Is Nikon 28-70/2.8 AFS worth the money?

Jeikei · May 19, 2003

My very well served Sigma 28-70/2.8 EX has started showing some marks that its lifecycle has come to the very final end.

I have a huge problem on deciding should I go for the Nikon 28-70/2.8 AFS lens. As I state in my profile I do quite a lot work at local ice arenas here in Finland so sometimes 2.8 is required to get the job done.

I've been reading some reviews through nikonlinks.com and at least one of those guys writing states that there is huge difference in sharpness in 35 mm compared to eg Canon's equivalent. I also take quite alot of portraits outside and inside - weddings etc so it's very important to have a optically very good lens. With my 80-200/2.8 AFS I'm very keen on that fast and accurate focus.

I have the financial side covered but I'm still hanging on the edge.

If there is anyone who could give me some backup I'd really appreciate your input.

Jyrki

f8&bethere · May 19, 2003

Worth every penny. Just don't drop it. It breaks easily. Ten times the lens compared to the Sigma which I once owned.

JeiKei said:
My very well served Sigma 28-70/2.8 EX has started showing some
marks that its lifecycle has come to the very final end.

I have a huge problem on deciding should I go for the Nikon
28-70/2.8 AFS lens. As I state in my profile I do quite a lot work
at local ice arenas here in Finland so sometimes 2.8 is required to
get the job done.

I've been reading some reviews through nikonlinks.com and at least
one of those guys writing states that there is huge difference in
sharpness in 35 mm compared to eg Canon's equivalent. I also take
quite alot of portraits outside and inside - weddings etc so it's
very important to have a optically very good lens. With my
80-200/2.8 AFS I'm very keen on that fast and accurate focus.

I have the financial side covered but I'm still hanging on the edge.

If there is anyone who could give me some backup I'd really
appreciate your input.

Jyrki

Shutzman · May 19, 2003

I don't have this lens, but according to a unanimous opinion here on this forum, this lens (28-70mm Nikkor AF-S), is the ultimate lens for a pro in that range. The three big ones are 17-35mm f/2.8 AF-S, 28-70mm f/2.8 AF-S and now the 70-200 AF-S VR (previously the 80-200mm AFS).

For the other two I got away with Sigmas (15-30mm, 70-200mm) , which are great replacements, howerver, my Nikkor 24-85mm G ($350) is as far from the 28-70mm as $350 is from $1500.

I will buy the 28-70mm AF-S sooner rather than later. It could be the 80% of the time lens for my D100.

f8&bether said:
JeiKei said:

My very well served Sigma 28-70/2.8 EX has started showing some
marks that its lifecycle has come to the very final end.

I have a huge problem on deciding should I go for the Nikon
28-70/2.8 AFS lens. As I state in my profile I do quite a lot work
at local ice arenas here in Finland so sometimes 2.8 is required to
get the job done.

I've been reading some reviews through nikonlinks.com and at least
one of those guys writing states that there is huge difference in
sharpness in 35 mm compared to eg Canon's equivalent. I also take
quite alot of portraits outside and inside - weddings etc so it's
very important to have a optically very good lens. With my
80-200/2.8 AFS I'm very keen on that fast and accurate focus.

I have the financial side covered but I'm still hanging on the edge.

If there is anyone who could give me some backup I'd really
appreciate your input.

Jyrki

Click to expand...

Al_B · May 19, 2003

Shutzman said:
For the other two I got away with Sigmas (15-30mm, 70-200mm) ,
which are great replacements, howerver, my Nikkor 24-85mm G ($350)
is as far from the 28-70mm as $350 is from $1500.

I will buy the 28-70mm AF-S sooner rather than later. It could be
the 80% of the time lens for my D100.

f8&bether said:

JeiKei said:

My very well served Sigma 28-70/2.8 EX has started showing some
marks that its lifecycle has come to the very final end.

I have a huge problem on deciding should I go for the Nikon
28-70/2.8 AFS lens. As I state in my profile I do quite a lot work
at local ice arenas here in Finland so sometimes 2.8 is required to
get the job done.

