1. Welcome to NikonCafe.com—a friendly Nikon camera & photography discussion forum!

    If you are thinking of buying a camera or need help with your photos, you will find our forum members full of advice! Click here to join for free!

Lots of 28-70ers here- why did you choose it?

Discussion in 'Lens Lust' started by AFS, Jun 5, 2005.

  1. Hello one and all.
    I've noticed here more than anywhere else, an abnormally high concentration of shooters with the AF-S 28-70 f/2.8D ED.
    I was wondering what your reasoning was behind this lens versus say, the 17-55 DX, 17-35 2.8 AFS/35-70 AF-D 2.8. Do you also have a 12-24 or equivalent?
    Wanted to know your opinions.
  2. JeffKohn


    Apr 21, 2005
    Houston, TX
    There seems to be a higher concentration of expensive glass in general on this site compared to many others. On a site with forums named "Lens Lust" and "D2xtasy" is should come as no surprise that Lens Lust Disease (LLD) runs rampant here. :) 

    That said I think the 28-70 range is more attractive to me than, say, the 17-55 because if you shoot wide, there's a good chance 17mm still isn't wide enough and you're going to want one of the 12-24 zooms anyway. And the extra reach on the other hand can also be useful. Granted it's only a difference of a step or two between 55mm and 70mm to fill the frame, but there are also DOF differences to consider.

    At least, that's the line of thinking that lead me to chooose the Tamron 28-75 over the Sigma 18-50, and it's also why if I consider upgrading my "normal" zoom it would be to the Nikkor 28-70.

    On a DX-format DSLR, the 35-70 just isn't as useful of a range for most people, plus it's not AF-S. And if you're going to go with two lenses, the 12-24 + 28-70 makes a lot more sense than 17-35 + 35-70 IMHO.
  3. gilbert


    May 6, 2005
    So. CA
    I shoot a lot of portrait stuff and think that the 28-70mm focal length range on a DSLR is perfect. Great for anything from group shots to full-length portraits to headshots. It is very sharp, even wide open. I have a 17-35mm for covering wide-angle shots on film and will eventually get a 12-24mm for digital.

    For digital, the combination of 12-24mm, 28-70mm, and 70-200mm is killer!
  4. Zulu-

    Zulu- Guest

    I have the 70-200mm and a kit lens 28-100mm (that's almost broken), so I'll get the 28-70mm to replace that and when/if I really need to go wide I'll buy the 12-24 for that..

  5. nfoto

    nfoto Guest

    I own one because it basically is an excellent optical performer. However, for my shooting style it is better at home on an F5 than on my DSLRs, so these days I don't use it a much as it deserves. I prefer using the 17-35 or 17-55 DX instead.
  6. Tosh


    May 6, 2005
    I got a 28-70 to replace my 17-55 because I so rarely found myself at the wide range. I know it's just a step or two closer at 55mm to reach 70, and that at times you simply can't step back that 5-6 feet with the 28mm to appproach 17mm, but it works better for capturing my main subjects--my daughters. Quality-wise, both are excellent performers. Subjectively speaking, the focus on the 28-70 seems a hair faster.

    To cover the wide end, I had considered one of the ultra-wide zooms (Nikon/Sigma/Tokina/Tamron 12-24, 11-18, 10-20) and the all-in-one zooms (Tamron/Sigma 18-200), but ultimately decided to go with a Nikon 20mm 2.8D. Since I so very rarely use the wide end, I didn't want to lug around a large lens. With the 20mm, I get compactness and maintain a high level of optical quality.

  7. GeneR

    GeneR Guest

    As some others have already mentioned, I too found the range of the 28-70 more suitable for my "people" shots, both portraits and candids. A candid might cease to be a candid if I have to take a "few steps" forward to get closer. Backing up doesn't catch my subject's attention nearly as much as stepping toward the subject. So, the range just fit me better.

    And it helped that I already had the wide end covered.

  8. I pretty much echo the general sentiment of previous posts. The lens is such an excellent performer especially for people shots. Optic is first-rate.

    It is my very first expensive acquisition and I nearly "sold my soul" for it :lol:
  9. I previously had the 24-85 f/2.8 so the 28-70 is close. I don't miss the last 15mm because I have the 70-200. The 28-70 is a rock solid performer, however I'll be honest and admit some of my motivation was satisfying a lust for it.

    It's all Uncle Franks fault! :wink:

  10. eng45ine


    May 11, 2005
    Chicago, IL
    I am expecting my "beast" to arrive in the next couple of days. I was using a 24-120mm VR as a walk-around lens (which was almost never because I typically shoot with either the 70-200 or the 300). The 24-120mm VR is an absolutely great lens but I prefer to have all f/2.8 glass because my shooting passion is sports action the f/2.8 helps with shutter speeds. The 28-70mm f/2.8 seems to fit nicely with the 70-200 and the 300 prime. Something tells me that I may miss the 24-120mm VR someday, but I promised it to Jacki (rose canyon) and a promise is a promise. I can see myself purchasing a wide lens for shooting macro or something like that to get a break from shooting sports.
  11. I've owned (albeit briefly) the 28-70 and I found the 28 end not nearly wide enough. So needless to say, I love my 17-55. I think it comes down to a matter of shooting style. I tend to use the 17-55 from f/2.8 to about f/8 and occasionally f/11. I've gone to using the 12-24 for f/11-f/16. The wider lens is less good wide open and the 17-55 is not as good stopped down.
  12. I bought the 28-70/2.8 because I know my preferences in subjects, and my biases in shooting style. In other words, its range fits my personal needs better than any other normal range zoom. It's also the fastest focusing lens in that category.

    The 20/2.8 prime completes my kit for wide end requirements, but it will be used much less frequently than the 28-70 range.
  13. Igor


    May 15, 2005
    Ukraine, Europe
    When I need my job (wide-mid range) to get done with 100% quality I put on my 28-70. It's a "prime zoom" as I call her :)  Superb quality all around.
  14. So who out of you guys has a 12-24 and/or 17-35 along with your 28-70?
  15. 12-24 and 28-70 in my case; 70-200VR at the longer side.

    I got the AFS 28-70 long before the 17-55 was introduced so decision-making was not an issue.
    I mainly use it when I need flexibility, otherwise I prefer to use my primes: AF 28/1.4, 45/2.8P, AF 85/1.4, or even my MF primes (28/2.0, 35/1.4).
  16. Female...huh? I call mine "Big Bertha." :wink:

  17. I do: 10.5...12-24...28-70...70-200...300

  18. nfoto

    nfoto Guest

    Of course I have the 17-35/2.8 *and* the 28-70/2.8. Plus the 12-24 and 17-55 DX Nikkors, too. Just to make sure I might have the best lens for a given assignment (that is, if I don't use something quite different, which may or may not be likely depending my mood at that time).
  19. Bjørn, I wish I had your lens collection :) 
    You don't happen to have a 1200-1700 f/5.6-8.0 P in there do you? :wink:
  20. nfoto

    nfoto Guest

    No. The longest are a few mirror lenses (1100mm f/10 MTO and 1000 mm f/11 Nikkor) and a couple of 800. Nothing to make people envious :) 
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.