AF-S 28-70 mm f/2.8D ED-IF

Noakram · 17th April 2007

I have yet to see this lens being mentioned in here, nor can I find this using the search function. Is it unpopular here?

Any comments, cause I'm considering getting one and need some opinions. Thanks!

calebk · 17th April 2007

Originally Posted by Noakram

I have yet to see this lens being mentioned in here, nor can I find this using the search function. Is it unpopular here?

Any comments, cause I'm considering getting one and need some opinions. Thanks!

28mm is kinda tight on a digital body. You might find it "not wide enough". That's why a lot of people prefer the 17-35 or 17-55 if they need a f/2.8 standard zoom on digital.

TMC · 17th April 2007

not to mention that it is a freaking monster at about 1kg.

Noakram · 18th April 2007

True, the weight is really bothersome and together with the body, it will probably weight around 1.8~1.9kg. Phew!

But how does it compare to prime lenses of the focal lengths that is supposed to cover? I would aim to get the Nikkor 12~24 mm, this 28mm~70mm and then 70~200mm to cover me from 12~200 mm, except 24~28mm but shuffling around for that 4mm should be fine.

My only concern is that the 28-70mm cannot effectively replace the 28mm f/2.8D, 35mm f/2D and 50mm f/1.4D in terms of image quality.

tribal.snake · 18th April 2007

the range on a dslr is kinda like neither here nor there.
but makes perfect sense on a film body.
and at 1+kg... no joke.

but having said that, i do know of ppl who really enjoy shooting with this lens.

Tetrode · 18th April 2007

Originally Posted by Noakram

True, the weight is really bothersome and together with the body, it will probably weight around 1.8~1.9kg. Phew!

But how does it compare to prime lenses of the focal lengths that is supposed to cover? I would aim to get the Nikkor 12~24 mm, this 28mm~70mm and then 70~200mm to cover me from 12~200 mm, except 24~28mm but shuffling around for that 4mm should be fine.

My only concern is that the 28-70mm cannot effectively replace the 28mm f/2.8D, 35mm f/2D and 50mm f/1.4D in terms of image quality.

Primes will always have better image quality over zooms esp in the area of flare control because of the lower number of air and glass spaces. Even if they come pretty close (17-35mm), the primes will still have the edge (if ever so slight).

The only advantage the f2.8 zoom has over the primes is in speed of composition, in terms of not having to mount and dismount the different lenses.

If you are not shooting events like weddings, I'd go for the primes and buy the cheap 28-70 f3.5-4.5 ($100USD < on Ebay) for when you do need a zoom. And don't poo-poo this lens just bec it is cheap - it is one hell of an optic - I know of a wedding photog who uses it for his wedding gigs.

http://cgi.ebay.com.au/Nikon-AF-D-Ni...QQcmdZViewItem

Noakram · 18th April 2007

hi Tetro, thanks for the advice!

jeffreyk · 18th April 2007

28-70 f2.8 focusing speed & accuracy is unrivalled.

not to mention extremely low distortion.

try out one & u will know what i'm talking about.

Noakram · 18th April 2007

Originally Posted by jeffreyk

28-70 f2.8 focusing speed & accuracy is unrivalled. not to mention extremely low distortion.

try out one & u will know what i'm talking about.

What about comparing the 28-70 vs the 17-55 across the same focal range? The latter gives me the extra width but what about the 35mm and 50mm performance?

lsisaxon · 19th April 2007

Originally Posted by Noakram

What about comparing the 28-70 vs the 17-55 across the same focal range? The latter gives me the extra width but what about the 35mm and 50mm performance?

The 28-70 is designed to be a wide to medium tele for full 135 frame. The 17-55 is designed to get a similar field of view for DX, so there is no point in comparing them at the same focal lengths.

jeffreyk · 19th April 2007

Originally Posted by Noakram

What about comparing the 28-70 vs the 17-55 across the same focal range? The latter gives me the extra width but what about the 35mm and 50mm performance?

very seldom pple own these 2 lens at the same time. I don't think there's much difference between them at these focal lengths.

