Faulty zoom ring on the 28-70/2.8???

NB23 advised me that the real strength of the 28-70/2.8 is at its wide end, and encouraged me to test it. But
try as I could, I didn't have the strength to turn that ring all the way to 28mm, so I took my test shot at 32mm.

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

Note: just kidding; the zoom ring is as smooth as butter .

OK, looks good. Time to go back to the correct end of the zoom. My next victim was the trick little truck
that picks up our clippings, shot at 70mm.

View attachment 6796

The driver must have thought The Beast was a bazooka launcher, because his first reaction was to duck.
Then he headed straight for me, and he looked pi$$ed. I thought he was going to run me down :? .

View attachment 6797

But once he figured out it was just a camera, he was more than pleased to pose.

View attachment 6798

I tried one more wide angle shot at Stix, when I bought lunch. Hey, I actually made it all the way to 28mm :twisted: !

View attachment 6799

Cool glass.

 

Bingo! This is my third iteration of a midrange zoom, Anand.

The 24-120VR had great colors, but it wasn't sharp.
The Tamron 28-75/2.8 was sharp, but didn't have great colors.
The 28-70 has it all.

I think I'm in love :wink:.

 

Not to worry, Frank. You'll be old and retired someday  .

 

Thanks, Gordon. My buyer's remorse level drops a little more with each picture from the Beast 8)

 

Thanks, Bryan and Gale!

 

The thing that's going to ruin you is your new 80-200AFS. I predict It will raise your standards for excellence, and
you'll wind up with expensive glass throughout the range before you're satisfied. Better warn your wife   .

 

I grabbed a few last nigh, Bill. Check out this thread.

https://www.nikoncafe.com//forums/viewtopic.php?t=1868&highlight=

 

There's no way to reduce the weight of the lens, but it looks and feels a lot smaller without the lens hood. I'll only use it when necessary, or when I want to scare somebody :twisted:.

 

Take a deep breath and calm down, Gale  . If you're happy with the results from your 80-400VRVRVR, you'll be happy with the images from the 24-120VRVRVR. Neither of them is "critically sharp" in the same sense as the 17-55DX or the 70-200VRVRVR, but in good hands, like yours and Janet's, the 80-400VRVRVR has delivered brilliant images... and so will your new 24-120VRVRVR. 8)