nikon 28-80 vs 28-105?

Started Mar 30, 2013 | Discussions
narddogg81
Contributing MemberPosts: 995
Like?
nikon 28-80 vs 28-105?
Mar 30, 2013

Since i started looking into lightweight hiking lenses that still have good IQ, 2 lenses keep coming up, the nikon 28-80 and the nikon 28-105.  I keep reading in various places how they are both very good optically, but its really hard to find any  images to bear that out or to compare.  Anybody that has these lenses feel like posting some full res images from an FX camera so i can pixel peep?  both of these can be had inexpensively, the 28-80 for like $50, the 28-105 for under $200, so money would not be the deciding factor, only IQ and usefulness.  The 28-105 already looks like it leads due to the extra reach and 1:2 macro feature, but maybe the 28-80 is sharper or more contrasty?  The only person who has anything to say about both is ken rockwell, whose opinion i do not value.

Thanks in advance

mironv
Veteran MemberPosts: 9,751Gear list
Like?
Re: nikon 28-80 vs 28-105?
In reply to narddogg81, Mar 30, 2013

Is a size ( smalles the better ) is #1 objective? If not 28-105 is fine lens for walk abouts. If every once cunts than skip 28-80 and look for 28-70 52mm filter size it is very good older zoom.

Few years back POP magazine had test of Sigma AFD 24-70mmf3.5-5.6 HF when new it was $129 and they had hard time belive how good it was . I scooped it one ( my 12 years odl son will use it) for like $39 from eBay and shot some and I see super IQ but need a hood it flares at wider setting other than that is small light. One more walk around lens to consider is 28-200mmED Nikon or Sigma ( BTW Nikon 28-200ED is not Nikon it is re branded Sigma it dose not zoom in normal Nikon direction like other Nikon zooms but like Canon and Sigma zooms) anyway I choose Sigma for better build metal mount and it has same specs as Nikon ( minus ED elemant ) but is is ever bit as good and it cost 4x less than Nikon.Shot some with it it is fine with in limitation of typical slower zooms.

-- hide signature --
 mironv's gear list:mironv's gear list
Fujifilm FinePix S5 Pro Nikon D700 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR Nikon AF Nikkor 105mm f/2D DC +10 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
woodsrunner
New MemberPosts: 19
Like?
Re: nikon 28-80 vs 28-105?
In reply to narddogg81, Mar 30, 2013

I bought the 28-105 with my D70s and used it for years as my walkabout lens.  My only gripe is the barrel turns while zooming making use with polarizer a bit of a pain.  The macro feature actually works well.  Some of my favorite shots were taken with this lens.  Nice aperture, f/3.5-4.5, and stopped down to f/5.6 or f/8 gives great sharpness.

Nice lightweight lens.  Post processing with Lightroom gives great results.  I recently bought the 24-120 f/4 to replace it, nice lens but am still on the fence.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
pipee
Forum MemberPosts: 81
Like?
Re: nikon 28-80 vs 28-105?
In reply to woodsrunner, Mar 30, 2013

I read contradicting reviews about 28-80 vs 28-105 as well. In the end I went with 28-80 and for my travel use, it is sharp enough for me where it matters.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
dwa1
Senior MemberPosts: 2,533
Like?
Nikon 28-105.
In reply to woodsrunner, Mar 30, 2013

woodsrunner wrote:

I bought the 28-105 with my D70s and used it for years as my walkabout lens.  My only gripe is the barrel turns while zooming making use with polarizer a bit of a pain.  The macro feature actually works well.  Some of my favorite shots were taken with this lens.  Nice aperture, f/3.5-4.5, and stopped down to f/5.6 or f/8 gives great sharpness.

Nice lightweight lens.  Post processing with Lightroom gives great results.  I recently bought the 24-120 f/4 to replace it, nice lens but am still on the fence.

I bought this lens about 3-4 years ago. In addition to the problem of the front lens element turning while focusing, I never really liked the images on a D300 sensor. Some have said it's much better on FX. But even on sample FX images on this forum, any shots where there were hi contrast areas, the bright areas seemed to have a "glow" around them. I kept it just in case I get an FX body to see what it does. I certainly wouldn't recommend it. Too many other choices on the market.

