netherlands.
-- Markus
[/quote]
Thank you Markus, the D300s with the 16-85 seems to be the way to go for me now. What do you think of a 70-300 to accompany it? vieux loup