Thanks for your input guys.

i have the 24-70 but yet filling up my gaps with fast primes. Keep it and use it whenevery ou dont want to carry it around and youd like a 'Fun" little lens to not worry about.

I use the 24-70 cocncurrent to my 35 1.8 and i'm on fx...truly different lenses, so not sure how keeping either or is a question...and like above poster said, the 28-70 is a beast....

Niz said:
Hey guys, I finally found one of these lenses for sale in my price range. I have a quick question for you guys, do you think it would be worth keeping my 35mm 1.8 lens in my set or sell it off since I'll have the 35 in the zoom? Do any of you that use this lens or even 24-70mm version that still keep their primes and use them or do you just use the zoom and that work for you? I mostly shoot at 2.8, but will open it up when I really have to. Just wondering what other people do.

Keep it. the 35mm is still faster than the 28-70 and is a paperweight. I personally wouldn't want to lug around that heavy zoom all the time.

Hey guys, I finally found one of these lenses for sale in my price range. I have a quick question for you guys, do you think it would be worth keeping my 35mm 1.8 lens in my set or sell it off since I'll have the 35 in the zoom? Do any of you that use this lens or even 24-70mm version that still keep their primes and use them or do you just use the zoom and that work for you? I mostly shoot at 2.8, but will open it up when I really have to. Just wondering what other people do.

NikoDoby said:
Isn't that what you said about not getting the 24-70? And the the next day you ask about getting the 28-70 instead? lol.

The power of Nikon draws me insane. "Ohh mah precious, my precious"

shivaswrath said:
It's ALWAYS smarter to get a lens first, like literally ALWAYS. They are usually in short supply (thanks Nikon Japan!) and invariably lose their value at about 3-5% a year versus 10-25% for bodies.

With that said, might be wiser to "wait for the replacement".

That's all that nikon owners seem to do, wait for the replacement. . .I bought the 24-70 and 70-200 assuming the D700 replacement would've been announced and fully baked by now. . .and I just stopped waiting, after realizing it'll be nearly $3199 MSRP, in high demand (and backordered like the D3s), and will essentially probably accomplish most of what I'm NOT achieving now if I had a D3 or D700. . .

So I got a used D3. . .with that said, I'm sure I'll be eating my own words when my used D3 craps out or the D700s gives hand jobs with its newly created macro-sensor shaker ma-jiggy. . .

Indeed. I always invest in lenses first. But my D200 is completely satisfying my needs. Surely ISO kind of sucks but I can live with it.

I started calculating yesterday and if I would sell all of my Nikon gear without flash units I would get something like $1800, and if I was going to buy that 24-70, I could instead pool the money from the lens purchase plus from what I sold and I would get $3800. Now I would be only short of $1200 from getting Canon 5dmk ii , 70-200 2.8 and 16-35mm 2.8mm. It's a tempting option to be honest. But just because I can buy it, doesn't mean it makes rational sense to do so. My priority now is to build up my portfolio and narrow down my specialization in photography. until I start getting paid gigs, there's no sense in dropping 5k on FX system from either Canon of Nikon.

shivaswrath said:
I'm sure I'll be eating my own words when my used D3 craps out or the D700s gives hand jobs with its newly created macro-sensor shaker ma-jiggy. . .

You can love your camera...just don't LOVE your camera!

poster said:
Well I slept over this and I won't get it. I wanted to get it with the thought of it actually being used actively on a full frame body, but seeing as I won't be upgrading until Nikon releases successor to D700 and actual competitor to Canon 5d mkii. I will hold off on purchasing FX gear.

It's ALWAYS smarter to get a lens first, like literally ALWAYS. They are usually in short supply (thanks Nikon Japan!) and invariably lose their value at about 3-5% a year versus 10-25% for bodies.

With that said, might be wiser to "wait for the replacement".

That's all that nikon owners seem to do, wait for the replacement. . .I bought the 24-70 and 70-200 assuming the D700 replacement would've been announced and fully baked by now. . .and I just stopped waiting, after realizing it'll be nearly $3199 MSRP, in high demand (and backordered like the D3s), and will essentially probably accomplish most of what I'm NOT achieving now if I had a D3 or D700. . .

