Going from 17-55mm to 28-70mm ..

I am one of those that prefer the quality of primes over the convience of zooms, but most of my shooting is done in low light where the fast primes rule. I do own the 28-70/2.8 and 70-200vr, but prefer to use my 50/1.4 and 85/1.4. Just giving my perspective.

Kind regards,
Charles
--
Simplicity is a complicated thing.

http://stakeman.smugmug.com

HitsOfMisses said:

The example you have given is of 28-70 f/4 in bright light, not in
low light.

Click to expand...

Other than eliminating lens shake as a factor, the sample is just as useful as a low light capture in evaluating the lense's performance at f/4. Exactly the same number of photons have passed through the lens, and they were resolved in the same manner, just at a different rate.

HitsOfMisses said:

I was sharing my experience plus whatever I read on these forums

Click to expand...

It would be more useful if you showed pictorial evidence, rather than repeating what you think you've read.

Your basic premise seems to be that the solution for low light work is an f/2.8 aperture setting. In practice, using a camera capable of producing good image quality at high ISO levels is more imortant. You've only been shooting dslrs for a few months, but after you've shot a few events, I think you'll disabuse yourself of the notion that an f/2.8 lens is fast.

--
Warm regards, Uncle Frank
FCAS Founder, Hummingbird Hunter, Egret Stalker
Dilettante Appassionato
Dee 2 Hundred on order!
Gallery at http://www.pbase.com/unclefrank/nikon

Though, not exhaustive, I'd performed a lens test bet_w f/2.8 28-70 & 17-55 a few months back.

I tried including as many parameters as possible e.g. bricks, water, trees, kids for skin tone, text, RGB color tone, lens flare from setting sun, etc.

http://www.pbase.com/hitsofmisses/lenstest

Did you get a chance to rent the lens?

Anyway, let me know what you decide & why?

--
Warm Regards,
HitsOfMisses
http://www.pbase.com/HitsOfMisses

Larry,

Here's excerpts from the threads I posted in Jul'05.

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1030&message=14416238

Another thread, which as you can see, did not go well as people's expectations & experiences vary. Enjoy it anyway.


http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1021&message=14419129

--
Warm Regards,
HitsOfMisses
http://www.pbase.com/HitsOfMisses

Not having owned a 28-70 I use and prefer the 17-55 because of its range. I assume both lenses give pretty good image quality so for me it is only a question of range.

Since I do not allways want to lug multiple lenses and do like shooting landscape and portait and .... the 17-55 suits my need better. The 12-24 stays at home a lot and if I need something longer 55mm I bring the 85/1.4.

However I would think that for people shooting a lot of portrait etc. that the 28-70 would suit their needs better because of the longer range.

I've shot dancing, and really, shooting with less flash or a lower ISO is better. The 85mm gives you more reach than the 28-70 . Though, I think you are looking for a single zoom that will give you more reach. I have the 17-55 and 28-70 as well as the 28/50/85mm f/1.4 . I was a little disappointed by the 28-70 performance wide open at f/2.8, but it is great at f/4 . The 17-55 is sharper wide open. I don't know what your operating distance is, but the 85 won't let you get too close. I would just focus on either side or some back area and wait until the dancers entered that zone.

Uncle Frank said:

I
honestly can't think of an occasion where I lost an important shot
because my lens wasn't wide enough. That's probably because I
favor the intimate portrait, and my instinct is to get closer to
the subject rather than back away. So in the end, it may just come
down to shooting style, eh?

Click to expand...

Yeah, it definitely has to do with style. I use the 17-24mm range very often. 17-55/2.8 @ 20mm:



I do have 80-200 to cover the "intimate" shots. I reckon it has to do with "minimizing switching lenses" for your shooting style.
--
John

I see the mark of a very good shooter all over that image and techniques I strive for in my own shooting. You certainly "captured the moment" and the skill required to properly expose the subtle tones in the overcast sky without blowing it out is beyond the thought processes of many. Very, very well done -- my compliments.

Phil

--
John

Odd, your 28-70 seems to be brighter than the 17-55, how can this be?

