Is Nikkor 28-80 3.3-5.6 G that bad?

[johann_o]

I have a Nikon F80 along with a Nikkor 28-80 3.3-5.6 G lens. I

realize that the lens is very cheap, but would a better lens really

make a lot of a difference in my pictures? Yes, it will probably be

easier to focus in low light with a faster lens, but because of

depth-of-field considerations, you will not want to go for a large

aperture most of the time, even for portraits. And how often is the

light that low? The camera has a focusing lamp and you can always

switch to manual focus. Also, more expensive lenses don't have that

much better values. I do have a 50 mm 1.8 lens, which I can use if I

want to take available light pictures under difficult circumstances.

 

Will a more expensive lens give that much better results for

wedding/birthday/landscape pics? Will contrast, distortion and so on

be noticeably better? Do the "D" lenses deliver much better results

when using flash? (I am quite satisfied with my flash pics). In my

view, for photojournalistic wedding pics, the most important thing

is to work fast and focus fast. Will anybody ever see any difference

in the pics, even enlargements, if I buy a better lens for 400

euros/dollars, which would really hurt my wallet?

 

I am not selling my pics, I am only shooting for friends. But I am

pretty serious about it, shoot 10 rolls of portrait film on a

wedding and try to get the best possible results.

 

What is your opinion, is it worth investing in a better lens?

[Jerry_]

If you can keep the 28-80 at f11 for 'all' your exposures, the lens may work fine. But if you want the 'best possible results' -- then you have answered your own question. If, for example, one friend wants a 11x14-inch print. Will your negatives (made with the 28-80 lens) satisfy the requirement?

 

 

A AF 28mm f2.8D Nikkor and a AF 85mm f1.8D Nikkor would improve the quality of your negatives (as would a flash bracket and a Nikon Speedlight) if you intend to go after the 'best possible results.'

 

 

 

But for a $65 to $90 lens, the 28-80mm is good for general use, but maybe not 'great.'

[scott_blair1]

<I>"I do have a 50 mm 1.8 lens, which I can use if I want to take available light pictures under difficult circumstances."</I><P>Good. You had a need and filled it. That's how you do things in photography; otherwise you will be eternally broke and frustrated. There is NO SUCH THING as "better" without context.

[arnabdas]

Gerald's response is spot-on.

[jbq]

In my experience the 28-80G is actually a good value. At f/5.6 on the wide end and f/11 on the long end it's just fine.

 

I used to have a 28-80G 70-300G 50/1.8, and I ended up only using the 28-80 at its wide end.

 

The one thing that I really disliked about the 28-80G is that the out-of-focus backgrounds are really ugly at 80mm, especially when focusing close, whereas those of the 70-300G are very smooth at its wide end, which is great for portraits, especially with the added stop of speed for hsallower depth-of-field). For close-up shots, adding a diopter actually seemed to correct the issue.

[johann_o]

Thanks for the answers. I think my question was a little bit unclear. I was not asking about the alternative of buying a tele lens, but rather a better zoom lens. For superb portraits you are going to have to go for a good tele lens if not medium format, and most of my friends will have such portraits taken in a studio. A good tele lens can cost 800 euros, that is just to much for an amateur. They can have additional portraits taken after the wedding if they desire. For the wedding day itself, it is quite common to engage amateurs if you are not quite rich, since it is so expensive to get married in the first place and to have a photog shoot on location for hours and hours in addition to that. What is also quite common is to only have snapshots apart from the formal portraits ...

 

Follow-up question: You suggest that it will be difficult to make large prints from negatives exposed through my lens. Is it so that more expensive lenses deliver noticeably sharper pictures? What is the limiting factor, the grain of the film or the lens (I can distinguish the grain of 400 iso film in pictures taken with my camera). And how big is the difference? A factor of 1.5-2 in resolution? I am talking about the difference between a high-end zoom lens and mine. Won't it be acceptable for most people to get a large number of pretty high quality photos, since the composition of the picture, the expressions in people's faces and the memory of when it was taken is more important than technical perfection to them? Many wedding couples even start discussions on the number of rolls of film and whether or not to use high-quality portrait film ...

