Why Not a 28-85mm?

[Steady Rolling]

My understanding is that the development of a (quality) 3X zoom was a big breakthrough, and that at the time, the popular normal zoom was 35-70mm.

I have speculated that Nikon just stuck with the 70mm end of it once they could get to 3X well. But this doesn't make a lot of practical sense. I can see why folks want 24mm at one end, but 28-85mm would be more of a "normal" lens, and the 12-24mm lens could just as well be a 14-28mm. In fact, it might even be somewhat more useful, e.g., given size savings.

28mm is pretty much everything you'd want at the wide end, unless you need to get really wide, and 85mm is a more useful long end than 70mm.

 

[Schrodingers cat]

Personally, I'd sacrifice a bit on the wide end to get another 10 on the long end, but everybody has a different preference.

For instance, I'm perfectly fine with an f4 and a bit of weight/bulk savings.

--
Personal travel snapshots at https://www.castle-explorers.com
1. Making good decisions is generally the result of experience.
2. Experience is generally the result of making bad decisions.
3. Never underestimate your capability for doing incredibly stupid s**t.

 

[Terrible Photographer]

My understanding is that the development of a (quality) 3X zoom was a big breakthrough, and that at the time, the popular normal zoom was 35-70mm.

I have speculated that Nikon just stuck with the 70mm end of it once they could get to 3X well. But this doesn't make a lot of practical sense. I can see why folks want 24mm at one end, but 28-85mm would be more of a "normal" lens, and the 12-24mm lens could just as well be a 14-28mm. In fact, it might even be somewhat more useful, e.g., given size savings.

28mm is pretty much everything you'd want at the wide end, unless you need to get really wide, and 85mm is a more useful long end than 70mm.

From a professionals perspective:

It doesn't matter that much.

 

[Andre Yew]

You can always crop to get the longer end, but the wide end has to be done optically.

Personally, I'm finding a lot of situations where 24 is not wide enough, and 20 would be just right. Think about compositional styles where foreground and background are juxtaposed in very close quarters and you want to show more than head and shoulders for the close subject.

 

[LTheWafflePWN]

100% what Andre Yew said.

Assuming you've already moved as much as you're able to for the shot - If you aren't close enough, you can crop in (within reason). If you are too close, your only option is to stitch.

Stitching might work in a pinch for landscapes or architecture but it's generally not going to work very well, if at all, for portraits or family photos.

From the perspective of a wedding photographer, I have two cameras anyway. Personally I enjoy how versatile the 85mm f/1.2 is - it gives me a telephoto ("zoomed in") perspective with nice compression, lots of light capturing ability, as well as the ability for extreme subject isolation. You can sub the 85mm for another telephoto prime (135mm Plena), or you can use a 70-200mm (and "give up" the extra light compared to a prime). This all means that your other lens needs to wide, sharp, still perform good in low-light when needed - but more often you're probably wanting more depth of field because you're going to use these for group photos (i.e. stopping down to f/5.6, etc). To me, that's the 24-70mm f/2.8's usage - but when I use it I already know I'm predominately going to be in the 24-35mm territory.

If the zoom range goes in any direction, I'd much rather have a 20-60mm f/2.8 than a 28-85mm f/2.8.

 

[Steady Rolling]

If the zoom range goes in any direction, I'd much rather have a 20-60mm f/2.8 than a 28-85mm f/2.8.

That seems to be a common solution in the cinema world, although Zeiss does make a 28-80mm.

 

[Droster]

You can always crop to get the longer end, but the wide end has to be done optically.

Personally, I'm finding a lot of situations where 24 is not wide enough, and 20 would be just right. Think about compositional styles where foreground and background are juxtaposed in very close quarters and you want to show more than head and shoulders for the close subject.

Pretty much. If anything, Nikon should go wider, something like the Sony 20-70 f4.

From where I am standing to take a shot, I can punch in in post, but I can't go wider without having to change lenses.

 

[David Kieltyka]

I've never liked the 24–70mm focal length range. Not long enough at the long end. Even in pre-AF days I prefered a 28–85mm as my standard zoom lens. One of the two adapted AF lenses I own is a Canon EF 24–85/3.5–4.5. It's a decent though not great lens, but it has the extra reach I like.

Nowadays Sigma makes a very nice 28–105/2.8…I have one in L mount, and if Nikon made their own version (I doubt they'll ever let Sigma make higher-end Z lenses) I'd more seriously consider getting a Z8 or successor model.