17-55 for versatility.
28-70 if u take plenty of portraits.

Noakram · 19th April 2007

Ok, think I will get the 17-55mm instead. Cheers!

tribal.snake · 19th April 2007

good choice, better and more useful for the DX range.

Noakram · 19th April 2007

I guess with the 17-55mm, I will probably be able to use for landscape, architecture, events, potraits and that's good enough!

Luval · 20th April 2007

28 - 70 comes with ease in a wedding when i need the reach on the tele side , Athought i dun own the AFS model. it focus speed and accuracy is admirable.As for the weight . it shouldnt be a concern for pple who own it .. Many great lens which has these few quality doesnt comes light.

hongjone · 20th April 2007

Originally Posted by Noakram

I guess with the 17-55mm, I will probably be able to use for landscape, architecture, events, potraits and that's good enough!

Yar. You're right! I'm still very pleased with mine.

But not that light too, IMO

chisiang · 20th April 2007

28-70 is simply awesome imho.

Image sharpness + contrast no horse run. The size of the lense will gives you the confident of a pro lol!! When I use a prime on the motorshow race queen in Tokyo, they cannot be bothered. But when you use this baby, heh heh... you really get their attention!

17-35 + 28-70 + 70-200 = ultimate!

If you got 2 body then ULTIMATE X 2 for events/wedding with 17-35 on 1 body 28-70 on another. For those who only believe in using 1 body w 17-55 for wedding or event good luck to you if the CCD or something decides to fail on that day.

TMC · 20th April 2007

try using a tamron 28-105/2.8 front diameter 82mm, that one will grab every girl`s attention.

mcn · 20th April 2007

ultimate heavy setup

[quote=chisiang;3009940]
17-35 + 28-70 + 70-200 = ultimate! QUOTE]

chisiang · 20th April 2007

Get a point and shoot if weight is constantly on your mind

With all three lenses + body + flash + etc, it weighs about 13 kg. But most of the time I only carry two of the lenses, either 17-35 with 28-70 or 28-70 with 70-200. or you can choose to carry two small bags to spread the load. Shoulder bags for anticipated lenses while backpack for standby lenses.

Planning is the key. What will you be shooting tomorrow? How much travelling will you be doing?

No point carrying a 17-35 for a model shoot. bringing a 70-200 for a morning wedding shoot inside HDB is pointless and can be accomplished with a 28-70.

Ultimately you want to impress your viewer with the quality of your photos and not how much weight you managed to reduce or how effortlessly you walk about during the shoot.

17th April 2007	#1
Noakram Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Singapore Posts: 216	AF-S 28-70 mm f/2.8D ED-IF I have yet to see this lens being mentioned in here, nor can I find this using the search function. Is it unpopular here? Any comments, cause I'm considering getting one and need some opinions. Thanks! __________________ Things I've learnt on photography [S5Pro][28-70 f2.8][ZF 35 f2][85 f1.4][sb800][Elinchrom D-Lite 4]

17th April 2007	#3
TMC Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Beyond Space-Time Continuum Posts: 5,921	Re: AF-S 28-70 mm f/2.8D ED-IF not to mention that it is a freaking monster at about 1kg.

18th April 2007	#4
Noakram Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Singapore Posts: 216	Re: AF-S 28-70 mm f/2.8D ED-IF True, the weight is really bothersome and together with the body, it will probably weight around 1.8~1.9kg. Phew! But how does it compare to prime lenses of the focal lengths that is supposed to cover? I would aim to get the Nikkor 12~24 mm, this 28mm~70mm and then 70~200mm to cover me from 12~200 mm, except 24~28mm but shuffling around for that 4mm should be fine. My only concern is that the 28-70mm cannot effectively replace the 28mm f/2.8D, 35mm f/2D and 50mm f/1.4D in terms of image quality.