 

Summary: Comparison 28-80 3.3-5.6 G to high-end zoom - will the difference be immediately discernable?

[ShunCheung]

The primary factor that determines the quality of your images is your photographic skills: your creativity, composition, your use of light, etc. I would worry about the quality of your lenses only after you have nailed down some of those basic skills. By then, it'll be time to upgrade your lenses, but by that time you should also have a good idea yourself on which lenses you'll need to reach the next level, and it won't be necessary to ask this type of questions any more.

 

In other words, go out and shoot some pictures. Study them and determine what is good and bad about each one of them. That is the best way to improve your images, not "better" lenses at this point.

[holger]

Shun is perfectly right, best thing is to go out and shoot pictures. Since you already own the 50 1.8, which is one of the best lenses in our Nikon world (and for sure better than any affordable zoom), you have all you need to make a comparison: prime vs. zoom at same focal length and aperture, set up on a tripod, shoot slide film and have it enlarged. You'll probably find that the best thing about this setup is the tripod :-) !

 

If weddings are one of your major themes, I would rather use the 1.8/50 than change the zoom (exception: VR, but that's lots of � compared to what you already have). In my experience, 50 is fine if you can move during the ceremony, big advantage is you don't need flash because of fast lens. Does not disturb, keeps priest happy.

 

A german photo magazine rates the 28-80 G higher than many of the primes. Don't know what sample the tested, but must have been a perfect one. And I remember a wonderful picture of the week (!) here on photo.net, kind of muddy staircase, wonderful colours and composition, shot with a Canon Rebel and the crappy, cheap, slow 28-80 zoom, not even USM. Did not read one bad comment, all of the folks writing thought it was one of the best pictures around. The same people will probably tell you right away that such a zoom would make a good paper weight, but you'd better spend lots of � and get a REAL lens ! (Well, I am no better, you'll find some similar notes signed by me myself and I... sorry).

 

To come to an end: from what you write, I'd say you got everything you need, except maybe a good tripod, go out, shoot, that's the best way to improve any pictures.

 

Have fun !

[ShunCheung]

If you don't already have some lenses, it would have made more sense to ask for lens recommendations. However, since you already have a 28-80 (although an inexpensive one) and a 50mm/f1.8, you should be ok for now.

 

I suggest you shoot some test shots with your zoom at 50mm as well as your 50mm prime, at various apertures such as f5.6, f8, and f11. Can you easily tell which image was shot from which lens? If you cannot tell the difference, I would say "better" lenses won't help you at this time.

[craig_andrew_yuill]

I own a Tamron 28-70 f/3.5-4.5 and have found it to be a surprisingly-good lens. I've taken some shots with a Nikkor 28-80 f/3.3-5.6 and found that its quality is very similar. I do not agree that shooting at f/11 is required. Stopping down 1 stop from the max. is usually a good thing to do with any lens, and is fine for this one. I agree wholeheartedly with Shun. Technique is an extremely-important factor in taking good photos. Several years ago I was getting ready to get rid of perfectly good lenses because I thought the lenses were mediocre. After reading an article on improving sharpness through techniques (using optimal apertures, holding the camera steady, using a tripod, careful focusing, etc.) I found that my "mediocre" lenses suddenly became rather good lenses. You might be surprised how easily an excellent lens can become a very-poor lens with sloppy technique. I've taken many shots that can confirm this. :) Keep the lens. Learn how to use it properly to get the best results. Save your money for other things, like film.

