what do you think of this lens

Discussion in 'Photography Equipment & Products' started by fausto66, Feb 25, 2010.

  1. fausto66

    fausto66 TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2010
    Messages:
    45
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    clifton park, ny
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos OK to edit
  2. JimmyO

    JimmyO TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2008
    Messages:
    2,132
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    NJ
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos NOT OK to edit
    What do i think? I think its an expensive pro 28-70m 2.8 lens.....

    your not makin any sense...
     
  3. Overread

    Overread has a hat around here somewhere Staff Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    May 1, 2008
    Messages:
    23,095
    Likes Received:
    3,763
    Location:
    UK - England
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos OK to edit
    The OP is wondering why the second hand price on a pro end bit of glass is as low as it is in comparison to the new retail price and the fact that most pro grade glass only drops by a small amount when it hits the second hand market.

    It's a B&H sale so you are safe to deal with them - ie its not a con - as for the low price I have no idea. I don't keep a good eye on the nikon range, but the description and spec make no mention that its an older model. So if its name and features are the same as the current model I would say its just a good deal!
    If you want more info you could send a note to B&H asking for clarification
     
  4. JimmyO

    JimmyO TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2008
    Messages:
    2,132
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    NJ
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos NOT OK to edit
    Or you could do 2 minutes of research

    Nikon 28-70mm f/2.8 Review
     
  5. Derrel

    Derrel Mr. Rain Cloud

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2009
    Messages:
    35,456
    Likes Received:
    12,796
    Location:
    USA
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos OK to edit
    Are you sure that's what he's wondering about? I thought perhaps he felt the used price was too HIGH, in relation to the price on new, old stock lenses of this model at $1,700. It's not quite clear, but my gut feeling tells me the OP thinks $1,149 is too much money to pay for a used lens in this model.

    Five years ago, at walk-in retail, used 28-70/2.8 AF-S Nikkors were selling for $1,050 at a good low-cost professional dealership that I used to frequently buy from. Occasionally, a consignment example would come in, priced for quick sale at $900 to $950--five years ago. It is "an older model".
     
  6. fausto66

    fausto66 TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2010
    Messages:
    45
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    clifton park, ny
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos OK to edit
    i was wondering why it is so low in price compared to the newer model thats all really cause the other 1 is 1700 and is there any real differance in it between the 2
     
  7. JimmyO

    JimmyO TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2008
    Messages:
    2,132
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    NJ
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos NOT OK to edit
    .
     
  8. Derrel

    Derrel Mr. Rain Cloud

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2009
    Messages:
    35,456
    Likes Received:
    12,796
    Location:
    USA
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos OK to edit
    Well, if you buy a brand new, Nikon, USA 28-70mm f/2.8 AF-S from B&H Photo or another reputable dealer, the lens will come with a Five-year Nikon USA warranty.

    If you purchase a used model, you will have a very limited warranty. Be advised, the 28-70/2.8 Nikkor is a discontinued standard zoom, and has ben replaced by the somewhat better and more-versatile 24-70mm f/2.8.

    If you think $1,149 is "low" priced on a lens that possibly is five years old and sold new for $1,299 to $1,499, your appreciation of depreciation is somewhat incomplete, or clouded by the idea that the new price has been $1,700 for a long time: This lens was $1,400 back in 2002, so the rate of depreciation is extremely minimal.
     
  9. Sw1tchFX

    Sw1tchFX TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    May 3, 2006
    Messages:
    7,500
    Likes Received:
    478
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos NOT OK to edit
    I dont' really like the nikon 28-70. It's really fat, and IMO the crinkle coat is ugly. Also 28mm isn't really interesting. 24mm is borderline.

    I dunno, i'm prejudice. i can't really see myself owning a midrange zoom unless all i shot was weddings. They're just so...standard. If i'm going to have something in the standard just-barely-wide-angle to just-barely-telephoto area, i'd want it to have a faster aperture than f/2.8 for sure, even if it means carrying a few lenses. I'd rather have a 24 f/1.4, 35 f/2, 50 1.4, and 85 f/1.4 instead of a 24-70. the lenses would be sharper, faster, smaller, and less obtrusive and alienating to other people.

    IMO a better approach if you're into zooms would be a 16/17-35, 50 f/1.4, and 70-200. That way you spend potentially less money, have the same range, faster in the middle, and can go much wider.

    This is one of the few topics that i agree with Ren Kockwell on.

    If i'm going to have a midrange zoom, it would be on something small like a Micro 4/3rds camera where the purpose is little more than snapshots.
     
  10. PhotoXopher

    PhotoXopher TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    May 27, 2009
    Messages:
    3,475
    Likes Received:
    2
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos NOT OK to edit
    Kind of why I went with an 18-50 + 70-200 in f/2.8, 2 lenses cover essentially an 18-200 range give or take a step forward or backward.
     
  11. JimmyO

    JimmyO TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2008
    Messages:
    2,132
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    NJ
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos NOT OK to edit
    Completly agree with pretty much all of that. I cant justify dropping a grand on a just a basic "normal zoom" lens. Even a 35mm 1.8 is gonna be just as sharp, lighter, smaller, and faster, i dont mind taking 3 steps forward or backward to save a grand.

    And yes 28-70 and even 24-70 is straight up dumb for DX.
     
  12. Derrel

    Derrel Mr. Rain Cloud

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2009
    Messages:
    35,456
    Likes Received:
    12,796
    Location:
    USA
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos OK to edit
    The 28-70 is not a very handy lens on a 1.5x Nikon or Fuji d-slr. It was designed for 35mm film use, where it is a moderate wide-angle to a short telephoto lens with a modicum of depth of field/background control. THis lens almost demands a full-frame film or FX format Nikon for it to fill is role as a "standard zoom". Optically, it is better than the 28/2.8 AF-D, 35/2 AF-D, 35/1.8 AF-S or 50/1.8 AF-D and a few other older Nikon primes...this is a professional-grade lens and it is large to increase optical quality, but unless youj have an FX Nikon or shoot film, this lens does not "fit" a lot of peoples' shooting styles.

    On a 1.5x camera, the FOV being cropped off, and the 2.5x smaller sensor means that the lens is a pseudo-normal to medium telephoto, with less control over depth of field, and a really awkward range of working distances,especially indoors.

    Until you have actually put a 28-70 AF-S on a small Nikon body, you do not know what the terms nose-dive-lens or coffee can lens mean; this lens was designed to counterbalance on the heavy Nikon F5 with a boatload of AA batteries in the bottom of its massive handgrip....this lens weighs a lot more than most of today's con sumer Nikons...it is a large, fat, bulky,heavy lens. very sharp, and suitable for use as a defensive weapon on a camera with neckstrap.
     

Share This Page