18th April 2007	#5
tribal.snake Member Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: west side! Posts: 685	Re: AF-S 28-70 mm f/2.8D ED-IF the range on a dslr is kinda like neither here nor there. but makes perfect sense on a film body. and at 1+kg... no joke. but having said that, i do know of ppl who really enjoy shooting with this lens.

18th April 2007	#7
Noakram Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Singapore Posts: 216	Re: AF-S 28-70 mm f/2.8D ED-IF hi Tetro, thanks for the advice!

18th April 2007	#8
jeffreyk Member Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Jurong West Posts: 389	Re: AF-S 28-70 mm f/2.8D ED-IF 28-70 f2.8 focusing speed & accuracy is unrivalled. not to mention extremely low distortion. try out one & u will know what i'm talking about.

19th April 2007	#12
Noakram Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Singapore Posts: 216	Re: AF-S 28-70 mm f/2.8D ED-IF Ok, think I will get the 17-55mm instead. Cheers!

19th April 2007	#13
tribal.snake Member Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: west side! Posts: 685	Re: AF-S 28-70 mm f/2.8D ED-IF good choice, better and more useful for the DX range.

19th April 2007	#14
Noakram Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Singapore Posts: 216	Re: AF-S 28-70 mm f/2.8D ED-IF I guess with the 17-55mm, I will probably be able to use for landscape, architecture, events, potraits and that's good enough!

20th April 2007	#15
Luval Member Join Date: May 2003 Location: East Posts: 1,383	Re: AF-S 28-70 mm f/2.8D ED-IF 28 - 70 comes with ease in a wedding when i need the reach on the tele side , Athought i dun own the AFS model. it focus speed and accuracy is admirable.As for the weight . it shouldnt be a concern for pple who own it .. Many great lens which has these few quality doesnt comes light.

20th April 2007	#17
chisiang Member Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Bt Panjang Posts: 1,238	Re: AF-S 28-70 mm f/2.8D ED-IF 28-70 is simply awesome imho. Image sharpness + contrast no horse run. The size of the lense will gives you the confident of a pro lol!! When I use a prime on the motorshow race queen in Tokyo, they cannot be bothered. But when you use this baby, heh heh... you really get their attention! 17-35 + 28-70 + 70-200 = ultimate! If you got 2 body then ULTIMATE X 2 for events/wedding with 17-35 on 1 body 28-70 on another. For those who only believe in using 1 body w 17-55 for wedding or event good luck to you if the CCD or something decides to fail on that day.

20th April 2007	#18
TMC Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Beyond Space-Time Continuum Posts: 5,921	Re: AF-S 28-70 mm f/2.8D ED-IF try using a tamron 28-105/2.8 front diameter 82mm, that one will grab every girl`s attention.

20th April 2007	#19
mcn Member Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 1,189	Re: AF-S 28-70 mm f/2.8D ED-IF ultimate heavy setup [quote=chisiang;3009940] 17-35 + 28-70 + 70-200 = ultimate! QUOTE]

20th April 2007	#20
chisiang Member Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Bt Panjang Posts: 1,238	Re: AF-S 28-70 mm f/2.8D ED-IF Get a point and shoot if weight is constantly on your mind With all three lenses + body + flash + etc, it weighs about 13 kg. But most of the time I only carry two of the lenses, either 17-35 with 28-70 or 28-70 with 70-200. or you can choose to carry two small bags to spread the load. Shoulder bags for anticipated lenses while backpack for standby lenses. Planning is the key. What will you be shooting tomorrow? How much travelling will you be doing? No point carrying a 17-35 for a model shoot. bringing a 70-200 for a morning wedding shoot inside HDB is pointless and can be accomplished with a 28-70. Ultimately you want to impress your viewer with the quality of your photos and not how much weight you managed to reduce or how effortlessly you walk about during the shoot.