HitsOfMisses said:

Though, not exhaustive, I'd performed a lens test bet_w f/2.8 28-70
& 17-55 a few months back.

I tried including as many parameters as possible e.g. bricks,
water, trees, kids for skin tone, text, RGB color tone, lens flare
from setting sun, etc.

http://www.pbase.com/hitsofmisses/lenstest

Did you get a chance to rent the lens?

Anyway, let me know what you decide & why?

--
Warm Regards,
HitsOfMisses
http://www.pbase.com/HitsOfMisses

Click to expand...

--

There is no such thing as taking 'too many pictures', you can always deleted the extra ones, but you can never go back in time, and take more pictures...

See profile for equipment (so far)

I was just thinking, I tooke back the Sigma 12-24 because it seemed so big and heavy, but it's smaller and light than the 28-70!

Sigma 12-24 3.4"x3.9" 21.6 oz.
Nikon 28-70 3.5"x4.9" in 31.3 oz.

For comparison, the 17-55 is: 3.4"x 4.4" 26.6 oz.

dsl_r said:

I have to say 28-70/2.8 is better, but 17mm is very useful and
17-55 is a little bit smaller than the BEAST.

Click to expand...

--

There is no such thing as taking 'too many pictures', you can always deleted the extra ones, but you can never go back in time, and take more pictures...

See profile for equipment (so far)

Which stats program? Is there more than one? I tried one, but it provided confusing results...

Phil Youngblood said:

larry cothren said:

I'm thinking that I would get more use out of the "Beast" in tight
venues and it would be wide enough for birthday parties and such.

Click to expand...

Think so? Maybe -- maybe not. I recently shot a b'day party as a
favor for a client. I ran that little stats program on the shots
and 67% of them were wider than 28MM. It's a problem that just
won't go away.

Phil

Click to expand...

--

There is no such thing as taking 'too many pictures', you can always deleted the extra ones, but you can never go back in time, and take more pictures...

See profile for equipment (so far)

Doug said:

Which stats program? Is there more than one? I tried one, but it
provided confusing results...

Click to expand...

It's called ExposurePlot. Neat little app.

http://www.vandel.nl/

Phil

Doug said:

I was just thinking, I tooke back the Sigma 12-24 because it seemed
so big and heavy, but it's smaller and light than the 28-70!

Sigma 12-24 3.4"x3.9" 21.6 oz.
Nikon 28-70 3.5"x4.9" in 31.3 oz.

For comparison, the 17-55 is: 3.4"x 4.4" 26.6 oz.

Click to expand...

Are you saying that you're physically incapable of using pro glass?

No problem. Just limit your shooting to daylight hours or flash photography, and learn how to use Photoshop to simulate the selective focus effect.

Or you could start going to the gym ;-).

--
Warm regards, Uncle Frank
FCAS Founder, Hummingbird Hunter, Egret Stalker
Dilettante Appassionato
Dee 2 Hundred on order!
Gallery at http://www.pbase.com/unclefrank/nikon

Ouch! No, no, the Sigma fish seemed big (did not fit in the bag well either...) but now I have had experience with bigger lenses, like the 28-70 and the 7-200vr ... so, it would not seem that big anymore ... but that glass does add up.... I have 5 lenses in my bag now, and it seems pretty heavy... Gym? Nah, just need to carry around all that glass more, and I'll get use to it

Uncle Frank said:

Doug said:

I was just thinking, I tooke back the Sigma 12-24 because it seemed
so big and heavy, but it's smaller and light than the 28-70!

Sigma 12-24 3.4"x3.9" 21.6 oz.
Nikon 28-70 3.5"x4.9" in 31.3 oz.

For comparison, the 17-55 is: 3.4"x 4.4" 26.6 oz.

Click to expand...

Are you saying that you're physically incapable of using pro glass?

No problem. Just limit your shooting to daylight hours or flash
photography, and learn how to use Photoshop to simulate the
selective focus effect.

Or you could start going to the gym ;-).

