I feel your pain Yves. I left Montreal 5 years ago and haven't missed the CDN $ once!
Cheers,
Rich
Cheers,
Rich
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Is Nikon 28-70/2.8 AFS worth the money?
- Thread starter Jeikei
- Start date
Drew Loker
Veteran Member
Like anything in life, you get what you pay for. But in photography, it seems to be even more true. I mean, quality is important, or we would all be shopping at Dollar General. Not all clothing is the same, but I can EASILY get by with cheaper clothing. Food, shelter, car. But a lens, now that is a different story. "The camera is nothing but a dad box" to quote a film I showed my students. I can't imagine somebody buying a D100 just to shoot snapshots, so you must shoot something important.
A 2.8 lens is more important than you can imagine. 3 times I have tried to save money by foregoing 2.8 and better glass...and each time I have learned my lesson the hard way, in wasting time on the the purchase and subsequent sale of the cheaper glass, etc. And with the D100 (or Nikon DSLR rather) that you ahve got to put the sharpest thing possible infront fo the CCD. Very few images have needed any sharpening since upgrading to the 28-70. When I have, it is because of user error in trying to push for 2.8 too often.
It is certainly not for everyone. If I wasn't shooting for hire with time at a premium in post-processing and the need for the best image possible to start with, I wouldn't have spent the money. But even if I hadn't invested in the top of the line lens, I was getting back to 2.8!!! http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1021&message=4868084
Good luck!
--
Drew
http://www.pbase.com/lokerd
Drew Loker
Veteran Member
Oops. Forgot to mention what was in my subject line. After tracking about a DOZEN auctions, concerned about trusting a lens purchase with the possible subjective opinions of what excellent is, I turned to Shutterbug and found several. One was a really good price at $1100, a store demo, with warranty and rebate and a return policy. Definately 2 big thumbs up for buying form a merchant in shutterbug.
Good luck!
Drew
Good luck!
Drew
J
jeff-c
Guest
You can find detailed explainations of G and D in http://www.nikonlinks.com .
G lenses have no aperature ring and aperature is controlled from the body. It was for consumer grade lenses initially until the latest AF-S 70-200/2.8G which is one of the best Nikkors and it doesn't have aperature ring either.
D means the lens has a chip that reports the focused distance back to the body. It's mainly used with the 3D Matrix Flash application.
D100 is compatible with all AF lenses and manual lenses with P type. Other older manual focus lenses can't be used with D100 for automatic exposure.
G lenses have no aperature ring and aperature is controlled from the body. It was for consumer grade lenses initially until the latest AF-S 70-200/2.8G which is one of the best Nikkors and it doesn't have aperature ring either.
D means the lens has a chip that reports the focused distance back to the body. It's mainly used with the 3D Matrix Flash application.
D100 is compatible with all AF lenses and manual lenses with P type. Other older manual focus lenses can't be used with D100 for automatic exposure.
Jono Slack
Veteran Member
Hi Yves
Personally I'm not that tempted - I'm sure the results are wonderful, but I really don't think I could manage carrying that around with me all the time. The 17-35 is much smaller, but changing from the 18-35 has had a big hit on my poor back!
kind regards
jono
Jono Slack
http://www.slack.co.uk
Personally I'm not that tempted - I'm sure the results are wonderful, but I really don't think I could manage carrying that around with me all the time. The 17-35 is much smaller, but changing from the 18-35 has had a big hit on my poor back!
kind regards
jono
--
Jono Slack
http://www.slack.co.uk
Klaus Bergstedt
Leading Member
Hi again Nirto,
The reviewers you mentioned are really
BTW, Nirto, thanks for an interesting exchange of views.
-- Klaus Bergstedt --
... Perhaps, but the Nikon F5 film camera does a pretty good job as well. I do, however, look forward to bying a (FF) digital camera.
The reviewers you mentioned are really
... I think it is very important to distinguish between a mere optical analysis of the lens on the one hand, and on the other hand the way the lens allows one to employ it. My comments regard only the former.
... Nice to know, because on this forum one sometimes get the impression that this piece of tool is not just a lens, but more a kind of mirror-on-the-wall with the purpose to reflect a desired self image ...
... This is what I would consider going beyond the mere technical analysis, and what best could be defined as flexibility. I my opinion, that is perhaps the most important quality or feature of the three AF-S zooms - the fact that you achieve the ability to capture impressions with a high quality lens in a very flexible manner.
... Thanks for showing the "flare photo". As mentioned, I haven't seen one before. Isn't the flare problem primary a consequense of the 15 glass elements within the AF-S 28-70/2.8 (not to forget the AF-S 70-200/2.8 and its 21 glass elements)?
BTW, Nirto, thanks for an interesting exchange of views.
-- Klaus Bergstedt --
gaétan rollin
Well-known member
Hi Yves
What do you think of your 15-30 sigma lens, I am looking to by one or 18-35 of nikon. Fill free to send me some comment (sharpess) in french if you want.
Gaétan Rollin
What do you think of your 15-30 sigma lens, I am looking to by one or 18-35 of nikon. Fill free to send me some comment (sharpess) in french if you want.
Gaétan Rollin
Peter69322
Veteran Member
I find the opposite is true, and that my 28-70 outperforms the 17-35 a little bit. It has a character, contrast, that sets it apart. I think samples can vary a bit and this may be a factor, and I do think the 17-35 is superb, but my 28-70 is "superb + " best...Peter
--
http://www.innerimager.com
The Sigma 15-30 is simply a GEM. Fantastic sharpness from F 8 to F 18.
I got this one in exchange from the Nikon 18-35 which I did not like very much. The Sigma is a little tricky for filter use but I can easily use a ND grad and Polarizer with it.
THe lens also meters a little differently as it is a bit faster than announced. I pretty much always compensate it by -0.7 EV.
Go see my galleries for some examples of it.
Yves P.
PBASE Supporter
Some pictures I like:
http://www.pbase.com/yp8/root
I got this one in exchange from the Nikon 18-35 which I did not like very much. The Sigma is a little tricky for filter use but I can easily use a ND grad and Polarizer with it.
THe lens also meters a little differently as it is a bit faster than announced. I pretty much always compensate it by -0.7 EV.
Go see my galleries for some examples of it.
--
Yves P.
PBASE Supporter
Some pictures I like:
http://www.pbase.com/yp8/root
Carl Feather
Veteran Member
No, it's a huge waste of money. Mine has been in the shop since Dec. 9 and still no idea when Nikon is going to figure out what's wrong with it. It produces very soft images at certain distances; looks like were taken with soft-focus filter. Lens is USA warranty lens, shouldn't be a reject, but it was.
I'd go for the 35-70 and a fixed 24 for less than half the price. Greater range, same build.
Only good thing I can say about the 28-70 is its bokeh. But if you want bokeh, buy the 85 f/1.4.
--
Carl Feather
Photographer/Writer
S2, Nikkor lenses only
I'd go for the 35-70 and a fixed 24 for less than half the price. Greater range, same build.
Only good thing I can say about the 28-70 is its bokeh. But if you want bokeh, buy the 85 f/1.4.
--
Carl Feather
Photographer/Writer
S2, Nikkor lenses only
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum