Ever heard of an AF NIKKOR 28-80mm f/2.8D ED ?

[mike_halliwell]

I would have preferred a range like 28-80mm for a bit tighter portraits at the long end.

 

Nikon 28-80mm f/3.3-5.6G

 

f5.6 for tight portraits?, nah.

[q.g._de_bakker]

f5.6 for tight portraits?, nah.

Why not?

[mike_halliwell]

Why not?

Of course you can, but the usual aim of portaiture is to isolate the subject by blurring out the background..... and that's not so easy with a slow f5.6 at the portrait end. And there's always that subjective concept of how OOF highlights appear (bokeh), fast lenses usually have much smoother ones for a less distracting background.

 

Yes, you can mitigate that weakness by trying to find a better background, but that's not always possible and the whole point of a fast lens is so you don't have to!

[q.g._de_bakker]

Of course you can, but the usual aim of portaiture is to isolate the subject by blurring out the background..... and that's not so easy with a slow f5.6 at the portrait end. And there's always that subjective concept of how OOF highlights appear (bokeh), fast lenses usually have much smoother ones for a less distracting background.

 

Yes, you can mitigate that weakness by trying to find a better background, but that's not always possible and the whole point of a fast lens is so you don't have to!

F/5.6 at tight portrait distance isn't that much, i think.

 

At f/5.6, i.e. wide open, the aperture is the same shape as that of faster lenses. Whether the bokeh is smooth depends on lens design and correction. It's true that fast lenses wide open show a bit more residual lens faults. But there is no hard and fast rule that says that an f/5.6 lens has less smooth bokeh than an f/2.8 lens. You have to try the lens.

[ilkka_nissila]

Why not?

 

I often use this type of a lens (24-70/2.8 now, but would like 28-80 mm f/2.8) to photograph people at events, the benefit is that it allows the photography of both groups of people and individuals without changing lenses. However, light is often low indoors so that I end up using as high ISO as 12800. A smaller aperture lens would not work in this case. I am happy to use primes to get faster apertures but it's more of a hassle and a zoom allows quicker changes to angle of view.

 

70 mm is a bit short for head and shoulders and 80 mm would be an improvement while still maintaining f/2.8 aperture in this prototype.

 

I suspect the plan to make a 28-80 mm f/2.8 my have been abandoned because DX sensors were the first to come out in digital so Nikon must have felt pressure to go for wider angles of view in the standard and wide-angle zooms. So they made first 17-55 for DX and then 24-70 mm in FX. Now that we have 35mm full size sensors again and DX plays a less prominent role, I would like to see extending the tele end of the f/2.8 standard zoom back on the drawing board. I don't like the 24-120/4, too much of an optical compromise, and also the f/4 max aperture with strong vignetting is not ideal for indoor use.

[mike_halliwell]

However, light is often low indoors so that I end up using as high ISO as 12800.

The 2 stops brighter light input also gives the AF module a better chance of a good lock when it's a low contrast and dim target.

 

It wasn't that long ago that cameras couldn't autofocus with lenses that had apertures slower than 5.6, so living on the limit is always going to be tricky.

 

The VF brightness difference between using an f5.6 and an f2.8 aperture lens is chalk and cheese. I prefer cheese, unless it's for writing on a blackboard...:p

[Dieter Schaefer]

So they made first 17-55 for DX

Which interestingly translates to something like 27-85 FX-equivalent (taking into account that the 17mm was really about 17.6mm and that the crop factor is more like 1.52-1.54 instead of 1.5).

 

I always wondered why there isn't a 24-80/2.8 (to accompany a 80-200/2.8) instead of the now common 24-70/70-200 pair. In the progression 35-70, 28-70, and 24-70, the longer end was never extended. I recall reading that in order to make the at-the-time quite revolutionary 25-50/4 possible (aka extending the range on the wide end), a lot of focal length mm had to be sacrificed on the long end. So I assume that optical design restrictions are the reason we don't get to see a 24-80/2.8. Obviously, a 28-80/2.8 is possible - but I am certain that there are quite a few photographers that would complain it not to be wide enough at the short end:( Similarly, the long end can be extended (see Leica's 24-90/2.8-4) but at the expense of introducing a variable aperture. Or even further (24-105, 24-120) but only a f/4.

 

I am happy to use primes to get faster apertures but it's more of a hassle and a zoom allows quicker changes to angle of view.

A zoom is certainly more convenient - I just keep wondering (and for lack of opportunity/need never tried) if two camera bodies, one with a 28 (as a compromise between 24 and 35) and one with a 85 (or 90/100/105) would be adequate in the situation mentioned.

[mike_halliwell]

I always wondered why there isn't a 24-80/2.8

I'd guess digital is the answer here for different reasons.

 

To crop the view from 70mm to an EQ of 80mm is not significant on a 24MP sensor, although admittedly that hasn't been common for that long.

 

...and whilst stitching separate frames can allow a much wider FoV, nothing much is allowed to move or misalignment's occur, so a wider 'start' focal length is more important.

[ilkka_nissila]

A zoom is certainly more convenient - I just keep wondering (and for lack of opportunity/need never tried) if two camera bodies, one with a 28 (as a compromise between 24 and 35) and one with a 85 (or 90/100/105) would be adequate in the situation mentioned.

 

Yes, but then there are two bodies and lenses to deal with, something I try to avoid. If I really need it, I do use two cameras and two lenses (such as in the church or at PhD defences, I use two lenses typically on two bodies and have one of them in my hands and the other either on a table or floor somewhere where I can easily pick it up and where it would not be easily bumped), but if it could be done with one lens and one camera, my activities as a photographer would be less noticeable and I'd rather people pay attention to the main event and not the photographer.

Edited February 26, 2021 by ilkka_nissila

[ilkka_nissila]

I'd guess digital is the answer here for different reasons.

 

To crop the view from 70mm to an EQ of 80mm is not significant on a 24MP sensor, although admittedly that hasn't been common for that long.

 

Sure, but from 80 mm you could crop a bit tighter than from 70 mm.

 

...and whilst stitching separate frames can allow a much wider FoV, nothing much is allowed to move or misalignment's occur, so a wider 'start' focal length is more important.

 

Yes, stitching isn't realistic in multiple moving subjects scenarios. But I would still prefer 28-80 mm f/2.8 over 24-70 mm f/2.8, and if necessary, augment the former with a 20 mm prime.

Edited February 26, 2021 by ilkka_nissila