--
Warm regards, Uncle Frank
FCAS Founder, Hummingbird Hunter, Egret Stalker
Dilettante Appassionato
Dee 2 Hundred on order!
Gallery at http://www.pbase.com/unclefrank/nikon

Click to expand...

--

There is no such thing as taking 'too many pictures', you can always deleted the extra ones, but you can never go back in time, and take more pictures...

See profile for equipment (so far)

Oh, and about the flash, etc... yikes, I hate flash!
--

There is no such thing as taking 'too many pictures', you can always delete the extra ones, but you can never go back in time, and take more pictures...

See profile for equipment (so far)

Doug65521 said:

Gym? Nah, just need to carry around all that glass more, and I'll get use to it

Click to expand...

Glad you took it humorously, because that's the way I meant it .

You're right about it adding up. Fully loaded with my lenses, flash, etc., my LowePro mini trekker weighs in at over 16 pounds. It's like carrying a bowling ball! But I love the pics I get from the heavy glass.

As far as flash is concerned, it's a necessary evil for event work. I couldn't shoot a wedding/reception with my flash, so I've learned to use it and appreciate it as another style. Let me know if you come up with a practical alternative for high voume low light work.



--
Warm regards, Uncle Frank
FCAS Founder, Hummingbird Hunter, Egret Stalker
Dilettante Appassionato
Dee 2 Hundred on order!
Gallery at http://www.pbase.com/unclefrank/nikon

The endless squabble over 17-55 and 28-70 is rather pointless. It all depends on shooting style. For me the 17-55 is a necessity. The 28-70 is just not wide enough. Yet there are times when 17-55 is just not quite long enough either. Cropping normally solves that problem. But that does not mean that the range from 55 to 70 or even 85 is without merit. I have a really nice old 85mm f1.4 AI lens which is a real treasure. I would really like to see a fast zoom in the range from 60-150mm given all the disadvantages of another large lens in my bag. Not an oxymoron, because you can generally predict what you will be shooting and plan your gear accordingly. To get round the problem, sort of, I found an excellent Series E Nikkor zoom, a 50-135mm f3.5. Wonderful lens, sharp, light weight and flexible. Trouble is it is an AI lens and so you have all those little liabilities. Works like a charm on a D2X but it is slow to use. Has a nice close range though.

Wish Nikon would devote more resources to making lenses of real utility rather than producing cameras of dubious value, like the D200.

No joke, I am thouroughly sick of D200 anything. Let us hope it is perfect. So that there will be none of the back focus, front focus, exposure bias, and viewfinder failings agony which have consumed space for every previous offering of the Nikon recluses. Great heaven but it is way to late to be writing this kind of tripe....John
--
http://www.pbase.com/dahlstetphoto

Great program, problem is, it only appears to reconise jpg's, most of my image files are raw... any program that can read the info from raw files?

--

There is no such thing as taking 'too many pictures', you can always delete the extra ones, but you can never go back in time, and take more pictures...

See profile for equipment (so far)

Larry,

This is exactly why I did not buy a 17-55. I had the 17-35, 28-70 & 70-200. All exceptional lenses. When I looked at the pics I've taken -many- were at/near 70mm with the 28-70. This number was high I believe because I needed something at/near 70mm but did not want to lug the significantly larger/heavier 70-200 with me. The 55mm-70mm range I concluded is very significant to me and the type of shooting I do.

In the end I decided not to sell the 17-35 and replace it with the 17-55 because I'd still need the 28-70 in my bag. The other benefit of the 17-35 & 28-70 is that they will work as designed when Nikon intro's a FF DSLR, which I expect in 2006.

Cheers,
JB

larry cothren said:

Has anyone made the swap from one to the other. I currently have
the 17-55mm and I am finding that I max out at 55mm or I max out at
70mm on my 70-200mm when shooting dance comptitions. However I do
like the wide end when shooting indoors.

Has anyone been in a similar situation and what was your resolution?

Thanks,
Larry
--
Nikon D2x
2-SB-800DX
Nikkor 70-200vr, 84mm 1.4, 28mm1.4, 17-55mm DX

Click to expand...