28-70 wide open

[Beezle]

I recently moved from the 17-55 DX to the 28-70, and I am getting very happy results from this lens. I had heard things like it wasn't great wide open, etc.

I also have been practicing using the D2X hand held at variable ISOs in natural light. Whoever it was that suggested auto ISO in manual mode hit on something wonderful. I use this all of the time now. Thanks!

Here is one from today that caught my attention. 48mm, 1/50, hand held, ISO 720, f2.8. Couldn't ask for more sharpness IMO. Also a cute pose.

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

NC processed RAW, noise reduction at the normal setting. Tiny bit of USM on the final sized and cropped image.

I think this lens is at least as good as my 17-55 was wide open.

Ed

 

[Uncle Frank]

Glad you're enjoying your 28-70, Ed! I don't agree about its sharpness at f/2.8 vs. the 17-55 (or 70-200 for that matter), but it certainly gives pleasing renderings of people at any aperture... your lovely sample being a great example! And at f/4 or smaller apertures, it rivals any other pro lens at similar focal length. Jmho.

 

[greyflash]

Good shot Ed it seem to work pretty well at f2.8.

 

[Beezle]

Well, maybe a shot of a test target. I've used both of these lenses now, the 17-55 for some 6,000 shots, and I much prefer this lens.

I like how this lens transitions from defocused areas more than the DX, and I think it captures detail in a more natural way. The 17-55 had a bit more contrast perhaps.

Keep in mind the shot above is 1/50 hand held and ISO 720. At that point the D2X is beginning to lose detail to noise reduction.

Best of all, it does not have the focus problems I had with the DX.

Glad you're enjoying your 28-70, Ed! I don't agree about its sharpness at f/2.8 vs. the 17-55 (or 70-200 for that matter), but it certainly gives pleasing renderings of people at any aperture... your lovely sample being a great example! And at f/4 or smaller apertures, it rivals any other pro lens at similar focal length. Jmho.

 

[Beezle]

This is a full res unsharpened D2X crop, f3.5, ISO 200. The fisheye distorted man you see is me.

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

 

[cwilt]

Beezle,

You should try a 50mm f1.4 stopped down to 2.8 like in this shot. :wink:

While I think the 28-70 is good for a zoom, the 50 1.4 is better. IMHO

I have not tried a 17-55dx so I no experience to base an opinion on.

 

[Beezle]

I will do that. I have one and it grumbles that I do not use it often enough.

The problem appears to be that the 85 1.4 leaps in front of the line when I go to use a lens.

I also have the 35 f2, which I haven't used for weeks.

 

[Beezle]

Question related to the move to the 28-70...

I am left with only the 10.5 for a really wide lens. I am considering the 20 f2.8 and the Tokina 12-24 I read about often on DPR.

Anyone have any thoughts on this? I would prefer the prime if it is actually good on the D2X. I've been told it is not. They are about the same price.

 

[JeffKohn]

Question related to the move to the 28-70...

I am left with only the 10.5 for a really wide lens. I am considering the 20 f2.8 and the Tokina 12-24 I read about often on DPR.

Anyone have any thoughts on this? I would prefer the prime if it is actually good on the D2X. I've been told it is not. They are about the same price.

20mm isn't really that wide on a D2x though, if you want wide angle I think the Tokina 12-24 is an excellent choice. Some of Nikon's wide primes from the film days are apparently not so great on digital because they're not optimized for the requirements of the sensor (in particular angle of incidence of light at the edges of the frame is problematic).

 

[thomas]

Nice to see I just sold my 17-55 and am waiting to recieve the 28-70.

 

[Steve S]

Question for Beezle re the in-cam NR

Nice shot, man! Re the in-cam NR, are you reducing it's setting in NC, or leaving it at it's default setting? I find that dialing it down to about 1/3 of it's default Normal setting does about all I want it to do.

 

[Beezle]

For shots that have any shadow, like this one, I leave it at the normal setting. Turn on "better quality" using the popup in the NR panel.

The above, when viewed on a different gamma screen (such as Macs) has a fair bit of noise in the shadow to the right of him.

I tried reprocessing it and got better results.

Larger reprocessed image

 

[Steve S]

Ya, I do see less noise vs the original pic. What did you do different this time?

 

[Beezle]

Didn't mess with exposure. Actually turned down the NR settings, then cheated.

Or should I say used a touch of Neat Image.