Nikkor 28-70mm f/2.8D ED-IF Autofocus Lens

Mitchell

Does anyone own this lens? I've seen some beautiful pictures taken with this lens and am considering purchasing one to use instead of the kit lens on my D70. Any thoughts on a comparison between the two. My biggest concern is the weight (over 2lbs)! I'm also wondering if I will really notice an appreciable improvement in image quality over my already fine kit lens.

mitch

david_h

Mitchell wrote:

Does anyone own this lens? I've seen some beautiful pictures taken with this lens and am considering purchasing one to use instead of the kit lens on my D70. Any thoughts on a comparison between the two. My biggest concern is the weight (over 2lbs)! I'm also wondering if I will really notice an appreciable improvement in image quality over my already fine kit lens.

mitch

I recently bought this lens and I'm very pleased with it so far. I got it for weddings and events and will be using it for real this coming weekend.

I must say, this lens is heavy. I was at a wedding preparation this weekend and had the chance to compare the weight of my setup with the 20D used by the official photographer. With a Canon 28-70 his was way lighter, although I don't think the lens he was using was a Canon L, which I believe is also rather weighty.

On my D2H, the weight of the lens feels nicely balanced and helps keep the camera steady when handheld. I have not tried it on my D70 yet, so I can't comment on how it feels.

Having f2.8 is obviously great, but with the wide end being 28mm, you can't totally replace the kit lens. In my case, I have a Tokina 12-24 so I'm pretty well covered for wide angle.

This was a tough decision for me. I seriously considered getting the Tamron 28-75 and the Sigma 70-200 HSM which would have been quite a bit less expensive. I went with the 28-70 because it seems to be to be perfect for portraits and is in the range I use most at events. When (if) my budget allows, I will get either the Sigma 70-200 or Nikon 80-200 and I'll be in really good shape.

This is a great lens, but costs an arm and leg. If you can easily afford it, go for it. Otherwise, you might want to see if other lens combinations might acheive what you need at lower cost. Also, depending on which part of your kit lens' range you use most, the 17-55mm f2.8 might work for you as well.

Harryb

Hey David,

I've been considering the Tokina 12-24 lens (until Sigma's 10-20 comes out ). Whats your take on the Tokina lens?

Harry

Mitchell

David, thank you for your reply. This is a tough decision for me because it would mean purchasing a lens with focal length I already own. My only interest is the improvement in image quality. I'm just wondering if it is actually worth the weight and expense. I will be eagerly awaiting examples from your shoot this weekend.


And Harry, you are hijacking my post!!

mitch

david_h

Harryb wrote:

Hey David,

I've been considering the Tokina 12-24 lens (until Sigma's 10-20 comes out ). Whats your take on the Tokina lens?

Harry

Hi Harry,
I have mixed feelings about this lens.
At the tele end (if 24mm can be considered tele) it's great - really sharp. At the wide end, I've used it for pictures of mill buildings and somewhat disapointed with the amount of distortion. But then, it is 12mm afterall
The real test is going to be in a couple of weeks when I'm going to Moab, UT to take pictures in Arches NP.

The quality of the lens is first class. I compared it with the 12-24 Nikon and I would have guessed the Tokina to be the more expensive if they were unlabeled. At about half the price of the Nikkor, it's an excellent deal.

david_h

Mitchell wrote:

My only interest is the improvement in image quality.

mitch

I would not claim that the 24-70 will give you an instant improvement in image quality. Let's face it, the kit lens can produce fantastic results if used properly. Some of the best pictures I've taken have been with my $180 Sigma 70-300. Come to think of it, some of my favorites came from my little Canon S1 IS point and shoot.

What I believe the better quality lenses offer is the chance to produce high quality photgraphs consistantly in more difficult conditions. This is why I made the investment.

Larger apature to make the best of low light, faster focusing to get that elusive shot, better bluring of backgrounds to keep the focus (pun intended) on your subject, not what's behind. These certainly help, but won't compensate for poor technique and composition - I wish they would

The world's most expensive equipment would not make my portraits suddenly be better than those Yuri posts nearly every day that he takes on his Sony digicam.

The lens is a work of art though, I feel good just looking through it, like being a kid with a new toy. We'll see over the rest of the summer what I can do with it.

Deacon

28-70
Yes, this is a great lens (or at least I think so) It is the lens I keep on the camera because of its amazing flexibility. The zoom range with 1.5 conversion gives a reasonably good normal to short tele. Usually I can get enough distance for the short end of the lens. I also like to shoot tight so the lens fits my style.

I also have the 12-24 for architectural work if you need wide angle this is over 90 deg. But also $$$

The two lenses I take when weight and space is important are the 28-70 and the 70-200. It pretty much covers what I need traveling. If space and weight allow I will throw in a 2x tele to get up to 600mm lens.

I agree with David totally, you have to start out with the basics, good technique, composition exposure etc. The lens allows for flexibility and quality and a larger range of possibilities...











A few examples of different distances/exposures.

Deacon