glen_sansone1

Fair enough. I will post some crops later. Was it just me of does the D just look a little more contrast-y than the G?

<p>Oh, and NO FILTER!! </p>

<p>OK, OK....yeesh, I wasn't expecting such anarchy. Here is a link to test shots I did with both lenses. <br>

http://www.flickr.com/photos/28334151@N02/sets/72157634487266426/<br>

Shot at 100 ISO on a D800E, Aperture priority, 1.4, 4.0 and 5.6, Manfrotto tripod, auto focus. <br>

Tell me that the G is better than the D. </p>

 

Thank you, Tim. I think I was pretty clear that it was in no way a scientific test. It was simply pulling two lenses out of the

bag and shooting the same thing with the same setup. I wish we could get past the F-Pro filter. It was on both lenses.

Next round I will take them off. I don't presume too much from what I've done so far and you don't hear me making

absolute claims that the D blows away the G. All I said was how surprised I was based on the very unscientific, yet similar

setup. I still believe the G is better and fully expect a comeback when I get away from artificial light and remove the filter. I

tried really hard to nail the focus and eliminate any possibility of shake. Wide open i just couldnt get the G as sharp as the

D. Maybe we can look back and say that B+W filters are very inconsistent and actually sacrifice sharpness. That would be

good to know and I will then toss all of my filters except for only extreme conditions, which is rare.

 

Tim, I was actually considering keeping the D and selling the G even before comparing them. :)

Shun, I stated that I had identical filters on. I understand it sorta throws a wrench into the results, and I accepted the

results based on typical shooting setup. I usually have a B+W filter on, and if I do see a visible difference I will remove

them. Again, it was just one phase of my comparison. We will see what happens when I change things up a bit.

Sorry. I was using a D800. Will use a D800e today for round 2.

I did some straightforward tests between these two lenses and the results were not what I was expecting.

 

Compared the lenses and images as they look straight out of the camera. Even left on identical B+W F-Pro filters on both because that's

the way I use the lenses. Took pictures in a well lit room, on a tripod, 200 ISO, and compared shots at 1.4, 2.8, 5.6 and 8, shooting at

each aperture using AF AND Manual focus. I wasn't trying to be scientific, just wanted to know if the discussions were true about bokeh

and how different/the same they are in overall look and quality.

 

Much to my surprise, the D was not only noticeably sharper, especially at 1.4, but had better color, contrast and far less CA. Wide open

the G had very noticeable green and red CA in the spatial highlights/reflection caused by the lighting. Once I got around f4 the gap

closed, but the G's overall look was a little more dreamy, colors were more neutral, and the bokeh on the G was definitely creamier. I

don't know if I'd say it's that much better than the D...just a little different. They're both awesome.

 

At first I thought the G's AF was just off, but even manually focusing it didn't get too much better. Then I got to thinking perhaps the filter

was affecting the quality, but then thought, the same exact filter is on the D and its not suffering much at all. I also considered the shutter

speed and how slow it was when shooting at f 8 or higher. Not sure. Feel like there must be an explanation.

 

Tomorrow I am going to remove the filters and take them outside using natural sunlight and do some more amateur testing, because I

just couldn't believe how impressive the D was over the G indoor. Feel like the results should be much closer to one another.

 

I did the tests because I own both lenses and was considering keeping only one. I have always loved the D, and the G is big and chunky

and beautiful, but I just can't let go of the original D and its heavy crinkley metal, glass and unique, legendary character. The G is all

scientific, clinical and perfect, while the D is a down and dirty beautiful workhorse.

I only shoot with crinkle coated lenses. I'm not crazy.

Paul, check out the Feisol Elite tripods. Nice, carbon fiber, well made and well priced. And incredibly light for their size.

Don't know if you do more outdoor travel stuff or indoor studio type stuff, but if you just use it occasionally, and want

something you can carry around fairly easily, you can't go wrong.

I also have a monstrous Manfrotto 057 carbon fiber which is far more tripod than most people need. I use that strictly

indoor or where I am not walking much to set up.

 

Heads, the Feisol 70d is good, really strong and is priced ok. Arca compatible, too.

