The Beast

Discussion in 'Lens Lust' started by Uncle Frank, Mar 26, 2005.

  1. Everyone seems to call the Nikon 28-70mm f/2.8 a beast, so that's what I'm naming mine :). I've been reading up
    on it while I'm waiting for mine to be delivered. I particularly liked Tom Hill's review. Here's an excerpt.

    "28-70mm f/2.8 AF-S Nikkor - This lens is a beast in every meaning of the term. It's a beast to carry around since
    it weighs about the same as my Nikon D2h. It's a beast when people see you carrying one meaning it's a symbol in
    their eyes you mean business. It's a beast when shooting people with it. There's no subtley when this lens is pointed
    at you. It distracts people who haven't worked around a lens like this before because it's so large. It's a beast
    anyway you shake it. But there's a benefit to all this. The auto-focus speed is incredibly fast. Its sharpness is
    beyond reproach. I think it might even be sharper than my 70-200 f/2.8 AF-S VR at 70mm's. What about its other
    optical characteristics? The contrast is awesome. The bokeh--how out of focus background look--is smooth as
    can be. It doesn't flare that much when pointed at the sun. Even then, the supplied lens hood does a good
    job blocking the sun. Optical quality is great. Now, its super-wide aperture is a huge difference when
    out in the field for those low light occasions. When combined with a D-series camera, you have a moderate
    telephoto that easily finds a niche for those dawn/dusk situations with cooperative mammals. In fact, I like
    shooting most of my environmental shots with this lens in these situations. Overall, I find this lens
    on my camera more often than any other due to its middle of the road versatility and incredible capability
    on the optical side. Highly recommended as an overall lens--my most used lens--and definitely useful for
    those willing to suffer through the hunched backs and painful shoulders carrying the thing around."

    I also got a chuckle out of these comments by a DPR forum member:

    "My feet still have not landed. Its big and imposing. People think your some kind of paparatsie (sp?) with it on
    the front of your camera. Will probable have my wife bury it with me when I die."

    A beast that inspires that kind of loyalty must be worth owning.
  2. Dear UF... judging by the LLD levels in your blood, I think that this beast will only make feel better for a coupla weeks and then... on to the next one! :D

    Rhetorical Question: How many beasts shall we need to ever get rid of this LLD?
  3. One would be enough, if the beast were a black lab puppy like yours :wink:.
  4. Well Frank that's true but soon he won't be a puppy anymore. Actually Lambro is growing up at the same rate you change your avatars :lol:
  5. Hi Frank

    Have fun with your new toy, errr I mean beast. There is considerable satisfaction to be had owning finely crafted equipment.

    I forget, do you have a 17-55mm? If you do or know someone that does, I would be very interested in your doing some comparison shots and your opinions after.
  6. Frank, have you used the 17-55? If so how would you compare the uses of each? I'm sure the quality is fine on both, however I'm curious as to what sort of shooting you'd do with each that differ.

  7. Hey guys!!!!!
    Whattaryadoin'??'re going to "kill" him!!! He's just trying to overcome his LLD with the 28-70 beast -which he hasn't received yet- and you are proposing a new one??? :shock:
  8. Rory and Rich, I've tried out the 17-55, but never owned one. It wouldn't make sense to own both the 17-55 and
    the 28-70... and would be financially ruinous, as well 8). They're both fine lenses, and I think it boils down to a matter of
    subject preference and shooting style. The 17-55 offers great wide angle opportunities, but I'd never avail myself of them.
    It's a hair too short for portraiture, though, and the 28-70 will afford me a touch more in the area of selective focus, which
    I love to use to isolate my subjects from their backgrounds.

    Keep in mind that all of this is theoretical, as I haven't received my lens yet. Sure hope I guessed right :roll:.
  9. MontyDog


    Jan 30, 2005
    #1064 - You have an error in your SQL syntax;
  10. PGB


    Jan 25, 2005

    I can't wait for a report. I'm looking seriously at this one and the 17-55. I know what everyone thinks about the 17-55 but I look forward to your reports on the "Beast"
Similar Threads Forum Date
28-70 the Beast vs. 24-120 f4 Lens Lust Feb 14, 2016
Wedding rental kit - primes or the Beast? Lens Lust Apr 26, 2012
Now I know why it's called The Beast! Lens Lust Apr 22, 2012
Got the Beast Lens Lust Oct 22, 2011
Deciphering "Beast" Repair Lens Lust Dec 16, 2010