I've been reading some reviews through nikonlinks.com and at least
one of those guys writing states that there is huge difference in
sharpness in 35 mm compared to eg Canon's equivalent. I also take
quite alot of portraits outside and inside - weddings etc so it's
very important to have a optically very good lens. With my
80-200/2.8 AFS I'm very keen on that fast and accurate focus.

I have the financial side covered but I'm still hanging on the edge.

If there is anyone who could give me some backup I'd really
appreciate your input.

Jyrki

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

JeiKei,

I upgraded my 24-85D lens to the 28-70AFS. It's always hard to justify such as expensive lens, however the optics are incredible.
It will not dissappoint you.
If you have the funds and you purchase this lens you will not be sorry.

Visit my gallery or other DP users to view the images that this lens is capable of.

Cheers,
--
Al B
PBase Supporter
http://www.pbase.com/al_b/

Ed Nazarko · May 19, 2003

that you'll have to spend on it. i have the 28-70 afs, the 17-35afs, and the 80-200afs, and other than needing a massage after carrying all that weight around on my shoulder, i have no complaints at all. the 28-70 is one of the lenses of any kind that i think has a special "character" of its own. and these three lenses, together, make a combination so good that i have a hard time figuring out which lens was used just by looking at the image.

Shutzman said:
For the other two I got away with Sigmas (15-30mm, 70-200mm) ,
which are great replacements, howerver, my Nikkor 24-85mm G ($350)
is as far from the 28-70mm as $350 is from $1500.

I will buy the 28-70mm AF-S sooner rather than later. It could be
the 80% of the time lens for my D100.

f8&bether said:

JeiKei said:

My very well served Sigma 28-70/2.8 EX has started showing some
marks that its lifecycle has come to the very final end.

I have a huge problem on deciding should I go for the Nikon
28-70/2.8 AFS lens. As I state in my profile I do quite a lot work
at local ice arenas here in Finland so sometimes 2.8 is required to
get the job done.

I've been reading some reviews through nikonlinks.com and at least
one of those guys writing states that there is huge difference in
sharpness in 35 mm compared to eg Canon's equivalent. I also take
quite alot of portraits outside and inside - weddings etc so it's
very important to have a optically very good lens. With my
80-200/2.8 AFS I'm very keen on that fast and accurate focus.

I have the financial side covered but I'm still hanging on the edge.

If there is anyone who could give me some backup I'd really
appreciate your input.

Jyrki

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

--
Ed

Make pictures, don't take them - it leaves more for others.

http://www.onemountainphoto.com

Klaus Bergstedt · May 19, 2003

JeiKei said:
My very well served Sigma 28-70/2.8 EX has started showing some
marks that its lifecycle has come to the very final end.

I have a huge problem on deciding should I go for the Nikon
28-70/2.8 AFS lens. As I state in my profile I do quite a lot work
at local ice arenas here in Finland so sometimes 2.8 is required to
get the job done.

I've been reading some reviews through nikonlinks.com and at least
one of those guys writing states that there is huge difference in
sharpness in 35 mm compared to eg Canon's equivalent. I also take
quite alot of portraits outside and inside - weddings etc so it's
very important to have a optically very good lens. With my
80-200/2.8 AFS I'm very keen on that fast and accurate focus.

I have the financial side covered but I'm still hanging on the edge.

If there is anyone who could give me some backup I'd really
appreciate your input.

Jeikei said:
Jyrki

Hi JeiKei,

I am the happy owner of a Nikkor AF-S 28-70/2.8, however the lens has in my opinion caused a bit of ambivalence:

On the one hand the lens is mechanically solid built, has indeed the ability of focusing fast and almost silently (due to it's SWM), and feels furthermore great when mounted on my camera.

On the other hand I believe the lens "only" performs - say 90-95% - of the performance of the AF-S 17-35/2.8 - which is an excellent piece of optic. Being a bit critical, the performance of the lens lacks a bit of sharpness and what I would best describe as brilliance (or the ability to shine). The difference is IOW not huge, but slightly present.

