Why Not a 28-85mm?

[jimdelves]

I’d much rather a 20-60. That would be much more useful to me.
I’d even love a 20-40. A 20-40 f2 would be fantastic

 

[cyuill2007]

That focal length range became quite popular in the 1980s. But time moves on. The Z 24-70mm lenses are a bit wider on the wide end and a bit shorter on the long end. The Z 24-120mm lens includes the 28-85mm range plus more on the wide and long end. A 28-85mm lens seems a bit redundant to me.

 

[GeoffRG]

That focal length range became quite popular in the 1980s. But time moves on. The Z 24-70mm lenses are a bit wider on the wide end and a bit shorter on the long end. The Z 24-120mm lens includes the 28-85mm range plus more on the wide and long end. A 28-85mm lens seems a bit redundant to me.

Unless it's faster than the 24-120, say f/2.8 or f/2

 

[GeoffRG]

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.

I' don't disagree but 28 isn't wide enough when my normal kit is 24-70 and 70-200 with TC17. I don't want to change lenses and I don't want three bodies. Thus, if I want wider than 24 it has to be 14-24 and 24-70 or 24-120. It seems 28-anything lenses arent much in favour ar the moment.

 

[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.

I' don't disagree but 28 isn't wide enough when my normal kit is 24-70 and 70-200 with TC17. I don't want to change lenses and I don't want three bodies. Thus, if I want wider than 24 it has to be 14-24 and 24-70 or 24-120. It seems 28-anything lenses arent much in favour ar the moment.

I know the pain. Whenever I want to go wide 24mm doesn't cut it anyways so I have to use old Sigma 10-20EX on Zfc (or I'll throw it on FF). I don't like 24mm anyways and I don't like being limited to 70 on the long end. 24-70 is just zzz and my least fav focal lengths on both ends. I'd be happier with a 28-85.

I was thinking for a great combo, 28/1.8 (my fav) and 35-150/2-2.8. Or 14-30 and 28-105/2.8.

I'd really like to have that Sigma 28-105/2.8 though. I like the Tamron 35-150/2-2.8 too but I'd pretty much have to have a 14-30 on body 2 to cover the wide end.

 

[GeoffRG]

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.

I' don't disagree but 28 isn't wide enough when my normal kit is 24-70 and 70-200 with TC17. I don't want to change lenses and I don't want three bodies. Thus, if I want wider than 24 it has to be 14-24 and 24-70 or 24-120. It seems 28-anything lenses arent much in favour ar the moment.

I know the pain. Whenever I want to go wide 24mm doesn't cut it anyways so I have to use old Sigma 10-20EX on Zfc (or I'll throw it on FF). I don't like 24mm anyways and I don't like being limited to 70 on the long end. 24-70 is just zzz and my least fav focal lengths on both ends. I'd be happier with a 28-85.

I was thinking for a great combo, 28/1.8 (my fav) and 35-150/2-2.8. Or 14-30 and 28-105/2.8.

I'd really like to have that Sigma 28-105/2.8 though. I like the Tamron 35-150/2-2.8 too but I'd pretty much have to have a 14-30 on body 2 to cover the wide end.

Sorry, but to me 28 is a nothing focal length, wide but not wide enough. I find 24 is normally plenty wide enough, hence having three lenses that cover that focal length. I agree the 24-70 isn't always long enough but it focuses much faster than my 24-120 and gets most use. I wouldn't buy a 28-something lens just because 28 isn't wide enough to avoid carrying another lens.

 

[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.

I' don't disagree but 28 isn't wide enough when my normal kit is 24-70 and 70-200 with TC17. I don't want to change lenses and I don't want three bodies. Thus, if I want wider than 24 it has to be 14-24 and 24-70 or 24-120. It seems 28-anything lenses arent much in favour ar the moment.

I know the pain. Whenever I want to go wide 24mm doesn't cut it anyways so I have to use old Sigma 10-20EX on Zfc (or I'll throw it on FF). I don't like 24mm anyways and I don't like being limited to 70 on the long end. 24-70 is just zzz and my least fav focal lengths on both ends. I'd be happier with a 28-85.

I was thinking for a great combo, 28/1.8 (my fav) and 35-150/2-2.8. Or 14-30 and 28-105/2.8.

I'd really like to have that Sigma 28-105/2.8 though. I like the Tamron 35-150/2-2.8 too but I'd pretty much have to have a 14-30 on body 2 to cover the wide end.

Sorry, but to me 28 is a nothing focal length, wide but not wide enough. I find 24 is normally plenty wide enough, hence having three lenses that cover that focal length. I agree the 24-70 isn't always long enough but it focuses much faster than my 24-120 and gets most use. I wouldn't buy a 28-something lens just because 28 isn't wide enough to avoid carrying another lens.

I found 24 too bland and boring, too many things in the frame and why I always want wider, 28 puts a lil more emphasis onto something, especially scenes with people.

 

[michaeladawson]

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.

That's your opinion. My most used lens is the 24-120. I can't get along without that 24mm focal length at the wide end. Particularly when I travel. 85mm vs. 70mm doesn't help me much. Having 120mm on the long end is much more useful.

The downside is that I pay for that range with size and weight.

I do agree with you that a 28-85mm lens would be a useful addition. Maybe even a 28-105. But I think it would need to be a slower alternative, just like the old 28-85 was. Maybe a f/2.8-f/4 (or f/4.5) lens. This would keep it smaller and cheaper.

 

[GeoffRG]

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.

I' don't disagree but 28 isn't wide enough when my normal kit is 24-70 and 70-200 with TC17. I don't want to change lenses and I don't want three bodies. Thus, if I want wider than 24 it has to be 14-24 and 24-70 or 24-120. It seems 28-anything lenses arent much in favour ar the moment.

I know the pain. Whenever I want to go wide 24mm doesn't cut it anyways so I have to use old Sigma 10-20EX on Zfc (or I'll throw it on FF). I don't like 24mm anyways and I don't like being limited to 70 on the long end. 24-70 is just zzz and my least fav focal lengths on both ends. I'd be happier with a 28-85.

I was thinking for a great combo, 28/1.8 (my fav) and 35-150/2-2.8. Or 14-30 and 28-105/2.8.

I'd really like to have that Sigma 28-105/2.8 though. I like the Tamron 35-150/2-2.8 too but I'd pretty much have to have a 14-30 on body 2 to cover the wide end.

Sorry, but to me 28 is a nothing focal length, wide but not wide enough. I find 24 is normally plenty wide enough, hence having three lenses that cover that focal length. I agree the 24-70 isn't always long enough but it focuses much faster than my 24-120 and gets most use. I wouldn't buy a 28-something lens just because 28 isn't wide enough to avoid carrying another lens.

I found 24 too bland and boring, too many things in the frame and why I always want wider, 28 puts a lil more emphasis onto something, especially scenes with people.

I think it entirely depends on your subject. Using a 24-70 or 24-120 zoom one has the option of 28 if necessary. We're talking zoom lenses here, nothing says you have to use the extremes but I still want 24 over 28 as the wide limit. I suspect others do too, which might explain the shortage of "28-something" zooms in the current lens range.