Reading mode: Light Dark

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

Go to last post
The Duke of Jax said:
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.

--
The Duke of Jax
( http://bellsouthpwp.net/o/r/oranje )
Click to expand...
Thanks. That's what I thought. Good reason the lens cost more. Is the glass the same between lenses, say the 28-70 f2.8 and the 35-70 f 3.3-4.5?
--
Gary
Will Fly for Food
 
The AFS28-70 is the best lens in that range I have ever used. I also own the AF 35-70/2.8 (since 1988) and it is still the standard lens on my F100.

The AFS28-70 and AF 35-70 are about equal in sharpness and contrast although once you use the AFS28-70 you will never go back to the AF 35-70 because AFS is so much faster.

My AFS 28-70 is sharper than my AFS 17-35 from 28-35mm (I don't think my AFS 17-35 is as good as some others on this forum seem to be) and has become my most-used lens. If you can get past the price, you will not be disappointed.

Rich H
 
Rich H said:
My AFS 28-70 is sharper than my AFS 17-35 from 28-35mm (I don't
think my AFS 17-35 is as good as some others on this forum seem to
be) and has become my most-used lens. If you can get past the
price, you will not be disappointed.
Click to expand...
Rich,

This is my feeling as well about the two lenses.

This seems to go against the general opinion here, but I also feel that my 28-70/2.8 is sharper.

Neil.

--
http://www.planetneil.com/nikon/d100.html
 
All the praises and no shortcomings?

Let me get started:

Size
Weight
Not so good Bokeh (comparing to some of the primes in the range, e.g. 45/2.8P)

It seems Nikon is learning how to build better zooms with silent wave motor. In my opinion the overall quality of the AF-S zooms are in following order which is same as the design/introduction date:

AF-S VR 70-200/2.8G > AF-S 17-35/2.8D > AF-S 28-70/2.8D
 
Jeff-C said:
All the praises and no shortcomings?
Click to expand...
Member said:
Size
Weight
Click to expand...
This is an issue. I am debating right now whether to even take my camera on a camping trip this weekend because of the size and wieght of the 28-70. I do have a Nikon 35-80 cheapo lens that is supposed to be for travel purposes, but really, now that I am used the stunning sharpness that the D100 can produce with out having to sharpen when using the 28-70, I don't want to shoot with anything else. That is the problem. That even if I could afford to have another lens, just for travel, I would still want the 28-70.

Such a delima! ;) I wish this was the worst of my problems.

Drew
http://www.pbase.com/lokerd
 
Jeff-C said:
All the praises and no shortcomings?

Let me get started:

Size
Weight
Not so good Bokeh (comparing to some of the primes in the range,
e.g. 45/2.8P)

It seems Nikon is learning how to build better zooms with silent
wave motor. In my opinion the overall quality of the AF-S zooms are
in following order which is same as the design/introduction date:

AF-S VR 70-200/2.8G > AF-S 17-35/2.8D > AF-S 28-70/2.8D
Click to expand...
Jeff-C, I think you have got a point there.

Size and weight are, in my opinion, also aspects of the present AF-S 28-70/2.8 that in its successor need to be reduced (as mentioned in my first posting above). Perhaps the bokeh could be better build? - yes it is always a good idea to insist on better quality from any producer.

I think I agree in your ranking of the overall quality of the AF-S zooms, but it's worth mentioning that they probably don't differ significantly in terms of quality.

-- Klaus Bergstedt --
 
it is big and heavy - and for some applications not so good. I usually put on the 24-120 zoom for street photography, or when shooting candids or events. when you point a lens the size of the 28-70 at somebody, you can almost see them flinch. I get great people shots with it when i know the people. when I don't, i get better shots with a lens that looks less daunting.
Klaus Bergstedt said:
Jeff-C said:
All the praises and no shortcomings?

