toggio Posted October 2, 2003 Share Posted October 2, 2003 I've just buyed my F80 but i'm not so happy for the quality of the pics... I have the AF 28-100 3.5-5.6 G Nikkor lens and i was told that is because of it... I hear that AF 28-105 3.5-4.5 D is a very good alternative... (The cost of the G is about 180 Euros and for D is 570 Euros). Thanx in advance Luca Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lance_free Posted October 2, 2003 Share Posted October 2, 2003 Hi Luca, I've tried a number of lenses and find that, for the focal range, the Nikon 28-105 3.5/4.5 AF-D is a good one. Broader zooms just haven't been as sharp in my opinion although the convenience is great. I like this particular lens, too, because it has very good close focusing abilities. While not as good as a true macro lens, it's still quite good. You will find a range of data at www.photodo.com, www.photographyreview.com and www.photozone.de to name just a few. While not exhaustive, these sites have been pretty accurate as far as my experience goes. Of course, individual lens samples do vary. Best wishes. LF Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lachaine Posted October 2, 2003 Share Posted October 2, 2003 I haven't owned the 28-100G, but I've owned both the 28-80G (very similar to the 28-100G), and the 28-105D. The 28-105D is a much better built lens (more to Nikon's usual standards), but, I honestly don't think you will see that much difference in the quality of the pics. The biggest advantage of the 28-105 is that it has almost no pincushion or barrel distortion. For a zoom lens, that's pretty good. That being said, there can be other variables than the lens which cause pictures of lesser quality. You can easily get onto a merri-go-round of lens upgrades without seeing any real improvement. What film are you using? Who is processing it and making the prints? Are you using the lens wide open? Quality is a very subjective word - do you mean sharpness? In my case, I wasn't satisfied with *any* consumer zoom, even the 28-105D. I think this is because I spent the first 30 years of my photo hobby using only prime lenses. There's just no comparison in the overall clarity of the pictures, and the zooms just didn't do what I wanted. So I got rid of them and got some prime lenses for my F80 instead. Now I'm happy. I have the photo quality I expected when I bought the camera (but I do lose the convenience of the zoom though). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jim schwaiger Posted October 2, 2003 Share Posted October 2, 2003 Luca, I have the 28-105mm and I find that it is very sharp and low distortion compared to cheaper zooms. But without knowing what you are doing, it is hard to guess what difference it will make. Indeed there are a lot of things that can affect quality of the print. Try some experiments to see how sharp the lens can be. Try a decent tripod with slow film (ISO 50 or 100), try a few processing labs, try using smaller apertures. If you are getting 4x6 prints, even the cheap lens should make good prints (with good technique). You need to find how slow you can handhold the camera (rule of thumb is 1/focal length, so at ISO 100, you should not handhold slower than about 1/125 sec). Most zooms are not sharp at the maximum aperture, so stop down 1 or 2 stops and see if that helps. The lab can also make a big difference. Find an image that you like and have it printed at a better lab and see if it makes a significant difference. If you plan to do significant enlargements, the better lens will be worth the price. A prime lens will do even better, but I have to admit that I keep the 28-105mm on when I need an all-purpose lens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lance_free Posted October 2, 2003 Share Posted October 2, 2003 Not to belabour, Pierre is absolutely right: primes (almost always) are better performers optically. However, the lost convenience of not having the right lens to compose in changing conditions makes the loss of quality acceptable for me, at least, when choosing a zoom. Per the websites I mentioned earlier, Luca, see if you can find data related to your current lens and the lenses you're willing to consider. Not that I'm a strong endorser of Nikon (I own various brands depending on the strength of the lens relative to specific applications), but my experience and research led me to the 3.5-4.5 lens. My concerns were the focal range and overall quality of the optics: price was not my primary concern when I made that decision. Yes, I also own a couple of prime lenses in that range which are helpful for certain applications. Thinking ahead, I've also found this particular lens satisfactory with digital (Fuji S2) which also speaks well of the optics as the image is being exposed on a CCD which is 40% the size of film! The only caveat is that smaller CCDs make the 28mm end 'seem' like 42mm. Eventually, I expect full frame sensors will be the norm so I don't anticipate it will be an issue forever. As for build quality, in any lens under $500, I don't think I've ever been overwhelmed by quality, at least, not in a zoom. As your needs grow, if there is a marked difference in optical performance between your existing lens and f/3.5-4.5, I think you'll find the f/3.5-4.5 will always have a place in your camera bag. LF Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dougs Posted October 2, 2003 Share Posted October 2, 2003 i have both, i'll post two pics with the lens's set the same 50mm f/5.6, see what you like better.. regards doug Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dougs Posted October 2, 2003 Share Posted October 2, 2003 the second Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dougs Posted October 2, 2003 Share Posted October 2, 2003 only after i blow them up to 200% do i see a difference, but only minor, i bought the 28-100G for my daughter, $100, my 28-105D $300. i really cant tell the diff Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lance_free Posted October 2, 2003 Share Posted October 2, 2003 I don't wish to overstay my welcome, Luca, but I saw at Popular Photography (http://www.popphoto.com/article.asp?section_id=2&article_id=713) that they tested your lens and thought it was pretty good (supporting Douglas Swinskey's efforts). I didn't check other sources but, with Douglas's results, PopPhoto's analysis and our collective experiences of trying various lenses, unless you have a dud lens (possible but statistically unlikely), Pierre's advice of not getting onto a merri-go-round and Jim's suggestion of testing different apertures, etc., sound very reasonable. You do say you just bought the camera: I would strongly suggest you test further before abandoning the lens. Perhaps as you gain experience using the camera's autofocus feature, switching to manual focus and different aperture selections to gain greater depth of field (try your F80's depth-of-field preview button) you may find this lens to be pretty good. If not, Pierre's suggestion of using primes can't be beaten if quality is your game. 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