Wayne

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
paulski66
Senior MemberPosts: 2,114Gear list
Like?
Re: nikon 28-80 vs 28-105?
In reply to narddogg81, Mar 30, 2013

I had the 28-105 on DX; I liked it, but didn't love it. For one, if you're shooting DX, 28mm is kinda wide, but not really wide. Also, I felt the sharpness was good, though the images didn't really "pop." Ultimately, I ended up selling it.

Now, I bought mine second hand, and it is entirely possible I got a mediocre copy.

Still, if I were making the choice again, for DX I'd get something like the 18-105 VR, for FX something like the 24-85 VR (which I have and love).

Just my 2 cents...

 paulski66's gear list:paulski66's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX5 Nikon D600 Nikon AF-S Micro-Nikkor 60mm f/2.8G ED Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR II Nikon AF-S Micro-Nikkor 105mm f/2.8G IF-ED VR +6 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
sd40
Senior MemberPosts: 1,378
Like?
Re: nikon 28-80 vs 28-105?
In reply to narddogg81, Mar 30, 2013

narddogg81 wrote:

Since i started looking into lightweight hiking lenses that still have good IQ, 2 lenses keep coming up, the nikon 28-80 and the nikon 28-105.  I keep reading in various places how they are both very good optically, but its really hard to find any  images to bear that out or to compare.  Anybody that has these lenses feel like posting some full res images from an FX camera so i can pixel peep?  both of these can be had inexpensively, the 28-80 for like $50, the 28-105 for under $200, so money would not be the deciding factor, only IQ and usefulness.  The 28-105 already looks like it leads due to the extra reach and 1:2 macro feature, but maybe the 28-80 is sharper or more contrasty?  The only person who has anything to say about both is ken rockwell, whose opinion i do not value.

Thanks in advance

I have owned both the 28-80G and the 28-105 at the same time

28-80 advantages:

light weight

fast focusing

super low cost about $80 used.

The lens for everyman--sort of the Corvair of 28-XXX lenses, light and economical.  I love that.

28-105 advantages:

sharper--surprisingly so in my case

more contrasty

IIRC, about $250 used.

The 28-105 is not too heavy to bear--sure beats the 24-70 in that respect.  The macro feature works.  The 28-80 might autofocus faster but I couldn't tell.  I sold the 28-80.  I use the 28-105 and smile at all those people who talk about the Holy Trinity.

BTW--On all the AF-D lenses I own, the barrel turns when autofocusing.  A misguided idea, but whatever.  You learn to keep your fingers away from the outer end of the barrel.  The good news is that you can install a filter and it does not turn.  I guess Nikon was still trying to figure out how to deal with that.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
rpps
Senior MemberPosts: 1,371Gear list
Like?
Re: nikon 28-80 vs 28-105?
In reply to sd40, Mar 31, 2013

I have the 28-105mm lens and it's one of my favourite lenses after I sent it to have the lens alignment re-calibrated, the trouble when you buy on E-Bay.

I also had the 24-85 G lens non VR and the former lens is much sharper, another good lens is my 28-200D I'm pretty impressed with the sharpness of the image quality I just wasn't expecting to be so good.

I have now a Tamron 24-70 f 2.8 I like the lens but it's back to the dealer to have the soft focus on the RHS fixed. The 28-105mm is just as sharp and if you stick at f8-f11 during the day it remarkably sharp.

 rpps's gear list:rpps's gear list
Sony RX100 Nikon D600 Nikon D750 Nikon AF Nikkor 35mm f/2D Tamron SP 70-300mm F/4-5.6 Di VC USD +3 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
vanhollebeke kurt
Regular MemberPosts: 108Gear list
Like?
Re: nikon 28-80 vs 28-105?
In reply to rpps, Apr 1, 2013

in may 2010 I did a little test with my 50 1.8D, the 28-80D and the 28-105D

And here are the crops. Judge for yourself

Obviously I kept the 50 but also the 28-105

grtz, Kurt

 vanhollebeke kurt's gear list:vanhollebeke kurt's gear list
Fujifilm XF1 Nikon D40 Nikon D700 Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 18-105mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D +3 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
sd40
Senior MemberPosts: 1,378
Like?
Re: nikon 28-80 vs 28-105?
In reply to rpps, Apr 1, 2013

rpps wrote:

I have the 28-105mm lens and it's one of my favourite lenses after I sent it to have the lens alignment re-calibrated, the trouble when you buy on E-Bay.

