I downgraded my AF-S 18-105VR with an AF 28-105D

[yk_feng]

<p>First of all, I don't think it's silly to downgrade my gear, I made the decision based on what gear I have and how much I know about lenses.<br>

By the way, I'd suggest the following people not read this post:<br />1. Professional or full-time photographers; <br />2. Photographers who has tremendous bank balance; <br />3. Photographers who is strictly picky on the image quality;<br />4. Photographers who deem photography is showcase of gears;</p>

<p>Other amateurs may want to continue to read down through:</p>

<p>I'd admit expensive lenses are generally better than cheaper ones, while on the other hand, if you cannot get good images with cheaper lenses, then more expensive lenses will not bring you better images either.<br>

No time for nonsense! I am also a very ordinary amateur, I only want beginners to think rationally and expense rationally.</p>

<p>Having compared a lot among economical lenses, I finally got the AF 28-105 F3.5-4.5D at about USD 130, this was a very popular lens in the era of F100 and it matches F80 perfectly. In the same time, I sold my AF-S 18-105VR without any regret.</p>

<p>The reason why I downgraded my gear are as below:<br />1. I already have a Tokina 12-24/F4, so I am not sad with loss of wide angle of 18-28mm;<br />2. There is a quasi-macro function, that is exciting for those who does not want to invest in a true macro lens, like myself; <br />3. It is slightly faster than the AF-S 18-105VR, and it seems 28-105 is more solid</p>

<p>To me the advantages of this lens are:<br />1. Focusing is fairly fast, that is what beyond my expectation;<br />2. 9-bladed aperture ring makes better bokeh;<br />3. Range of focal length is versatile; <br />4. Low distortion, especially on DX camera;</p>

<p>Every coin has 2 sides, there are weaknesses:<br />1. Manual focus is not precise because the turn of focusing ring is too short; <br />2. Need to move a switch to get to macro mode at focal length between 50-105mm, reversely, need to focus at greater than 2 feet if you want to move back to regular mode; <br />3. After all it was introduced 10+ years ago, there is no ED element, nor VR. While this is not what I care, because both of the 2 lenses have color fringes, furthermore, hand-holding capability is also important, and a tripod is a must if I do macro shootings;<br />4. The filter thread rotates with zoom;</p>

[yk_feng]

<p>Images in the left were shot with 28-105D, images in the right were shot with 18-105VR, if not otherwise specified.<br>

The 1st image was shot at 35mm, F8 1/400, as we can see, 18-105 one already has visable distortion;</p><div></div>

[yk_feng]

<p>This is the 100% magnification of center, we can see the 18-105 one is softer;</p><div></div>

[yk_feng]

<p>This is the edge of the 2 images, no significant difference except for distortion.</p><div></div>

[yk_feng]

<p>These were shot at 105mm with largest aperture, we found the 28-105 one (left) is softer; besides, 18-105 is a DX lens, so there are vignette at corners, while 28-105 one is fine.</p><div></div>

[yk_feng]

<p>Humm, the color fringer of the 28-105 one is more obvious than 18-105, if we look at the softness, this two are similar.</p><div></div>

[yk_feng]

<p>This is another image, shot at 35mm, aperture was put at F11, 1/60s, I found the 28-105 one has stronger color and contrastive;</p><div></div>

[yk_feng]

<p>This is 100% magnification of image centers, 28-105 one is sharper, obviously.</p><div></div>

[rombon]

<p>I have problem understanding your post because there is no question and you already made a decision.<br /> Do I understand you correctly - you tested both lenses with F80 camera? EXIF information shows the use of D90 camera.<br /> Your comparison of sharpness is quite problematic because the right picture is overexposed in most cases. Also you give no data about the shutter speed, means of focusing, use of tripod etc.<br /> I was satisfied with AF 28-105 F3.5-4.5D as travel zoom on my F100 but I find it quite unsharp on modern FX DSRL cameras. On DX camera you loose wide angle part of the zoom range and I do not find the effective 42-157 mm range very useful on DX.<br /> Regards, Marko</p>