I have no experience with the Canon you are mentioning, but have only heard that it performs almost equivalent. I wonder if Nikon in the near future might come up with a new mid-range zoom, like Canons 24-70/2.8, but perhaps smaller in terms of weight and size?

Finally, I have not regretted bying the 28-70/2.8 since it's an ideal performer in particular when doing portraits and for shooting in low light.

Best of luck in your decision !

-- Klaus Bergstedt --

Jeikei · May 19, 2003

Thanks for your input...

I think at this point when my hobby is turning more and more for business, it's time to invest for this heavy machinery.

I don't blame my Sigma 28-70/2.8 at all. It's optics are fairly good but finally the mechanical stuff failed... and it's been on my camera for few years now (F100/D100).

I love my 80-200/2.8 AF-S (hopefully have enough money to upgrade that to the 70-200)

OK - I'll start placing my order...

Jyrki

PS. Now I have just one problem: Should it be black or grey

Ed Nazarko said:
Shutzman said:

For the other two I got away with Sigmas (15-30mm, 70-200mm) ,
which are great replacements, howerver, my Nikkor 24-85mm G ($350)
is as far from the 28-70mm as $350 is from $1500.

I will buy the 28-70mm AF-S sooner rather than later. It could be
the 80% of the time lens for my D100.

f8&bether said:

JeiKei said:

My very well served Sigma 28-70/2.8 EX has started showing some
marks that its lifecycle has come to the very final end.

I have a huge problem on deciding should I go for the Nikon
28-70/2.8 AFS lens. As I state in my profile I do quite a lot work
at local ice arenas here in Finland so sometimes 2.8 is required to
get the job done.

I've been reading some reviews through nikonlinks.com and at least
one of those guys writing states that there is huge difference in
sharpness in 35 mm compared to eg Canon's equivalent. I also take
quite alot of portraits outside and inside - weddings etc so it's
very important to have a optically very good lens. With my
80-200/2.8 AFS I'm very keen on that fast and accurate focus.

I have the financial side covered but I'm still hanging on the edge.

If there is anyone who could give me some backup I'd really
appreciate your input.

Jyrki

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

--
Ed

Make pictures, don't take them - it leaves more for others.

http://www.onemountainphoto.com

Wingspar · May 19, 2003

I just looked at the price of this lens and fell out of my chair and uttered some words. A little too rich for my blood. That’s only $200 less than the camera!

This is a little off topic, but one of the lenses I currently own is the AF Nikkor 35-70 f3.3 lens. My D-100 will be here before too long, and I have learned, due to the digital format vs film format, that the 35mm part of the lens now becomes the equivalent to a 50mm film lens. I loose my wide angle capabilities... If one considers 35mm wide angle. I’d like something wider, say 28mm film format. What lens should I look at to be the equivalent of roughly 28-80 in the film format for my D-100. I’d definitely like something faster than f 3.3, but money is a factor.

I see a Nikon AF 24-85mm G f 3.5-4.5 for $358 at 17th St. photo. Would this lens make me happy? Sharpness is critically important, but so is my pocketbook. This is a hobby, not my livelihood, tho I may give it a shot in my retirement.

Why is f 3.5-4.5 written that way? What is it, f 3.5 or f 4.5? I see the same thing on my current lens, tho it’s written 1:3.3-4.5.
--
Gary
Will Fly for Food

Wingspar · May 19, 2003

JeiKei said:
Thanks for your input...

Jyrki

PS. Now I have just one problem: Should it be black or grey

Grey? They make grey lenses??? Ugh. First I've heard of it. That's my initial reaction. I said the same thing when computer cases started coming out in colors other than the standard tan/beige, but I now own a black case, and keyboard, and am used to it, and considering building a computer using an Indian Red case with a clear window to see inside.
--
Gary
Will Fly for Food

Neil van Niekerk · May 19, 2003

It's the single best photographic purchase I have ever made.