I also had the 24-85 G lens non VR and the former lens is much sharper, another good lens is my 28-200D I'm pretty impressed with the sharpness of the image quality I just wasn't expecting to be so good.

I have now a Tamron 24-70 f 2.8 I like the lens but it's back to the dealer to have the soft focus on the RHS fixed. The 28-105mm is just as sharp and if you stick at f8-f11 during the day it remarkably sharp.

I have also owned the 28-200 twice and was favorably impressed, but that FL did not meet my needs better than what I have, the 28-105 and the 70-210.

The 28-105 is analogous to the 18-70 from my DX days and that FL was perfect for my needs even back then.  Maybe someday I'll learn how to make better use of tele lenses.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
PSCL1
Senior MemberPosts: 2,309Gear list
Like?
Re: nikon 28-80 vs 28-105?
In reply to sd40, Apr 1, 2013

For $50, why are you even giving this a second thought?  Buy one and, if you don't like it, buy something else.    The 28-105 is a 20 year old design but was viewed as versatile with the near-macro feature and reasonable quality for a nonspecialist lens.  One poster mentioned the 24-70 Sigma.  I owned one of those and it was one of the 4 lenses in the 35 or so I have bought over the years that I considered unuseable. and I'm not that fussy (amateur, don't print over 8x10, etc.).

 PSCL1's gear list:PSCL1's gear list
Leica X1 Nikon D80 Olympus PEN E-PL1 Panasonic Lumix DMC-G3 Sony Alpha NEX-3N +27 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
narddogg81
Contributing MemberPosts: 995
Like?
Re: nikon 28-80 vs 28-105?
In reply to PSCL1, Apr 2, 2013

PSCL1 wrote:

For $50, why are you even giving this a second thought?  Buy one and, if you don't like it, buy something else.    The 28-105 is a 20 year old design but was viewed as versatile with the near-macro feature and reasonable quality for a nonspecialist lens.  One poster mentioned the 24-70 Sigma.  I owned one of those and it was one of the 4 lenses in the 35 or so I have bought over the years that I considered unuseable. and I'm not that fussy (amateur, don't print over 8x10, etc.).

the 28-80 is $50, the 28-105 is closer to $200.  Id rather not waste any money

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
PSCL1
Senior MemberPosts: 2,309Gear list
Like?
Re: nikon 28-80 vs 28-105?
In reply to narddogg81, Apr 2, 2013

Looks like I wasn't clear. I was trying to suggest that you should just buy the 28-80 and, if you don't like it, sell it and buy the 28-105. Sorry.

 PSCL1's gear list:PSCL1's gear list
Leica X1 Nikon D80 Olympus PEN E-PL1 Panasonic Lumix DMC-G3 Sony Alpha NEX-3N +27 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Austin Li
Contributing MemberPosts: 659
Like?
Your local Craigslists is your best friend to
In reply to narddogg81, Apr 2, 2013

find these lenses.  I got my 28-105 for $120, and AFD 70-210 for $180. They are my travel or hiking kits, and they don't hurt my vallet at all.

-- hide signature --

Austin
Photography is one of the ways to get myself relaxed from occupation stress.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
narddogg81
Contributing MemberPosts: 995
Like?
Re: nikon 28-80 vs 28-105?
In reply to PSCL1, Apr 2, 2013

PSCL1 wrote:

Looks like I wasn't clear. I was trying to suggest that you should just buy the 28-80 and, if you don't like it, sell it and buy the 28-105. Sorry.

ah

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
cory a
Forum MemberPosts: 60
Like?
Re: nikon 28-80 vs 28-105?
In reply to narddogg81, Apr 2, 2013

I have both lenses.  As far as image quality goes, there's just really not a whole lot of difference between the two.  And what small differences there are can easily be dealt with in post.  Of the two, I prefer the 28-105 for the increased zoom range and the macro feature.  On the other hand, the 28-80 has the advantage when it comes to size, weight and replacement cost in the event of an accident, all things that are pretty important for hiking and other such activities.  I like to take my 28-80 attached to a D50 with me when I go flat-water kayaking.  It's a combo that gives good image quality, but wouldn't give me a stroke if it ended up at the bottom of a river.  If the macro and the extra 25mm on the long end aren't of much interest to you, definitely grab a 28-80.  Like has been said before, at the prices they are going for, it won't break the bank if you don't like it and decide to get something else.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads