28-70mm f/2.8

Ouch, another lens lust victim bites the dust. :roll: :roll:

 

Hi Todd,

Is that the 28-70 VR?
BillT

 

Todd,

All I can say is that this place is worse for your budget than DPR. I'm very close to getting a 17-35 from another forum member, and I wasn't even looking for a 17-35. :|

Speaking of which, how do you like yours? It is a lens you would recommend? Have you shot with the 18-70? Is the 17-35 significantly better?

Congrat's BTW on your new acquisition. 8) From what I've read, it's a great lens.

Frank

 

I had the 17-35 f2.8. It is all that everyone says it is. But for me, it just was not wide enough with the 1.5x sensor. I sold it and picked up the 12-24. I have not regretted it. I now have the 10.5, 12-24, 28-70 and 70-200 with 3 Nikon Tc's. There is a devil inside me that keeps saying 200-400... 200-400... 200-400 but so far I have been able to resist.

In my opinion what I have is about the perfect kit for travel. If you do not care about ultra wide scenic shots or shoot panoramic, the 17-35 is probably the best short wide zoom in production today.

$.02 no change required.

 

I'm flattered, Todd... plus I love helping other people spend their money :twisted:.

Did you find a deal on eBay?

 

Frank :

Funny thing - I saw a 17-35mm today, and I wasn't much swayed. I've been shooting with the 12-24mm AFS, and the combination of that lens with the 24-120mm AFS/VR has been an effective "walking around" set for me (with the 70-200mm AFS/VR and a TC or two as extra glass if I think I'll need reach). I usually have a fair bit of time when I'm shooting WA, so having faster glass hasn't been as much of an incentive for me.

I have a 18-35mm lens, and it's actually a much better lens than most reviewers have given it credit for, although Thom Hogan's of a different opinion than most ( http://www.bythom.com/1835lens.htm saying, "This is the wide angle lens of choice on a D1 or D100 unless you need a faster aperture...").

I shot a lot with this lens in refineries and plants in the past, but in all truth, I use the 12-24mm now for maybe 95% of my WA work in plants. I used to spend a fair bit of time stitching shots together to capture views of equipment or tall distillation columns, and now I do it relatively less. So the 12-24mm stays on my camera a lot (and the refinery/plant work is what currently sustains my camera and lens purchases, excepting the long glass). The distortions that many people whine about are endemic to a large degree on WA lenses, and I just put a note with the photos in my report, "Wide angle for this shot introduces distortion". My customers are not measurebators, so seeing the entire scene of the plant in the photo is almost always more than adequate.

But if you don't feel like spending $1K-plus for WA glass, the 18-35mm is a darned nice lens. It's quite good at 18mm and then progresses to very very good as you go out to 35mm, although it's markedly sharper anywhere in the range when you stop it down a bit.

If faster glass is the need, as well as getting a bit more sharpness, the 17-35mm may be the way to go.

If we're going to be in the same area at some point, I'll bring the 18-35mm lens for you to "play with".

But not today... I'm in a fast turnaround before heading out to Salt Lake City tomorrow morning, having just got back to the house here this afternoon. Laundry, supplies, some prep, and I won't get to do more than very briefly play with the lens I bought from Paul Frye recently. Sigh.


John P.

 

"Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated into the Nikon Collective, where we shall add your technological and biological distinctive to our own. You will adapt to service us, making lengthy loans of your D2X."

OTOH, you'll have access to long long glass... :twisted: :twisted: :twisted:

 

I don't believe there is a VR version of the 28-70/2.8 for the Nikon mount. Todd's referring to the 28-70mm f/2.8 AF-S Nikkor zoom lens.