Let me get started:

Size
Weight
Not so good Bokeh (comparing to some of the primes in the range,
e.g. 45/2.8P)

It seems Nikon is learning how to build better zooms with silent
wave motor. In my opinion the overall quality of the AF-S zooms are
in following order which is same as the design/introduction date:

AF-S VR 70-200/2.8G > AF-S 17-35/2.8D > AF-S 28-70/2.8D
Click to expand...
Jeff-C, I think you have got a point there.

Size and weight are, in my opinion, also aspects of the present
AF-S 28-70/2.8 that in its successor need to be reduced (as
mentioned in my first posting above). Perhaps the bokeh could be
better build? - yes it is always a good idea to insist on better
quality from any producer.

I think I agree in your ranking of the overall quality of the AF-S
zooms, but it's worth mentioning that they probably don't differ
significantly in terms of quality.

-- Klaus Bergstedt --
Click to expand...
--
Ed

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

http://www.onemountainphoto.com
 
That means if someone is on a budget, the 35-70mm f/2.8 could be a great replacement for the 28-70mm AFS, especially if they have the 17-35mm focal length covered.
MelT said:
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
Click to expand...
 
Wingspar said:
Thanks. That's what I thought. Good reason the lens cost more.
Is the glass the same between lenses, say the 28-70 f2.8 and the
35-70 f 3.3-4.5?
Click to expand...
No, they use different glass for different lenses. Most of the time, the 2.8 lenses are the best they make (at least for zoom). They use the best glass for these lenses, like ED (Extra low Dispersion) and aspherical (although these aspherical lenses are used in some cheaper lenses too). Also the optical design can be completely different. For instance, the 80-200/2.8 has a designed-in correction for chromatic aberation. A chromatic aberation is really difficult to achieve. Most of the time they need more lenses in the system then you normally would need for just zoom and focus. Therefore you will find those "good" lenses too be big and heavy.

It's probably not the best description of how it works, but I believe it is close enough to try to explain the system.
Wingspar said:
--
Gary
Will Fly for Food
Click to expand...
--
The Duke of Jax
( http://bellsouthpwp.net/o/r/oranje )
 
Klaus Bergstedt said:
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.
Click to expand...
(...)
Klaus Bergstedt said:
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.
Click to expand...
(...)
Klaus Bergstedt said:
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
Click to expand...
Hi Klaus,

thanks for your extensive reply. Because you haven't shot the mentioned lenses yourself with a DSLR can really mean the difference in perception.

I 'only' shoot with my two D1x and therefore can only speak for my experiences with these lenses on DSLRs. My girlfriend who also has the AF-S 28-70 uses it often on her F100 and the results I saw with it were absolut convincing. The reviewers you mentioned are really a mixed bag and for me Bjørn Rørslett is the one I give the most attention - not because he rated the lens high but because he has the right mix between technical knowledge, artistic view and pragmatic attitude.

BTW: I wouldn't feel offended even if you would say the AF-S 28-70 is not good at all because it's just a tool.

For me the overall performance of the AF-S 28-70 is what counts. I can find in my lens arsenal lenses that outperform the 28-70 in single areas but it's the balance of features that makes this lens so great and practical. Using it gives me a kind of confidence that I will get a high quality shot under many different conditions.

And here is an example of the flare problem I mentioned - I've posted this photo some months ago - sorry I haven't a better example. Please look for the greenish blotch left from the tower. This is typical if flare occurs. I got this with the lens hood attached!

Nirto Karsten Fischer

 
The Duke of Jax said:
The Duke of Jax said:
Thanks. That's what I thought. Good reason the lens cost more.
Is the glass the same between lenses, say the 28-70 f2.8 and the
35-70 f 3.3-4.5?
Click to expand...
No, they use different glass for different lenses. Most of the
time, the 2.8 lenses are the best they make (at least for zoom).
They use the best glass for these lenses, like ED (Extra low
Dispersion) and aspherical (although these aspherical lenses are
used in some cheaper lenses too). Also the optical design can be
completely different. For instance, the 80-200/2.8 has a
designed-in correction for chromatic aberation. A chromatic
aberation is really difficult to achieve. Most of the time they
need more lenses in the system then you normally would need for
just zoom and focus. Therefore you will find those "good" lenses
too be big and heavy.

