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


Status
Not open for further replies.

Noakram

Member
Mar 13, 2007
213
0
16
Singapore
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

Senior Member
Jul 25, 2006
10,587
0
0
Clementi
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.
 

Noakram

Member
Mar 13, 2007
213
0
16
Singapore
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

Senior Member
Dec 7, 2006
725
0
16
west side!
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

New Member
Dec 29, 2002
1,374
0
0
Visit site
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-Nikkor-28-70mm-f3-5-4-5-Macro-Zoom-V-Good_W0QQitemZ250102321800QQihZ015QQcategoryZ3343QQrdZ1QQssPageNameZWD2VQQcmdZViewItem
 

jeffreyk

New Member
Dec 23, 2005
387
0
0
Jurong West
28-70 f2.8 focusing speed & accuracy is unrivalled.:thumbsup: not to mention extremely low distortion.

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

Noakram

Member
Mar 13, 2007
213
0
16
Singapore
28-70 f2.8 focusing speed & accuracy is unrivalled.:thumbsup: not to mention extremely low distortion.

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

Senior Member
Nov 29, 2004
11,925
0
36
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

New Member
Dec 23, 2005
387
0
0
Jurong West
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

Member
Mar 13, 2007
213
0
16
Singapore
Ok, think I will get the 17-55mm instead. Cheers!
 

Noakram

Member
Mar 13, 2007
213
0
16
Singapore
I guess with the 17-55mm, I will probably be able to use for landscape, architecture, events, potraits and that's good enough!
 

Luval

Senior Member
May 29, 2003
1,505
0
36
44
East
www.Lutherseowphotography.com
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

Senior Member
Jan 6, 2006
1,274
0
36
Singapore
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. :bsmilie:
But not that light too, IMO :bigeyes:
 

chisiang

Senior Member
Oct 3, 2004
1,257
0
36
Ho Chi Minh City
www.swog.sg
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! :heart:

17-35 + 28-70 + 70-200 = ultimate! :thumbsup: 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. :sweat:
 

TMC

Senior Member
Sep 4, 2004
6,320
0
0
Beyond Space-Time Continuum
try using a tamron 28-105/2.8 front diameter 82mm, that one will grab every girl`s attention. :bsmilie:
 

chisiang

Senior Member
Oct 3, 2004
1,257
0
36
Ho Chi Minh City
www.swog.sg
Get a point and shoot if weight is constantly on your mind :bsmilie:

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. :thumbsup:
 

Status
Not open for further replies.