[ShunCheung]

<blockquote>

<p>I already have a Tokina 12-24/F4, so I am not sad with loss of wide angle of 18-28mm;</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I, for one, never buy that kind of logic. On a DX body, I use the range from 18mm to 50mm frequently. It would be extremely annoying that every time I cross the 24/28mm boundary, I need to change lenses.</p>

<p>Likewise on FX, even though I already had the 17-35mm/f2.8 zoom, I still didn't like the 35-70mm/f2.8 because it was not wide enough. A 28-70mm/f2.8 and especially a 24-70mm/f2.8 is much better. Frequently there is insufficient time to change lenses and if you need to keep changing lenses, you tend to make mistakes such as dropping a lens.</p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>If I had to change my lens every time I wanted to go from about 35mm to about 24mm or 18mm... it would drive me completely crazy.</p>

<p>But bravo to you.</p>

[yk_feng]

<p>Dear Marko,<br>

Thanks for your comments! Actually I intended to ask if anyone here has experienced this lense and how do they like this lens.<br>

Yes, I tested the lens with D90 instead of F80, sorry for confusing caused. By the way, I used exact the same shutter speed with both lenses, that is how differently the 2 lenses performed.<br>

Thanks a lot!<br>

BRs, Brighton</p>

[dan_brown4]

<p>Hi Brighton. Thanks for posting your test results. And, don't sweat it if the oracles are confused because you failed seek their wisdom ;-)</p>

<p>I am also a fan of the 28-105, albeit in a D700 in my case. Other than the lack of VR, I have found the 28-105 easily holds it own against all other current Nikkors of similar optical speed. And, that fact that it can be found at really low prices makes it the obvious choice for a standard zoom. I think there may be a bit of sample variation in this lens, so you will hear a negative review now and then, therefore it's worth the effort to test your sample, as you clearly did.</p>

<p>Cheers.</p>

[yk_feng]

<p>Dear Shun,<br>

Thanks for your recommendation! I also find it's a little bit inconvenient, but since I already did like this, I will have to utilize tham as much as possible though.<br>

17-35 is a great lense, however, I don't have enough money to invest it in.<br>

Do you have any experience with this lens 28-105?<br>

Best regards,<br>

Brighton</p>

[CoryAmmerman]

<p>I'm also a big fan of the 28-105. I think it's a very good performer, considering it's price. I used mine extensively as a walk-around lens, until I, unfortunately, dropped my camera while slinging it on my shoulder and broke the zooming mechanism of the lens. :-( Although I did find myself wanting to go wider occasionally, it really wasn't that big of a deal. If I didn't have a wider lens with me, I'd just do a quick 2- or 3-shot pano. I thought the lens was plenty sharp enough for my uses, and found the Macro feature quite handy and able to produce decent macro images. The lens balanced very well on my D50. I never got a chance to try it out on my D300. I do still have the lens and have thought about sending it in for a repair estimate, since a all the copies I've seen recently on eBay and KEH have been going around $200.</p><div></div>

[CoryAmmerman]

<p>Here's a macro shot with the 28-105 and a PK-13 extension tube attached. </p><div></div>

[jack flannery]

<p>I bought the 28-105mm at a camera show for a ridiculous price (something like $125 in nice condition). It is what I put on my D700 for walking around. Regardless of its foibles, it is more lens for the money than practically anything out there.</p>

[johnfarrar]

