That "look" of those pricey lenses (28-70 2.8 ques

Discussion in 'Lens Lust' started by Czechman01, Jul 9, 2005.

  1. I'm an old timer... been shooting for over 25 years so when I went digital, I went with the old standbys for lenses... 60mm micro, 35-70 2.8, 80-200 2.8 and was pretty darned pleased.

    Until I got a 17-35 2.8 and a 70-200 VR :?

    These lenses are hard for me to comprehend... they just have a "look" of richness and clarity that I personally just love. I've already sold the 80-200 without so much as a second thought.

    Now I'm faced with a dilemma. My favorite tool in the studio has been my 35-70 2.8 but I hear so much about the 28-70 that I'm considering it to replace the 35-70.

    Has anyone here shot with both lenses and if so, can I expect that same difference in "look" from the 28-70?

    Any thoughts on my observations and/or dilemma would be greatly appreciated.

    Woody
     
  2. Are you sure you don't see some of that magic out of your 35-70?
    Supposed to be the same as the 28-70, image and colorwise.

    I noticed the 28-70 gives the same great colors that the 45P exhibits, which is very nice. I suspect it has something to do with the lnses coatings.
     
  3. Cory Cooper

    Cory Cooper

    300
    May 24, 2005
    Salem, NH
    I believe the same NB23...lens coatings and the actual glass have improved over the years. That's not to discount the quality of older, "lengendary" Nikon/Nikkor glass. They have simply improved on perfection.

    C
     
  4. Woody,

    I only have owned the 28-70.
    I can tell you it's a beast. It's big and surely no candid lens. With hood on it it's huge.

    BUT : it's the best zoom i have ever had. For me it surpasses my 17-35 and 70-200.
     
  5. "The look" can be "a problem"

    I have a thread of lenses that all have that same rich look - the 17-35, 28-70, and 80-200, all AFS. The lenses produce images that are so much of a piece that it's hard to tell which lens was used without looking for the perspective or looking at the exif.

    Then I have an 80-400VR, a 24-120VR, which don't quite fit in, they're missing something that I can't define. They're sharp, contrasty. But I can pick them out from the other lenses.

    Then I've got the middle. 50 1.4, 20 2.8, 85 1.8. The 50 slots right in with the richer looking lenses, but the 20 and 85 are kind of out there on their own. I also have a 70-300 that I can't bring myself to get rid of, and it's got its own look - sometimes I take it shooting instead of my other long lenses specifically, it's got an edge to its contrast, not as "smooth" feeling as the other long lenses.
     
  6. NB24,

    The 35-70 does indeed have it's own brand of magic... that charming old magic if you will. But I'm being seduced by the new magic. Strange, I'm so traditional in so many ways but not with technology.

    Ed,

    Thanks for letting me know I'm not crazy... you have a way with words and a glorious portfolio.

    I think probably what I'm going to do is just get one with a return guarantee and see for myself... it's all so subjective anyway.

    Woody
     
  7. Woody, now that I've browsed through your gallery, I can understand why you'd be sensitive to the subtle differences in images from fine glass. I think you'd enjoy the 28-70, and make great use of it! Other than the "feel" of the images it produces, I think you'll enjoy its class leading AF speed/accuracy, and the wonderful results at its wide end. Go for it!
     
  8. Woody,

    i just took the time to have a look at your gallery.
    In just one (long) word : WoooooooooooooooooW.

    Fantastic work, thats really an inspiration.

    Again, get the 28-70, you won't regret it one second.
     
  9. Simon

    Simon

    315
    Apr 30, 2005
    Sydney, Australia
    I believe the trio go by the name: "Trinity"

    Nikkors 17-35 AFS 2.8, 28-70 AFS and 70-200 VR

    Legendary Nikkor glassware. It's heavy, serious looking and of a very high quality build.
     
  10. Woody - from you that compliment means a lot, I love your stuff on OMP. Here's a look at a bunch of images, all, I just realized, shot with the 28-70AFS.

    http://www.modelmayhem.com/pics.php?id=9163

    You WILL love the lens. It's pretty much the 100% usage studio lens. The tiny bit below 35mm I find very useful when working with a group of models where I need to put emphasis on one of them, or when I'm crammed into too small of a shooting space, like a stairwell with awesome graffity and I need the angle of view. You know the benefits of the rest of the range - I shoot most of my stuff between 50 and 70mm.

    I almost bought the 35-70 a few years back in my film days, because I really didn't take my 28-70 below 35mm much. If you don't ever crave something a touch shorter for your work without switching lenses, it may not be worth the difference, as I think the two lenses are visually identical. But I got completely put off by the push pull zoom, it was strange to me. I'm a guy who still struggles with the swap between where the zoom and focus rings are on my AFS lenses and my 24-120VR - lose shots all the time when I mix them by grabbing the wrong ring.
     
Loading...
Similar Threads Forum Date
This one is pricey Lens Lust Mar 10, 2015
another one of those questions Lens Lust Feb 3, 2012
Those that have owned both the 85 1.8 and the 85 1.4 Lens Lust May 26, 2011
For those without primes Lens Lust Mar 28, 2011
For those interested... Lens Lust Jun 7, 2010