20/2.8D - 28-70/2.8 comparison

Discussion in 'Lens Lust' started by Uncle Frank, Jun 12, 2005.

  1. I brought the 20/2.8 with me to Morro Bay last weekend, but the 28-70/2.8 lived on my camera all of the time, except
    when I went out shooting herons. Then I switched to the 80-200/2.8.

    44640104.

    But I did used the 20/2.8 once, and have a similar shot from the wide end of the 28-70/2.8.

    f/9.0 at 28.0mm
    44519075.

    f/9.0 at 20.0mm
    44633701.

    I'm not trying to draw any conclusions about sharpness from pictures like these, but at a quick glance, the results seem comparable...
    and pleasing. I'd give the edge to the 28-70, though. It seems to impart a 3D effect to architectural shots. Here's another example.

    f/9.0 at 28.0mm
    44691940.

    Considering that most zooms falter at their wide end, I think Nikon did a particularly fine job with The Beast!
    It would be interesting to see how it compares with the Nikon 28/2.8.
     
  2. Enough, Uncle Frank. I know I have to get the beast.
     
  3. MontyDog

    MontyDog

    Jan 30, 2005
    #1064 - You have an error in your SQL syntax;
     
  4. patrickh

    patrickh

    666
    May 4, 2005
    Thousand Oaks
    Uncle Frank, You are not doing anything to quell or cure the dreaded LLD (which you invented BTW). Those shots are too tempting for words. Show us some bloopers so we can say - haha the lens aint so perfect. You will get to love the 20 for it's size as well as its quality. Really insignificant when on the camera and can do a lot with foot zooming because of that very effective CRC.
     
  5. I've got plenty of them, Patrick, but they'll never see the light of day ;).

    I'm going to work on it, but the way the 28-70 performs at the wide end, I'm afraid the 20/2.8 won't get much time on the camera.
    I'm not exactly sure what it is... maybe micro-contrast... but The Beast's pictures have a quality that's very special...
     
  6. patrickh

    patrickh

    666
    May 4, 2005
    Thousand Oaks
    UF - you can stop now.

    Between the Beast and the 80-200 you have two of the most desirable lenses in the Nikon line-up and you have shown you know exactly what to do with them. If need be, you could actually ignore all other lenses and do just fine. Even the macro could be replaced by tubes or a diopter glass! On the other hand, a lot of the fun, as you know, is in experimenting with different "stuff" and not just LLD. One of the fun exercises often recommended by contributors in other forums is to put a prime (of any length) on the camera and spend a day with it. I have tried this with "new" lenses as I have acquired them and it seems to work - one quickly finds those lengths that really dont suit one's style, and yet occasionally one is surprised by finding a new likeable length, as I did recently with 35 on the DSLR. Keep the LLD running, because you always show us new ways to look at an old friend - rather like your close-up of the roses with the 20 - it never occurred to me to get that close with that lens.
     
  7. :oops: :roll: :oops:

    Thanks, Patrick 8). I'm just a Pilgrim, and sometimes wonder if I should share my enthusiastic but very unscientific lens reviews/ravings. I think I may have influenced some newbies on DPR to buy lenses that I later upgraded, like the 24-120VR and the 70-300 ED. Since I (hopefully) enhance all of my images in Photoshop, some folks looking for great results straight from the camera have doubtless been disappointed by my recommendations. Fortunately, that's less of an issue on the Cafe, where we have more experienced photographers... and even Gurus like Bjorn, Ron, etc., giving objective and qualified opinions.

    The 28-70/2.8 was rarely mentioned on DPR or here until I started raving about it. I hope that no one's been unduly influenced by me, since the Beast won't be everyone's cup of tea.
     
  8. patrickh

    patrickh

    666
    May 4, 2005
    Thousand Oaks
    I would sincerely hope that everyone checks at least two sources for a recommendation - and in the case of Nikkors there are several such available. Personally, I have followed the trail set by the estimable Mr Rorslett, but always compared with other reviews and then I compared what he said with what I found. Hopefully others would follow a similar path. But you do show such good pictures......
     
Loading...
Similar Threads Forum Date
Comparison: Nikon 35mm f/1.8 ED G vs 35mm f/2 AF-D Lens Lust Mar 12, 2015
Sigma 150-500mm f5-6.3 DG OS Comparisons? Lens Lust Jun 24, 2014
80-200 AF-D ED vs 70-200 AF-S VR: Comparison part 1 Lens Lust Jun 5, 2013
70-300 comparison Lens Lust May 3, 2013