As for it not being as sharp as the 17-35/2.8 ... I'm not convinced. Without a direct comparison, but based on my impression after having shot and looked at thousands+ of images I photographed over the past 6 months at weddings, using the D100 and the 28-70/2.8 .. I think the 28-70 is a sharper lens over-all.

--
http://www.planetneil.com/nikon/d100.html

Nirto Karsten Fischer · May 19, 2003

Klaus Bergstedt said:
On the other hand I believe the lens "only" performs - say 90-95% -
of the performance of the AF-S 17-35/2.8 - which is an excellent
piece of optic. Being a bit critical, the performance of the lens
lacks a bit of sharpness and what I would best describe as
brilliance (or the ability to shine). The difference is IOW not
huge, but slightly present.

Hm ... I cannot confirm this. Both of these lenses are very sharp on my D1x and I also have primes to compare. It's not as sharp as the 60mm Micro of course. But both AF-S zooms you mentioned are for me on the same quality standard.
Have you made a comparison of both lenses in the same range?

The only complain I have that the 28-70 can flare even with the lens hood mounted.

Nirto Karsten Fischer

Klaus Bergstedt · May 19, 2003

Wingspar said:
I just looked at the price of this lens and fell out of my chair
and uttered some words. A little too rich for my blood. That’s
only $200 less than the camera!

... don't worry I have had the same kind of problems!

Wingspar said:
This is a little off topic, but one of the lenses I currently own
is the AF Nikkor 35-70 f3.3 lens. My D-100 will be here before too
long, and I have learned, due to the digital format vs film format,
that the 35mm part of the lens now becomes the equivalent to a 50mm
film lens. I loose my wide angle capabilities... If one considers
35mm wide angle. I’d like something wider, say 28mm film format.
What lens should I look at to be the equivalent of roughly 28-80 in
the film format for my D-100. I’d definitely like something faster
than f 3.3, but money is a factor.

... Nikkor 17-35/2.8 or the 18-35/3.3-4.5 (I believe).

Wingspar said:
I see a Nikon AF 24-85mm G f 3.5-4.5 for $358 at 17th St. photo.
Would this lens make me happy? Sharpness is critically important,
but so is my pocketbook. This is a hobby, not my livelihood, tho I
may give it a shot in my retirement.

... Would that lens make you happy ????

Wingspar said:
Why is f 3.5-4.5 written that way? What is it, f 3.5 or f 4.5? I
see the same thing on my current lens, tho it’s written 1:3.3-4.5.

... aperture at 3.5 at 24mm ranging to 4.5 at 85mm. A Nikkor 28-70/2.8 has a fixed aperture from 28-70mm.

Wingspar said:
Gary
Will Fly for Food

Gary - you better start flying for food!!

-- Klaus Bergstedt --

Group Idiot · May 19, 2003

The cost of regret is far more expensive than the initial cost of the lens, in the long run.

Brendan
--
If a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, I'm the world's most dangerous man!
Equipment list in profile -- where it BELONGS!

The Duke of Jax · May 19, 2003

Is it worth it?

Yes, every penny. To show you the difference in quality I added a picture that shows a 200% crop of a nightshot cityscape. The left picture is shot with a Tokina ATX-pro, the right with the 28-70/2.8. You decide

Hope this helps to ease your decision.

Regards,

JeiKei said:
My very well served Sigma 28-70/2.8 EX has started showing some
marks that its lifecycle has come to the very final end.

I have a huge problem on deciding should I go for the Nikon
28-70/2.8 AFS lens. As I state in my profile I do quite a lot work
at local ice arenas here in Finland so sometimes 2.8 is required to
get the job done.

I've been reading some reviews through nikonlinks.com and at least
one of those guys writing states that there is huge difference in
sharpness in 35 mm compared to eg Canon's equivalent. I also take
quite alot of portraits outside and inside - weddings etc so it's
very important to have a optically very good lens. With my
80-200/2.8 AFS I'm very keen on that fast and accurate focus.

