Across the Lawn and Down the Street: Nikkor 28-70 f/2.8 on D800E at f/8 (cropped from center)

Here is the original, resized, with no post processing.

 

--Lannie

Here is a 100% crop, no post processing.

 

--Lannie

Here is the same crop with unsharp mask applied.  The unsharp mask was applied with quantity 150, radius 0.3, threshold 0.  It would have looked fine with a quantity of 75--or no sharpening at all, in my opinion.

 

The original shot was made at 70mm on the zoom.  I have not yet posted one showing the corners, or at 28mm.

 

--Lannie

Suburban Landscape: This was shot with a better lens than the firsttest shot in this folder, but near the center there is littledifference. (The difference is in the corners Commentswelcome.

--Lannie

You ask why the fire hydrant is typically the star of my test shots.  Well, like any good model, availability at a moment's notice is a prime criterion.

 

--Lannie

Hi Lannie,

I applaud your efforts.

However, the technical details fall short in showing the settings used on the camera and lens.

I know how all there is to know about this lens from my years of lab work with all the released versions. I have used this lens for many weddings and special events on many Nikon cameras, too. 

Best Regards my friend, Mike

Mike, these are all from one file shot at f/8.

 

Maybe on another day I will try this at f/2.8, etc., but this was a lens that had just arrived from KEH (Exc+), and I wanted to rule out any gross malfunctions or other problems. It would be a mistake to presume that I was using a level of rigor that would be satisfactory for any true test, but it was a good enough test to tell me whether or not to return the lens.   I have decided to keep it.

 

Thanks as always for your efforts.

 

--Lannie

Here is the top right shot at f/2.8.  (The focal length was 28mm, as wide as this lens goes.)

 

It is hard to believe that this lens gives such exquisite results at the center.

 

--Lannie

Here is the top right shot at f/8.  The focal length is still 28mm.

 

--Lannie

Here is the center at f/2.8--a 100 percent crop from the shot at 28mm (not 70mm like one  higher up the page, which just happens to have been shot at f/8).

 

--Lannie

Here is the original file (resized, shot at f/2.8) from which the original top corner is shown above.

 

--Lannie

Here is a very similar original file (resized), but this time shot at f/8, from which the above corner shot at f/8 was cropped.

 

--Lannie

100% crop very near center at 28mm f/2.8, file 001

 

The posted shot at the top of the page, by contrast, was shot at 70mm, not 28mm.

 

--Lannie

100% crop very near center at 28mm f/8, file 004

 

The posted shot at the top of the page, by contrast, was shot at 70mm, not 28mm.

 

In other words, there is not much difference between the shots made at f/2.8 and f/8 at the center of the respective files, both shot with the zoom set at 28mm.

 

These two files look the same unless one looks very closely.  This one has greater depth of field, which can be discerned by the grass at the bottom of the frame.  It is sharper on this one.

 

--Lannie

With the zoom set at 70mm, the difference between f/2.8 and f/8 is much more obvious.

 

This 100% crop, for example, shows a very unimpressive result at f/2.8.

 

--Lannie

This very similar crop made from another file shot at 70mm, on the other hand, shows much better results.  It was shot with the lens stopped down to f/8.

 

This was cropped from the same file that is shown at the top of the page--70mm focal length, stopped down to f/8.

 

--Lannie

Here, once again, is the original file that the posted photo at the top of the page was cropped and resized from.

 

--Lannie

CONCLUSIONS: This is a very reputable lens, but the f/2.8 setting is virtually worthless even in the center of the photo at 70mm.  At 22mm, by comparison, there is very little difference between the files shot at f/2.8 and f/8, respectively.

 

In other words, at least where the center is concerned, one can shoot at 22mm (the wide end of the zoom) at virtually all aperture settings that one is likely to want to use.  At 70mm, by comparison, the recommended aperture setting is probably f/8 for optimal resolution.

 

CAVEAT: Although my copy of this lens did not perform well at f/2.8 at 70mm, it did quite well at f/4, f/5.6, and f/11 at 70mm--in addition to the stellar performance at f/8.  I am not sure why the results at f/2.8 were so abysmal at 70mm, whereas those at f/4 and high f-numbers all gave good results at 70mm.  (I won't try to post the evidence of that statement here, but it is pretty obvious simply by looking at the files at "Actual Pixels" size in Photoshop, which is to say at 100%.)

 

--Lannie

One other point that requires reiterating is that the lens does not (as noted above) do well in the corners at the wide end, 28mm, with the aperture wide open (f/2.8).

 

IN OTHER WORDS, THIS LENS WILL GIVE FINE RESULTS AT THE CENTER AT MOST APERTURES AT A FOCAL LENGTH OF 28MM, BUT THE CORNERS WILL REQUIRE SOME STOPPING DOWN AT 28MM--WITH F/8 BEING THE BEST, AS FAR AS I CAN TELL.  Serious wide angle shooters will want to avoid shooting wide open at f/2.8--not that that is a surprising thing to find out.  I simply reiterate it here because of the obvious disparity in performance between the center and the corners at f/2.8 (at 28mm).

 

I have not looked into the corners at other focal lengths besides 28mm.

 

WHY BOTHER WITH ALL OF THIS ON A LENS THAT IS NO LONGER IN PRODUCTION?  I suppose that the simplest answer to that is that the 24-70mm f/2.8 is so outrageously expensive that some persons might want to look around on the used market for the earlier 28-70 f/2.8 version, as I did.  I like the lens, although I have to say that there are days when I wish that I had 24mm on this lens, but, alas, it is not there.  "It is what it is," and what it is is a very good stand-in for the 24-70 f/2.8--unless one needs something wider than 28mm.

 

I had the 24-70 2.8 in a Canon EF lens from 2006 until 2012.  That sort of spoiled me.  I do like having a good mid-range zoom that will go all the way out to 24mm on the wide end.

 

That is one reason that I have recently spent some time evaluating the much less expensive Nikon 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5.  That lens is passable, but it really is not in the same league with this lens, much less with the 24-70 f/2.8.  The less expensive zoom does, however, go all the way out to 24mm, and it does pretty well there.  For many applications it is enough, and it is certainly a lot cheaper than the maximum aperture f/2.8 zooms (28-70 and 24-70).

 

One last point: Although I shoot with a wide range of lenses in terms of both specs and quality, this 28-70mm f/2.8 lens has become my "Go To" lens for much shooting.  It has yet to let me down.  I got it on eBay for a reasonable price, and it has been very reliable so far.

 

--Lannie

 

 

This lens was bought second-hand from KEH.COM in Atlanta in 2013.

 

--Lannie