It's probably not the best description of how it works, but I
believe it is close enough to try to explain the system.

--
The Duke of Jax
( http://bellsouthpwp.net/o/r/oranje )
Click to expand...
Thanks. Answers my question. 2.8 lenses are to expensive for me to consider, but would it be possible to find a used one? Would someone really want to sell one if there was nothing wrong with it?
--
Gary
Will Fly for Food
 
Jeff-C said:
It seems Nikon is learning how to build better zooms with silent
wave motor. In my opinion the overall quality of the AF-S zooms are
in following order which is same as the design/introduction date:

AF-S VR 70-200/2.8G > AF-S 17-35/2.8D > AF-S 28-70/2.8D
Click to expand...
I have see "G" and "D" mentioned in lenses, and the D-100 is supposed to take all AF "G" and "D" lenses, and mentions nothing else in the write ups I've seen on the D-100. I currently have two Nikkor lenses. 35-70mm f 3.3-4.5 and a 70-210mm f 4-5.6. I'm sure these lenses will work with the D-100 which I'll be ordering in the next few days.

Question is... What do the "G" and "D" stand for? Are they better than lenses that don't have a "G" and "D"?

Will I have a problem with my lenses and the D-100?
--
Gary
Will Fly for Food
 
just retuned from hiking trip in northern italy with a lowepro backpack, d1x, 17-35 afs, 28-70afs. both these lens were great. overall the 28-70 afs was more functional for me but the pack weighed so much i had to leave it in the van after the first hike. unless you are a hulk the weight of these items when hiking uphill like we did is stressful on your back.only rave reviews for the qualilty of my images. the d1x is no slouch either in qualilty or weight.

another on the trip had a d100 which was managable to tote-but i wouldn't trade the d1x for the d100 dispite the weight difference.
--
jay coffsky
sigma 14mm
nikon80-200 afs nikon 80-400 vr
nikon 17-35afs
nikon 28-70afs
nikon 105 2.8
nikon 50 1.4 mm
sigma 300 2.8
 
I rented the lens at a local camera shop for $20 the weekend and really enjoyed the lens. I don't own it (yet) because I opted first for the 70-200, but imagine I will someday. Of course, as others have remarked, it is a large and heavy lens, like the other pro lenses from Nikon.

Bill
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...
 
Don't know what either of the letters stand for, but the new G lenses no longer have a separate aperture ring and hence will only work with the newer style bodies that set the f stop via on camera dials.

Both will work with your D100 just fine.
Wingspar said:
Jeff-C said:
It seems Nikon is learning how to build better zooms with silent
wave motor. In my opinion the overall quality of the AF-S zooms are
in following order which is same as the design/introduction date:

AF-S VR 70-200/2.8G > AF-S 17-35/2.8D > AF-S 28-70/2.8D
Click to expand...
I have see "G" and "D" mentioned in lenses, and the D-100 is
supposed to take all AF "G" and "D" lenses, and mentions nothing
else in the write ups I've seen on the D-100. I currently have two
Nikkor lenses. 35-70mm f 3.3-4.5 and a 70-210mm f 4-5.6. I'm sure
these lenses will work with the D-100 which I'll be ordering in the
next few days.

Question is... What do the "G" and "D" stand for? Are they better
than lenses that don't have a "G" and "D"?

Will I have a problem with my lenses and the D-100?
--
Gary
Will Fly for Food
Click to expand...
 
Tried it once only ... fell in love with it but can't afford one .... :-(
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...
--
Yves P.

http://www.pbase.com/kafrifelle
and
http://www.pbase.com/yves_p
 
Stefan Bruckel said:
Don't know what either of the letters stand for, but the new G
lenses no longer have a separate aperture ring and hence will only
work with the newer style bodies that set the f stop via on camera
dials.

Both will work with your D100 just fine.
Click to expand...
My lenses are neither a G or D. No letters associated with the lenses other than AF. No f stop dial on a G lens? Weird. Are G lenses popular?
--
Gary
Will Fly for Food
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top