Dear members,
this is probably an old question, but i find myself facing a dilemma, and
request your expertise.
I have a F90x and two Af lenses, 20mm/2.8D and 80-200 /2.8D. These days I am
saving up for the new 28-70/2.8AF-S Nikkor zoom, but its expected price
discourages me. Why would you buy that lens (to fill the gap, and as an
all-around lens for most photographic situations), when a combination of, say,
24mm or 28mm + 35mm or 50mm+ 85mm(1.8) (or even four of them) would cost less
(or as much) money than the zoom? Is it all about changing lenses? All lenses in
this range are optically good, fast, and feature D-info, so manual override
would be the only loss (to my knowledge, unless the zoom is optically better,
which I doubt), and I have always found myself using either end of a zoom lens,
and not that often in between the "marked" focal lengths. Please, enlighten me.
I cannot rent lenses where I live, so any mispurchase means money down the tab.
Of course, an obvious answer would be "depends on what you like to shoot", but I
find difficult to foresee how much I will "need" a focal length, until I
actually use it.
Thanks for your help and time.
Please, e-mail me privately if you prefer, Javier.