I have the financial side covered but I'm still hanging on the edge.

If there is anyone who could give me some backup I'd really
appreciate your input.

Jyrki

--
The Duke of Jax
( http://bellsouthpwp.net/o/r/oranje )

Drew Loker · May 19, 2003

Sounds like you already made your decision, but just to make you feel better, I offer my comments...you made a quick decision so the lens will not cost you as much as it cost me...

I wasted almost 3 months of spare time in researching what to do. I just shot an engagement shoot yesterday and only 1 or 2 are not just strikingly sharp. And the two that need some custom sharpening are because I like to push the lens at 2.8 and the couples face was at a different focal plane. I would have spent a great deal of time just tweaking the sharpness on these. The time saved already is fantastic. I was certain that the D100 was sharp when I first got it. Then, I started to feel that it was sharp enough. Then I got the Nikon 28-70. There is no question about the camera ability to shoot sharp images.

I now realize that it was the change of lenses...I just detailed this on another thread: http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1014&message=5126851

Good luck.

Drew
http://www.pbase.com/lokerd

Wingspar · May 19, 2003

Klaus Bergstedt said:
Klaus Bergstedt said:

Why is f 3.5-4.5 written that way? What is it, f 3.5 or f 4.5? I
see the same thing on my current lens, tho it’s written 1:3.3-4.5.

Click to expand...

... aperture at 3.5 at 24mm ranging to 4.5 at 85mm. A Nikkor
28-70/2.8 has a fixed aperture from 28-70mm.

-- Klaus Bergstedt --

Let’s see, I used to know this stuff, but I haven’t used my film SLR for a long time since I moved to all digital a couple of years ago, and have just been using the point and shoot Coolpix’s. Should have my D-100 soon, and I want to make a smart purchase to regain a wide angle capability with the new camera.

Min aperture at 24mm is 3.5, but zoomed in at 85mm, min aperture is 4.5?

On the Nikkor 28-70/2.8 having a fixed aperture from 28-70mm, does that mean that the min aperture of 2.8 stays that way thru the entire focal range?

What is the smallest aperture on Nikkor lenses? That doesn’t seem to be mentioned.
--
Gary
Will Fly for Food

The Duke of Jax · May 19, 2003

Gary,

Yes, that is correct. It will hold a f/2.8 thru the whole zoom range.

The smallest aperture is written on the lens. Every lens can be different, there's no universal aperture for all lenses.

Wingspar said:
On the Nikkor 28-70/2.8 having a fixed aperture from 28-70mm,
does that mean that the min aperture of 2.8 stays that way thru the
entire focal range?

What is the smallest aperture on Nikkor lenses? That doesn’t seem
to be mentioned.
--
Gary
Will Fly for Food

--
The Duke of Jax
( http://bellsouthpwp.net/o/r/oranje )

MelT · May 19, 2003

Well I love it but the women in my life do hate it since it is so sharp. Every little blemish, blackhead, etc. on their faces come out crystal clear. I do have to soften when I do shoot tight headshots (grin)..... They had the very same complaint with my 35-70/2.8. This is another extremely sharp lens and it is really a toss up to determine if the 28-70 AfW is actually sharper or not....

Mel

Klaus Bergstedt · May 20, 2003

Hi Nirto,

Just a few comments on your follow up:

Nirto Karsten Fischer said:
Klaus Bergstedt said:

On the other hand I believe the lens "only" performs - say 90-95% -
of the performance of the AF-S 17-35/2.8 - which is an excellent
piece of optic. Being a bit critical, the performance of the lens
lacks a bit of sharpness and what I would best describe as
brilliance (or the ability to shine). The difference is IOW not
huge, but slightly present.

Click to expand...

Hm ... I cannot confirm this. Both of these lenses are very sharp
on my D1x and I also have primes to compare. It's not as sharp as
the 60mm Micro of course. But both AF-S zooms you mentioned are for
me on the same quality standard.

Nirto Karsten Fischer said:
Have you made a comparison of both lenses in the same range?