[lachaine]

My hands-on experience was that the 28-80G is not significantly different optically than other more expensive consumer zooms in terms of sharpness. It does have more linear distortion at the wide end especially, and a bit at the long end. But that might not be a problem for the type of photography you're talking about. A prime lens will give you noticeably better pictures, but it's not like it's going to be dramatic - some people don't even see the difference, and really, only enthusiasts like us care about that. A "G" lens IS a "D" lens (only difference is no aperture ring), so there's no difference at all as far as that goes. My suggestion would be to shoot a couple of test rolls, so you can see if the difference between the results from your 28-80 and your 50mm is large enough for you to see the difference. Have them processed at a good photofinisher, rather than a neighbourhood minilab. It's worth the expense so you can see for yourself. Now, if we talk about actual build quality, as opposed to optical quality, then of course, the 28-80G has a much cheaper-looking and feeling build quality than a mid-level zoom like the 28-105D. In the end, choices of film and technique probably make a lot more difference than whatever lenses you use.

[nazlan]

Hi all,

I'm a beginner here and do have a standard lens 28-100 3.5-5-6G lens which i think is comparable with David's standard lens. It comes standard with my F75/N75. My first roll is rather dissapointed esp. when shooting indoor with flash (SB-800). The outdoor is rather good. Am not sure bout the quiality of the lens but i'm gonna have 50mm 1.8D soon to compensate this as recommended by many. Heard that 28-105mm D lens has a good review and 35-70mmD is rather expensive lens to own! Need your opinion on the zoom or either should i get other prime lens instead? Thank you

[roto]

I have now a bunch of prime lenses and pro-level zooms, but when I got my F80 I bought it with the cheap 28-80 that you mention and a Sigma 70-300/4-5.6 APO Macro Super. Quite frankly and despite what you can read, if used carefully (i.e. on a good tripod, stopped down a bit) can give you good to very good results in terms of sharpness. The 28-80 doesn't have that much distortion, even when compared to more expensive zooms. It is clearly a far cry from prime lenses, but distortion is something you always have to deal with when you are using zooms. The contrast is fine and the color rendition a bit warm, usually not unpleasant.

 

At a wedding reception/birthday party you will most likely be using flash. If you use a powerful flash (e.g. SB-26, SB-28, SB-80DX) and fast film (400 ISO is common for weddings) you can stop your lens down to f/8 turn the flash 45 degrees up and you are in business... If you do not have an omnibounce I suggest that you get one. When stopped down to f/8 the 28-80G should give more than acceptable results. You will most likely be bothered by the film grain before you notice softness due to the lens.

 

By the way, I still have both the above mentioned zooms. Recently I took two pictures of the same subject, one with the Nikkor 105/2.8 Micro and the second (I wanted more magnification and couldn't get closer) with the Sigma 75-300 @ 300 mm (it can go to 1:2 in macro mode). I then scanned both pictures at 4000 dpi with my Canon FS4000US and, believe it or not, both pictures are wonderfully sharp. If I had the scans here, I would like to post a couple of details. Ok, I used all the trick in the bag: slow film (Velvia), stable tripod with fully retracted legs, solid ball head (Arca Swiss B1), mirror lock-up, cable release, lenses stopped down but not too much. The bottom line is that 90% of the quality (in optical terms, I'm not talking about subject and composition) of a picture depends on your technique rather than on the photodo ratings of the lens.

 

Save your money and wait until you can find a very good reason why you really need, let's say, a fast, big, heavy and expensive 28-70/2.8 zoom.

[nazlan]

Thanks Roberto for useful advise. I might save my $ for future lens and stick to my standard 28-100G lens and 50mm 1.8D as my prime lens. Will further explore the world on how to shoot! Esp. when using flash. One of the experiment on the SB-800 with bounce flash (60-90 degrees) shown a good result with less distortion or what we call that as shadowless and less flash effect. At the mean time, 1 stop should be enough i think even the books says 2-3 stop?? There's also a diffuser dome that i dunno how to use it as compare to built in diffuser card attached to SB-800? Err.. sorry for the lack of knowledge..hehee.. TQ