-Dave-

 

[Chuck Yadmark]

everybody has different scenarios. they can only develop so many focal lengths. My favorite lens has turned out to be the 35-150 tamron. both the F 2.8-4 and Z 2-2.8

 

[PHXAZCRAIG]

Hmm. My first Nikon lens back in 1992 was a 28-85. It was mediocre. Decent range though.

I think the wide end is more important than the long end since one can simply crop in a bit.

 

[labalaba]

I agree that 85mm would be useful, as I don't personally find the 50-70mm range very useful. Actually, I'd much rather have a 21-50.

 

[starbase218]

28mm is pretty much everything you'd want at the wide end,

I don't agree.

unless you need to get really wide, and 85mm is a more useful long end than 70mm.

I do agree with that. It's part of why, when I switched to fullframe, I didn't get a 24-70 to replace my 17-55. The 17-55 goes to 85mm eq.

 

[duffotos]

Rejoice! It is my contention that the 28-85, once a common focal range in 35mm filmdom, still exists today, and resides in the thinly veiled guise of the Nikon 24-120, a lens included in your gear list. Let me explain. Early manufacturers of the of the 35-70 lens were well aware of the 2x limitation of its focal range. These included not only Nikon, but also Minolta and Kiron, the latter company reportedly started by a group of former Nikon employees. During those years, I was a Minolta aficionado who eagerly adopted the expanded 35-105 and 70-210 (beer can) MD bayonet mount lenses. I still own them and have recently acquired an MD to Z adapter not yet put to use. The 3x focal range lenses, although somewhat generous, left me wanting for a lower valued wide angle choice. For that I used a 28mm 2.8 prime. I have read that the Minolta 28-85 MD mount was a good lens back in the day, but never owned one personally.

It is noted in passing that when Introduced in 1985, the Minolta 28-85mm A mount was one of the group of autofocus lenses released with the advent of the revolutionary Maxxum 7000. According to Jeffrey @ earthsunfilm.com, one hears very little about the 28-85mm while the 35-70mm, 70-210mm (Beer can), and the 35-105mm are widely praised.

It was Kiron who first introduced a 28-105mm lens into the 35mm fold. They were also known for their excellent line of Vivitar Series 1 lenses. When Minolta adopted the A mount bayonet, they subsequently produced a 24-105 mm 5X tour de force before being acquired by Sony. A smattering of the Minolta A mount lenses were integrated into the Sony line. The 28-85 was not one of them. Hence neither the MD nor A mount versions survived. Similarly, Kiron shuttered their lens production facilities for financial reasons. With the demise of Minolta, a switch to Nikon FX, DX, and Z lenses included the early 18-70, 28-300, 16-85, 16-80, 24-85, 24-120 etc. predecessors to the modern day DX and FX variants.

The why not?, “Be careful what you wish for.” While there are some who bemoan the modern 18-140, 24-120, 24-200, and 28-400 choices; IMHO, you just might already own that which you seek. Whether you zoom it down to 24mm or up to 120mm is a matter of choice. The f4 aperture is comparable to those of yore, the optics, superior. Regards.

 

[PLShutterbug]

My understanding is that the development of a (quality) 3X zoom was a big breakthrough, and that at the time, the popular normal zoom was 35-70mm.

I have speculated that Nikon just stuck with the 70mm end of it once they could get to 3X well. But this doesn't make a lot of practical sense. I can see why folks want 24mm at one end, but 28-85mm would be more of a "normal" lens, and the 12-24mm lens could just as well be a 14-28mm. In fact, it might even be somewhat more useful, e.g., given size savings.

28mm is pretty much everything you'd want at the wide end, unless you need to get really wide, and 85mm is a more useful long end than 70mm.

I suggest changing this last sentence:

”28mm is pretty much everything I’d want at the wide end, unless I need to get really wide, and for what I shoot, 85mm is a more useful long end than 70mm.”

 

[GeoffRG]

My understanding is that the development of a (quality) 3X zoom was a big breakthrough, and that at the time, the popular normal zoom was 35-70mm.

I have speculated that Nikon just stuck with the 70mm end of it once they could get to 3X well. But this doesn't make a lot of practical sense. I can see why folks want 24mm at one end, but 28-85mm would be more of a "normal" lens, and the 12-24mm lens could just as well be a 14-28mm. In fact, it might even be somewhat more useful, e.g., given size savings.

28mm is pretty much everything you'd want at the wide end, unless you need to get really wide, and 85mm is a more useful long end than 70mm.