I have not made any scientific comparison, however I do have compared different pictures (done with my F5 - have not yet bought a digital camera) shot at identical ranges. Based on that general experience, yes I do find a minor difference (particular) in terms of brilliance.

Just to mention a few reviews which I believe supports the above mentioned "tiny difference" between the Nikkor AF-S 28-70/2.8 and it's equivalents i terms of optical quality:

Michael Weber's comments on the lens:

"When it comes to optical quality I was slightly disappointed by Nikon. Compared to a Canon EF 28-70/2.8 ... the AF-S is an underperformer".

Source: http://www.imagepower.de/IMAGES/imgEQUIPMENT/AFS2870.htm

Photodo has rated the following lenses:
Nikon AF-S 28-70/2.8 - 3.7
Canon EF 28-70/2.8 - 3.9

Nikon AF-S 80-200/2.8 - 4.1
Canon EF 70-200/2.8 - 4.1

(BTW, the Nikkor 50/1.4 is rated at 4.2 & Nikkor 60/2.8 likewise at 4.2)

Source: http://www.photodo.com/nav/prodindex.html

Photodo has not done any tests lately, and has not done any test on the Nikkor AF-S 17-35/2.8 nor the Nikkor AF-S 70-200/2.8. But comparing the Nikkor 28-70/2.8 to the three others (or five others) is nevertheless a bit disappointing. I know these data might raise the issue of test reliability - that tests possess a certain degree of measurement error?

Finally, has Ron Reznick at his homepage reviewed both the AF-S 17-35/2.8 and the AF-S 28-70/2.8 in the following terminology:

Ron Reznick describes the AF-S 28-70/2.8 as the "... class act if what you are looking for is single-lens flexibility in the medium-wide to short-tele range ...", but regarding the optical quality Ron states that "... the quality of the shot acquired is well under the quality you get from a prime ...".

A slightly different review regards the AF-S 17-35/2.8; as stated by Ron:

"... this lens is equal to or better than the primes it is intended to replace within this aperture range. I use the primes when shooting wide apertures (or the 45/P by itself when having a lightweight, general-purpose lens makes sense), but for travel and many other situations where flexibility of focal length is of critical importance, this lens is invaluable".

Source: http://www.digital-images.net/Lenses/lenses.html

Nirto Karsten Fischer said:
The only complain I have that the 28-70 can flare even with the
lens hood mounted.

I have not (yet) experienced any flare with my Nikkor 28-70/2.8, but I know that Ron - at his homepage - also notes that the lens tends to flare if shooting towards the sun.

Nirto Karsten Fischer said:
Nirto Karsten Fischer

I do find the AF-S 28-70/2.8 a superb zoom lens, but do at the same time recognize a minor or slightly difference compared to e.g. the AF-S 17-35 or my 50/1.4 not to forget the 60/2.8 micro. Different evaluations of the lenses is always a good reason for starting a dialogue - Bjørn Rørslett has for instance rated the Nikkor 28-70/2.8 very high (5 out of 5)?

I have not wished to offend any AF-S 28-70 lenses nor their owners, but only to comment that this is indeed a great lens - perhaps only 95% as great as some of the other lenses in terms of optical quality.

-- Klaus Bergstedt --

Lan Dao · May 20, 2003

Klaus Bergstedt said:
Just a few comments on your follow up:

Nirto Karsten Fischer said:

Klaus Bergstedt said:

On the other hand I believe the lens "only" performs - say 90-95% -
of the performance of the AF-S 17-35/2.8 - which is an excellent
piece of optic. Being a bit critical, the performance of the lens
lacks a bit of sharpness and what I would best describe as
brilliance (or the ability to shine). The difference is IOW not
huge, but slightly present.

Click to expand...

Hm ... I cannot confirm this. Both of these lenses are very sharp
on my D1x and I also have primes to compare. It's not as sharp as
the 60mm Micro of course. But both AF-S zooms you mentioned are for
me on the same quality standard.

Click to expand...