<p>I bought a 28-105 as a lightweight lens for long mountain days. I've been very pleased with it; my copy is pretty sharp, has low distortion, and seems quite robust. On FX I often pair it with a 20/2.8, and when I used DX, with a 10-20. I've read some quite critical things about this lens, but my experience is wholly positive. Bjorn Rorslett is also pretty positive, and his views are very considered. The hood is big, ugly and not too good for the long end. Hope you enjoy using it!</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>I have never had the 28-105. A lot of people used to like it during the film era.</p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<p>A couple of years ago, I received a 28-105 but sold it (without even trying it) because I had the range covered with other lenses. Last year, I saw one in the used lens counter at the local dealer and out of a whim purchased it. It now practically lives on my D200 as a lens for street shooting. If I need something shorter, then the 12-24 is pressed into service but quite often, I walk around with just the 28-105. FWIW, on a DX camera, the HN-23 hood from the AF 85/1.8 fits perfectly without vignetting. The build-in "macro" mode - though a bit cumbersome to use - comes in handy too.</p>

<p>Strangely enough, when I had the 12-24/24-85 combo, the frequent lens changes drove me nuts and were a major contributor in me upgrading to the 11-16/17-55 combo. Nowadays, for general shooting, the 16-35/4 VR often takes the place of the 17-55.</p>

<p>Compared to the 24-85/3.5-4.5 AF-S, the build quality is a lot better and the lens feels more sturdy. I always felt that when walking around with the 24-85 that I could feel the lens wobble. I'd probably would enjoy the 24-120/4 VR most - but it it cost about 8 times what I paid for the 28-105.</p>

[Rick Waller]

<p>I have owned the 28-105 for many years dating back to my F5's. Took it down one time for a trip to Israel mounted on a D700. Idea was I wanted a compact lightweight kit rather than haul my D3 and 24-70.</p>

<p>I forgot how much I loved that lens. I think it is simply terrific little lens that is easy to carry and produced exceptional images. Is it as good as my 24-70? Of course not, but when hiking in 100+ degree desert climate, I sure did love it.<br>

<img src="https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-_WQDNmEGrsM/S-dfA2FPzCI/AAAAAAAAAHY/BnxEC_sadQ8/s512/_DSC9645%2520tighter.jpg" alt="" /><br>

<img src="https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-sVJNTeigL-k/S-dflKDGh9I/AAAAAAAAAJ8/mJfOQC9pq9g/s512/_DSC9714tight.jpg" alt="" width="410" height="512" /><br>

<img src="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-H3no6T-oGj4/S-df4dn2z2I/AAAAAAAAALU/ii4mL8-m6_4/s512/_DSC9753tighter.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p><img src="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-vA1gymR2CHw/S-dgG6PUL5I/AAAAAAAAAMY/Es1ZRDZHnFU/s512/_DSC9784close.jpg" alt="" /><br>

<img src="https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-tABjOoe9T8I/S-diHJHMtII/AAAAAAAAAVw/VtrNeGUd2-c/s512/_DSC10000_087.jpg" alt="" width="410" height="512" /><br>

and here is the little devil in action....<br>

<img src="https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-eQ9EyepCUQs/S-dhfEDNFTI/AAAAAAAAAS4/6wUKaYY4EI8/s512/_DSC9982.jpg" alt="" width="410" height="512" /></p>

[rene gm]

<p>The 28-105 is - was - for full sized sensors. You are only using a center part of it. Thus no fringing, little distortion, and no corner softness.<br>

If you can live with the missing VR and the 28mm, it should be a very nice lens. I once used a 28-80 on a D60 and was very happy too at that time. For a walk around, I need 18mm definitely, as well as VR.</p>

[nick_baker]

<p>I have a 28-105D. I used it as a walk-around lens on a D700 and was very happy. I compared it directly with my 16-85VR on a D300, and the 28-105D was sharper between 28-85. Many people have had similar experiences (Bjorn Rorslett gives quite a positive review). On the other hand, some people that have used this lens have not liked it so much, which makes me wonder if there are good ones and bad ones.</p>

[vlad_stan]

<p>I have tried 6 examples on D700 and every one was excellent below 50mm, but over 70mm<br>

there was noticable unsharpness toward the right side of the image bellow f11.<br>

Anyone with similar experience?</p>

<p>Besides this problem excelent lens.</p>