Sorry byt I use 24 on my 24-70 f/2.8 and my 24-120 f/4, 28 is rarely wide enough. Yes, there are times when 85 is more useful that 70 but on those occasions 120 is even more useful. Given the choice of 24-85 or 24-120 I'd go for the latter, I went for the latter. My lenses are F mount but the utility of 24-85 or 24-120 isn't altered by the mount, even if other things are. Unless you expect a 28-85 f/2.8 there's little advantage in the shorter zoom range,

Yes, I probably have a, to you, distorted view of weight and bulk, I'll happily carry two D5 bodies with 24-70 and 70-200 + TC17 for hours. To me any weight saving from the 28-85 over 24-120 isn't as significant as that of only carrying one camera (most of the time) when using the 24-120.

 

[starbase218]

You can always crop to get the longer end, but the wide end has to be done optically.

Nailed it. Though of course a 28-85mm would allow you to crop further. But yeah, for a standard zoom lens, I'd prefer being able to go to 24mm because the only way to shoot wider is to stitch in post, which I do not like very much.

 

[Fullframer]

My understanding is that the development of a (quality) 3X zoom was a big breakthrough, and that at the time, the popular normal zoom was 35-70mm.

I have speculated that Nikon just stuck with the 70mm end of it once they could get to 3X well. But this doesn't make a lot of practical sense. I can see why folks want 24mm at one end, but 28-85mm would be more of a "normal" lens, and the 12-24mm lens could just as well be a 14-28mm. In fact, it might even be somewhat more useful, e.g., given size savings.

28mm is pretty much everything you'd want at the wide end, unless you need to get really wide, and 85mm is a more useful long end than 70mm.

'I'd rather have the wider end. I can always crop in more easily to get to 85mm... you can't crop back out to go from 28 to 24mm.

 

[sirhawkeye64]

My understanding is that the development of a (quality) 3X zoom was a big breakthrough, and that at the time, the popular normal zoom was 35-70mm.

I have speculated that Nikon just stuck with the 70mm end of it once they could get to 3X well. But this doesn't make a lot of practical sense. I can see why folks want 24mm at one end, but 28-85mm would be more of a "normal" lens, and the 12-24mm lens could just as well be a 14-28mm. In fact, it might even be somewhat more useful, e.g., given size savings.

28mm is pretty much everything you'd want at the wide end, unless you need to get really wide, and 85mm is a more useful long end than 70mm.

Probably because the Z and Tamron 28-75 already fill that bill, of course 10mm shorter on the long end and are available today. Now something perhaps something like a 20-60mm or even a variable aperture 20-85mm might be interesting (say an f3.5-5.6 lens) and might be quite useful for many who want to go from "wide" to telephoto (portrait telephoto at least). I mean Panasonic does make a 20-60mm so I don't see why Nikon couldn't do something like that.

--
* PLEASE NOTE: I generally unsubscribe from forums/comments after a period of time has passed, so if I do not respond, that is likely the reason. *

 

[Mackiesback]

My understanding is that the development of a (quality) 3X zoom was a big breakthrough, and that at the time, the popular normal zoom was 35-70mm.

I have speculated that Nikon just stuck with the 70mm end of it once they could get to 3X well. But this doesn't make a lot of practical sense. I can see why folks want 24mm at one end, but 28-85mm would be more of a "normal" lens, and the 12-24mm lens could just as well be a 14-28mm. In fact, it might even be somewhat more useful, e.g., given size savings.

28mm is pretty much everything you'd want at the wide end, unless you need to get really wide, and 85mm is a more useful long end than 70mm.

Probably because the Z and Tamron 28-75 already fill that bill, of course 10mm shorter on the long end and are available today. Now something perhaps something like a 20-60mm or even a variable aperture 20-85mm might be interesting (say an f3.5-5.6 lens) and might be quite useful for many who want to go from "wide" to telephoto (portrait telephoto at least). I mean Panasonic does make a 20-60mm so I don't see why Nikon couldn't do something like that.

I am actually much more interested in a FF 17-55 solution than anything longer that that. Everyone has their own needs.

 

[zephxiiii]

You can always crop to get the longer end, but the wide end has to be done optically.

Personally, I'm finding a lot of situations where 24 is not wide enough, and 20 would be just right. Think about compositional styles where foreground and background are juxtaposed in very close quarters and you want to show more than head and shoulders for the close subject.

That's what the 14-30 or 14-24 is for. I'd rather rock that lens on one body and a 28-105/2.8 on another, or 28-85/2.0.

I hate cropping, I want to optically fill the frame. I've always hated 70mm as a limit on the long end, same as 50mm on DX.