So I got a used D3. . .with that said, I'm sure I'll be eating my own words when my used D3 craps out or the D700s gives hand jobs with its newly created macro-sensor shaker ma-jiggy. . .

Isn't that what you said about not getting the 24-70? And the the next day you ask about getting the 28-70 instead? lol.

poster said:
Sure uncle Niko, only if you send me all of those birthday money I never got from you for the past 20 years. ;p

I tolds yous. I've been keeping yous money safe for ya all these years. Didn't I tells yous? Yous don't trust yous Uncle Niko, come on now! Here...I tells yous what. I'll let yous make a an early withdrawal, with no penalties mind yous. So yous can go to the corner store and buy yous an ice cream or something. Yous knows, to make up for my untimely incarceration and missing out on yous birthdays and all. Here, here's a dollar kid now go make good use of it.

Well I slept over this and I won't get it. I wanted to get it with the thought of it actually being used actively on a full frame body, but seeing as I won't be upgrading until Nikon releases successor to D700 and actual competitor to Canon 5d mkii. I will hold off on purchasing FX gear.

It's a good lens, and that's a great price, but you really should consider a 24-70 if you do in fact want something super pro; the nano coating alone does wonders on the images.

Just a thought. . .otherwise, I'd go for a 35-70 2.8, since it's smaller, lighter, and has about the same image quality as the 28-70 as far as I've heard (I had a 35-70 2.8 that I sold a bit ago). . .

28 and 35mm aren't entirely wide on DX BTW, but looks like you have a Tokina 11-16 to handle that. . .

That is a great price for that lens, I have been looking at getting this lens, but the best deal I have been able to find is $950.

The 28-70mm is a great lens, and that is a good price, assuming it is in good shape.

This only goes to show you how big of cheapskate I am, lol.

NikoDoby said:
Wow you're worst than my wife trying to buy shoes!

Why didn't you title this "Talk Me Out Of Buying A 28-70 f2.8"?

If you thought the 24-70 wasn't wide enough for your style of shooting then what makes you think the 28-70 will be better? Regardless of the "bargain" price it's still too much if you aren't going to use it much with your D200.

Just take a cold shower and chillax before you spend so much $$$ on gear you don't need...yet. Or I'll tell you what, send me your money and I'll keeps it for ya. You know I'm better than a bank. You can trust your uncle Niko :^)

Sure uncle Niko, only if you send me all of those birthday money I never got from you for the past 20 years. ;p

I know right. But I hate just letting good deals pass me by. I got my D200 for $400, my Tokina 11-16 for $450.

Another point to consider is that by the time I get myself a full frame Nikon body these lenses might be even cheaper.

LensWork said:
In answer to your question, the range for AF-S 28-70mm f/2.8 sold on eBay vary greatly from $625-$1200. The average selling price, including shipping is $947.

Hmm... so this is an okay deal.

I will have to sleep on this. Maybe tomorrow I will be more rational.

In answer to your question, the range for AF-S 28-70mm f/2.8 sold on eBay vary greatly from $625-$1200. The average selling price, including shipping is $947.

Wow you're worst than my wife trying to buy shoes!

Why didn't you title this "Talk Me Out Of Buying A 28-70 f2.8"?

If you thought the 24-70 wasn't wide enough for your style of shooting then what makes you think the 28-70 will be better? Regardless of the "bargain" price it's still too much if you aren't going to use it much with your D200.

Just take a cold shower and chillax before you spend so much $$$ on gear you don't need...yet. Or I'll tell you what, send me your money and I'll keeps it for ya. You know I'm better than a bank. You can trust your uncle Niko :^)

Hi guys,

I have the chance to buy Nikon 28-70mm 2.8 for $775. Is this a good price? I don't know yet the condition of the lens. Supposedly it's in good working condition, but I still haven't seen its pictures or in person. I am going to go see it on Tuesday.

Do I have any leeway in negotiating price down a bit or is this already a good price?

****************************************************************************************

On side note, I was going to get myself Nikon 24-70mm, but decided against it due to having NAS, but I have the luck of always finding good deals on Nikon gear right before I am about to purchase anything new. So if this would be a good price I would get it in a heartbeat, provided of course that the condition is good.