simon_hickie1 Posted November 28, 2007 Share Posted November 28, 2007 This lens was on my F70 99% of the time when I used to shoot slide film and was a stop-gap on my D50 until I got the 18-70. I've now had an opportunity to see how it stacks up against the 18-200 and 50mm lenses (both zooms at the 50mm setting, plus testing the 28-105 at a variety of focal lengths). As a result of a fairly quick and dirty non-real-world test (brick walls from 15 feet I'm afraid), I can report the following observations. Plusses for the 28-105 include: sharpness on a par with my 50mm prime at all f stops and clearly sharper than the 18-200 (on a tripod); incredible lack of distortion through all the focal lengths ranging from very mild barrel at 28mm to no distortion that I can see at 105mm; better close focussing capabilities with the ability to do macro work at a push; future compatibility with an affordable FX sensor body? Minuses for the 28-105 include: focal range on a DX body of 42 to 157mm meaning a second lens is needed for even moderate wide-angles; needs tripod or other support where VR will get you out of a fix with the 18-200; likely to be more lateral chromatic aberration, although more testing is needed (there was a hint of this at f4.2); the AF makes you sound like a Borg drone in comparison with an AF-S lens and is rather slow. So at the end of the day, you pay your money and take your choice! For sharpness, lack of distortion and close focussing capabilities, the 28-105 is still a winner, but one will need an additional lens for the wider stuff, together with tripod or monopod for stability. The 18-200 wins on convenience, lightness and usability in lower light, but loses out on distortion and sharpness (distortion generally fixable in CS2 though). So, I'll be keeping the 28-105, but leaving the 18-200 on camera as the default lens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bruce_rubenstein___nyc Posted November 28, 2007 Share Posted November 28, 2007 When I got my son a D50 I gave him my old 28-105 and he loves it, particularly for its close focusing. Of course he dropped it after a couple of months and it wouldn't zoom or AF properly. I brought it into Nikon and they charged $75 to fix it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bruce_margolis Posted November 28, 2007 Share Posted November 28, 2007 Thanks for another great report, Simon. I think the results are pretty much what most people expected but it got me thinking about this 'sharpness' thing. I find it is pretty easy to increase sharpness in PS for the 18-200 lens but something is still missing. I pulled out my old Nikkor 35-70, a neat little lens but almost worthless range for a DX body. Comparing it to the 18-200, the only word I could come up with is crisper. Not sharper but crisper. The same applies with my other lenses. Even contrast/sharpness adjustments don't seem to quite make up all the difference. I have some great shots with the 18-200 and still think it is the greatest travel lens ever made but that crispness thing is just a little on the light side. Thanks for helping me come up with a way to describe something that has been bugging me for a while. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
simon_hickie1 Posted November 28, 2007 Author Share Posted November 28, 2007 Bruce - crispness - that's the word! The detail is still mostly there on the 18-200 and USM, levels & contrast adjustments in CS2 get quite a bit of the way there. However, the 50mm prime and 28-105 have that bit of extra crispness (and texture?) you describe. I've also found (and some will dispute what I'm suggesting) that the DX format lenses (18-70 and 18-200) seem to produce a 'lighter' image at any given exposure (histogram definitely further over to the right) and need more levels, contrast and saturation adjustment in CS2 to achieve the same result as the 50mm & 28-105. But at the end of the day, when viewing images on screen or even printing to 10 x 15 inches, I doubt that one can really tell which of the various lenses was used - at least from a sharpness point of view. Bizarrely, I have 35mm slides produced from digital images more often than big prints and maybe the differences may become more apparent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sjmurray Posted November 28, 2007 Share Posted November 28, 2007 I picked up a used 28-105 at KEH for a very economical price, for my neice to use with my D70 for school (I kept my 18-70 for my D80). I tested it right away and found it to be nice and sharp at all f-stops at close and "room" distances. At infinity it became sharp across the field by f8. It works well for her and she likes the macro capability too. Its a great all purpose lens if you are on a budget. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scphoto Posted November 28, 2007 Share Posted November 28, 2007 I have a 28-105 on my F70. I was using Velvia 50 to photograph a mountain. After I scanned the slide, I notice some purple fringe along the edge of the mountain. I have to test it some more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sampson Posted November 28, 2007 Share Posted November 28, 2007 The biggest shame is that they couldn't make the 18-70mm with such controlled distortion and a great pseudo-'macro' function. Re: focusing speed and noise, I don't own any AF-S lens, have some HSM lenses from Sigma, and don't find the 28-105mm to focus slow at all, its such a short focus throw that I always thought it was quite quick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jose_angel Posted November 28, 2007 Share Posted November 28, 2007 I did`t find a great difference on AF speed between the 28-105 AFD and the 24-85 AFS. Noise is really significant in comparison. You didn`t mention the worst of this lens... the "trombone" type hood. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
simon_hickie1 Posted November 28, 2007 Author Share Posted November 28, 2007 I use one of those rubbery hoods - the full frame format means you can put a big one on with a DX body! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dan_brown4 Posted November 28, 2007 Share Posted November 28, 2007 The 28-105 is a good lens, I used it on N90's and F100's. My only gripe is that the focal length changes a lot as you focus closer. IIRC, at portrait distances, the 28-105 (stet at 105) was actually shorter than the 85/1.8 Nikkor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nico_. Posted November 28, 2007 Share Posted November 28, 2007 This was actually my first Nikon lens. I got it in a kit with the F80 and even though it was quite a bit more expensive than the cheap 28-80 kit, I didn't regret my purchase one second. That being sad, I'd like to point out a few problematic things about this lens. You should be careful about light sources in your frame since it flares heavily. The 18-70 is a huge improvement in that regard. Also, the front element rotates (that's why the silly lens hood) and lastly, out of focus highlights can have a nasty doughnut shape. Apart from that I like the lens quite a lot! The main reason I sold it was it's focal range on digital. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
photo5 Posted November 28, 2007 Share Posted November 28, 2007 No, the front element does not rotate on the Nikon 28-105mm, it is an ED-IF lens, internal focusing means the front element doesn't need to rotate. I found the 28-105mm better in terms of distortion than the 18-70mm as well. The 18- 200mm "funhouse" distortion at 18mm was unacceptable to me and contributed to my quickly selling it after buying it last year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mark_amos Posted November 28, 2007 Share Posted November 28, 2007 I almost exclusively enjoy my Nikon and Leica manual focus prime lens systems, but when I decided to get my feet wet with AF economically about 5 year ago, I got a used F70 and a new 28-105, and that is all the AF that I own. I particularly appreciate low distortion, and that lens has done very well for me within its limitations of speed. As I have read the on-going reviews of it, I guess I got a bit lucky in my choice for my priorities. I almost never use the set up, but I keep it because the lens will always provide some kind of entry zoom lens for a dslr one day if I decide to try, and even though the F70 interface is strange, it will meter my manual focus Nikon lenses. By the way, the fact that my cheap not-worth-selling F70 will meter manual focus lenses and none of the consumer Nikon gear today will do so, is so rediculous. Furthermore, I am satisfied with this as my only AF lens because I have no intention of buying a Nikon DSLR until they offer one that is VERY COMPACT that will meter with manual focus lenses. If I'm trying to make something, I guess I would enjoy a fine yankee-driver over a cheap cordless drill with a dead battery. (I'm just having fun.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michael s. Posted November 28, 2007 Share Posted November 28, 2007 Borrowed a friend's 28 - 105mm quite some time ago. It is an excellent lens. Sure hope he's not reading this thread. :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jose_angel Posted November 29, 2007 Share Posted November 29, 2007 Dave, "... it is an ED-IF lens, internal focusing means the front element doesn't need to rotate." Right. You have left zoom action! Actually, the front element rotates when zooming. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nico_. Posted November 30, 2007 Share Posted November 30, 2007 Dave, you're right. As Jose wrote, zooming rotates the front element. It's been a while since I sold the lens and confused the two. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now