Nikon 28-70 f.2.8

[tevo]

Considering buying this lens. Anybody shoot it? And also, is it just the older version of the 24-70 2.8 wide angle; is this lens indeed a wide angle lens? And if memory serves, the other lens in this trinity would be the 80-200 f2.8, what would
be the equivalent of the current 14-24?

 

[cgipson1]

I thought you wanted my 10-24? lol!

 

[tevo]

I thought you wanted my 10-24? lol!

I do, but work calls for a mid range wide angle, so i dont have to shoot basketball with a 70-200 ):


PM me what youre asking for the 10-24

 

[djacobox372]

It's a great lens; however, I've found that the tamron 28-75mm f2.8 is just as good, and a lot lighter and less expensive.

 

[tevo]

It's a great lens; however, I've found that the tamron 28-75mm f2.8 is just as good, and a lot lighter and less expensive.

Hows the AF? Any CA? I am reluctant to buy off brand... but thats because Ive never owned one

 

[Patrice]

The 28-70 f2.8 is the predecessor to the 24-70. Lots of web info on this lens and comparisons to the 24-70. It's a very very good lens, by some accounts it's better built than the 24-70. Pro grade tough lens. Big and heavy.

The 17-35 f2.8 is an older alternative to the 14-24. This is also an excellent pro grade tough lens. Big and heavy.

The older nikon trinity (a term I don't like) is the 17-35, 28-70 and 70-200 V1 or 80-200 (AFS or AFD). All well made tough pro grade lenses. Big and heavy.

Don't hesitate to purchase any of these.

By the way, a google search on any of these will get you an evening's worth of research and reading. These lenses have been used by many for quite some time in a great many scenarios and in various environments. There are lots of reviews, tech specs, peeper porno and image examples.

 

[djacobox372]

It's a great lens; however, I've found that the tamron 28-75mm f2.8 is just as good, and a lot lighter and less expensive.

Hows the AF? Any CA? I am reluctant to buy off brand... but thats because Ive never owned one

I have the AF version (no focus motor), so the AF isn't as quick as the AF-S nikon; however, I'd suspect that the motorized version would be competitive in that area.

IQ wise, I can't really tell a difference between it an the 28-70mm, which I once owned but sold for the $$. Neither one of them are as good as the newer 24-70mm nikon.

 

[Garbz]

I shoot with a Nikkor AF-S 28-70 f/2.8D. Wonderful lens. I have absolutely no urge in the slightest to upgrade to the 24-70 f/2.8. Doubly so because the AF-S 28-70 is a D designated lens and not a G designated one meaning is has an aperture ring and thus works on my ancient Nikon FE film camera too. Modern lenses have foregone the aperture ring.

I also have the Nikkor AF 80-200 f/2.8D. This would could do with an upgrade only because of the incredible torque action on the autofocus motor. It's surprisingly fast at moving those big elements for a lens which relies on the body's AF motor, and that comes with drawbacks. Otherwise, optically it's a great lens for shooting subjects further away, and it's only real weakness is at 200mm f/2.8 when focused within about 4-6m (close). At that point it is quite bad sharpness wise.

 

[tevo]

The 28-70 f2.8 is the predecessor to the 24-70. Lots of web info on this lens and comparisons to the 24-70. It's a very very good lens, by some accounts it's better built than the 24-70. Pro grade tough lens. Big and heavy.

The 17-35 f2.8 is an older alternative to the 14-24. This is also an excellent pro grade tough lens. Big and heavy.

The older nikon trinity (a term I don't like) is the 17-35, 28-70 and 70-200 V1 or 80-200 (AFS or AFD). All well made tough pro grade lenses. Big and heavy.

Don't hesitate to purchase any of these.

By the way, a google search on any of these will get you an evening's worth of research and reading. These lenses have been used by many for quite some time in a great many scenarios and in various environments. There are lots of reviews, tech specs, peeper porno and image examples.

They are indeed big and heavy.. and peeper porno? Curiosity.. >_>

It's a great lens; however, I've found that the tamron 28-75mm f2.8 is just as good, and a lot lighter and less expensive.

Hows the AF? Any CA? I am reluctant to buy off brand... but thats because Ive never owned one

I have the AF version (no focus motor), so the AF isn't as quick as the AF-S nikon; however, I'd suspect that the motorized version would be competitive in that area.

IQ wise, I can't really tell a difference between it an the 28-70mm, which I once owned but sold for the $$. Neither one of them are as good as the newer 24-70mm nikon.

I'll keep that in mind~

I shoot with a Nikkor AF-S 28-70 f/2.8D. Wonderful lens. I have absolutely no urge in the slightest to upgrade to the 24-70 f/2.8. Doubly so because the AF-S 28-70 is a D designated lens and not a G designated one meaning is has an aperture ring and thus works on my ancient Nikon FE film camera too. Modern lenses have foregone the aperture ring.

I also have the Nikkor AF 80-200 f/2.8D. This would could do with an upgrade only because of the incredible torque action on the autofocus motor. It's surprisingly fast at moving those big elements for a lens which relies on the body's AF motor, and that comes with drawbacks. Otherwise, optically it's a great lens for shooting subjects further away, and it's only real weakness is at 200mm f/2.8 when focused within about 4-6m (close). At that point it is quite bad sharpness wise.

Yeah, I shoot a Nikon FM, so I would like to keep the fous ring. Thanks for the insight. I also have the 80-200, which has (and continues to) serve me well.

 

[Patrice]

.. and peeper porno? Curiosity.. >_>

There is a very active photography subculture mostly interested in pixel peeping. Look at DPReview for an example of the genre. To these photographers the aesthetic qualities of the captured image is not nearly so important as the technical qualities. They will peer in the far corners of an image at ridiculous magnifications and then discuss and argue their findings in multi page threads. Any lens review is of little consequence unless it is accompanied by mtf charts and extreme corner enlargements. Internet pages full of this type of stuff is what I call 'peeper porno'. (Just for a laugh of course.)