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

AFS

Joined
May 1, 2005
Messages
3,001
Location
Minnesota (formerly Florida)
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.
 
Joined
Apr 21, 2005
Messages
3,625
Location
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.
 
Joined
May 6, 2005
Messages
262
Location
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!
 
Z

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..

Cheers
 
N

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.
 
Joined
May 6, 2005
Messages
5,482
Location
NY
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.

Glenn
 
G

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.

Gene
 
Joined
May 28, 2005
Messages
884
Location
Toronto, Canada
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:
 
Joined
Feb 7, 2005
Messages
1,027
Location
Annandale, VA
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:

Rich
 
Joined
May 11, 2005
Messages
17,633
Location
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.
 
Joined
Feb 2, 2005
Messages
2,868
Location
Sudbury, Massachusetts
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.
 
Joined
Jan 26, 2005
Messages
1,011
Location
San Jose, CA
AFS said:
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.
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.

Do you also have a 12-24 or equivalent?
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.
 
Joined
May 15, 2005
Messages
2,874
Location
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.
 
Joined
Mar 20, 2005
Messages
3,624
Location
Vienna, AUSTRIA
AFS said:
So who out of you guys has a 12-24 and/or 17-35 along with your 28-70?
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).
Cheers
 
Joined
Feb 7, 2005
Messages
1,027
Location
Annandale, VA
Igor said:
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.
Female...huh? I call mine "Big Bertha." :wink:

Rich
 
N

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).
 
N

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 :)
 
Links on this page may be to our affiliates. Sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.
Nikon Cafe is a fan site and not associated with Nikon Corporation.
Forum post reactions by Twemoji: https://github.com/twitter/twemoji
Copyright © 2005-2019 Amin Forums, LLC
Top Bottom