Klaus Bergstedt said:

Have you made a comparison of both lenses in the same range?

Click to expand...

I have not made any scientific comparison, however I do have
compared different pictures (done with my F5 - have not yet bought
a digital camera) shot at identical ranges. Based on that general
experience, yes I do find a minor difference (particular) in terms
of brilliance.

Just to mention a few reviews which I believe supports the above
mentioned "tiny difference" between the Nikkor AF-S 28-70/2.8 and
it's equivalents i terms of optical quality:

Michael Weber's comments on the lens:
"When it comes to optical quality I was slightly disappointed by
Nikon. Compared to a Canon EF 28-70/2.8 ... the AF-S is an
underperformer".

Source: http://www.imagepower.de/IMAGES/imgEQUIPMENT/AFS2870.htm

Photodo has rated the following lenses:
Nikon AF-S 28-70/2.8 - 3.7
Canon EF 28-70/2.8 - 3.9

Nikon AF-S 80-200/2.8 - 4.1
Canon EF 70-200/2.8 - 4.1

(BTW, the Nikkor 50/1.4 is rated at 4.2 & Nikkor 60/2.8 likewise at
4.2)

Source: http://www.photodo.com/nav/prodindex.html

Photodo has not done any tests lately, and has not done any test on
the Nikkor AF-S 17-35/2.8 nor the Nikkor AF-S 70-200/2.8. But
comparing the Nikkor 28-70/2.8 to the three others (or five others)
is nevertheless a bit disappointing. I know these data might raise
the issue of test reliability - that tests possess a certain degree
of measurement error?

Finally, has Ron Reznick at his homepage reviewed both the AF-S
17-35/2.8 and the AF-S 28-70/2.8 in the following terminology:

Ron Reznick describes the AF-S 28-70/2.8 as the "... class act if
what you are looking for is single-lens flexibility in the
medium-wide to short-tele range ...", but regarding the optical
quality Ron states that "... the quality of the shot acquired is
well under the quality you get from a prime ...".

A slightly different review regards the AF-S 17-35/2.8; as stated
by Ron:
"... this lens is equal to or better than the primes it is intended
to replace within this aperture range. I use the primes when
shooting wide apertures (or the 45/P by itself when having a
lightweight, general-purpose lens makes sense), but for travel and
many other situations where flexibility of focal length is of
critical importance, this lens is invaluable".

Source: http://www.digital-images.net/Lenses/lenses.html

Klaus Bergstedt said:

The only complain I have that the 28-70 can flare even with the
lens hood mounted.

Click to expand...

I have not (yet) experienced any flare with my Nikkor 28-70/2.8,
but I know that Ron - at his homepage - also notes that the lens
tends to flare if shooting towards the sun.

Klaus Bergstedt said:

Nirto Karsten Fischer

Click to expand...

I do find the AF-S 28-70/2.8 a superb zoom lens, but do at the same
time recognize a minor or slightly difference compared to e.g. the
AF-S 17-35 or my 50/1.4 not to forget the 60/2.8 micro. Different
evaluations of the lenses is always a good reason for starting a
dialogue - Bjørn Rørslett has for instance rated the Nikkor
28-70/2.8 very high (5 out of 5)?

I have not wished to offend any AF-S 28-70 lenses nor their owners,
but only to comment that this is indeed a great lens - perhaps only
95% as great as some of the other lenses in terms of optical
quality.

-- Klaus Bergstedt --

Hello Klaus,

I did research for Nikon len between the 35-70 f2.8 and 28-70 f2.8 and did see the 35-70 always got better rating. Please let me know if you get any information. Thanks. I know the 28-70 has wider and AFS motor but the price is almost 3 times the 35-70.
LD

Is Nikon 28-70/2.8 AFS worth the money?

Member

Forum Enthusiast

Senior Member

Leading Member

Ed Nazarko

Guest

Leading Member

Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Leading Member

Leading Member

Leading Member

Senior Member

Well-known member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Leading Member

Leading Member

Similar threads

Keyboard shortcuts