I also have a RRS BH-55 and, while it's a super piece of gear, I don't think one needs to spend that kind of money to hold

a camera steady. I don't find it leaps and bounds better than other heads doing the same job.

Perfect bag? Then we'd all have one bag, and who the hell wants just one bag? I am a huge fan of Think Tank. I have 3

of them plus a modular set for going "bag less"! TT stuff is, to me, the most smartly designed stuff on the market.

Why not a Feisol 50dc or something? Well made, strong, Arca compatible, maybe only lacking in serious durability, but I

don't know too many people who abuse tripod heads.

I use the Eneloop XX batteries, which are 2500 mAh each. Found them to be very durable and a little longer lasting than

the standard Eneloops, however on a set I had in one of my camera body battery packs they went from showing a full

charge on the camera display to half full...no 3/4. Not sure if the memory in the battery is off ... I've heard you need to

charge them and let them fully drain before recharging as to allow the full charge and full empty limits to be set. Well see

how they go next time.

I have one that I use to carry my Nikon d800 and a 70-200 2.8. It's roomy, really well made and can hold plenty. The

techy canvas material is really durable and comfortable to the touch. The cover/lid design is great. I have this bag and a

Think Tank Retrospective 30. One configured to handle a 70-200 and the other for anything else. Both bags are almost

identical and have their pros. I lean towards to Retro 30 because I think you can get a little more in it. But you can't go

wrong either way.

Lol. Sticks are more fun to drive than automatics! And I have gotten away from the boredom of auto transmission for the

fun of shifting a sporty car! But I digress. I think a 70-200 is a much more practical and useful lens because of its reach

and speed in getting from one shot or focal length to another quickly. Can't move your feet that fast and get that close like

you can with a tele-zoom. I love my 70-200 to death. I shot my 24-70 at a party last night exclusively and had fun with it,

save for two reasons: a little big and heavy, and not my preferred lens for portraits -- wished I brought my 85 1.4 for some

tighter portraits. Found myself too close to subjects (for my liking) with my 24-70 zoomed in the 50-70 range. Next event I

am going to go with a 35 1.4, 85 1.4 and a 16mm fish and compare.

I agree, Rick. Photojournalists, professional event photogs all live and die by their 24-70s, and it's such a workman-like

zoom, especially for fast-paced settings. It's a necessary tool for a certain kind of working pro. For someone who doesn't

"need" it, it's a tough nut to crack with so many primes of equal (or in some cases better) optical performance to choose

from that will cover much of that focal range.

Sorta torn about this lens. I have one but don't find myself using it as much as I expected. As someone who does a lot of mid-range

shooting (kids, events, parties, etc) I seem to gravitate to either a prime such as a 50 1.4, 35 1.4 or a 70-200 zoom and rarely a mid-

range zoom. I feel like I would rather "work" a super 1.4 prime rather than take the lazier path with the 24-70. The 24mm end isn't great,

and the 70mm is just on the boundary of prime portraiture range. Does anyone else out there find the 24-70 kinda boring to use? If I feel

like I won't have the latitude to really experiment and work with a prime, then the 24-70 makes sense, but otherwise I gravitate to primes.

Thinking about maybe selling mine for a 24 1.4. Thinking that, how hard is it to move a little bit with a 35 or 50 or even an 85? It's a fairly

narrow range and I am thinking I probably won't miss it. Anyone else dump their 24-70 in favor of prime lenses? Thanks for your

feedback.

<p>Wall and chart shooters like to pick on this lens, or they beat it up for not being a 2.8. It's perfectly adequate for 95% of the shooters out there. It serves a purpose well. For those who demand the best of the best because they feel thier pictures will be better also don't mind paying for it and carrying it around. That's a choice. Jay Maisel and Moose Peterson (and others) seem not to have a problem with the 70-300 (for appropriate applications) and Maisel has taken some pretty amazing pictures with it. What have you done with that $2500 lens?There's definitely a indian/arrow argument on the underside of this debate. A great picture is a great picture, no matter what lens takes it. Ones images are no better because a $2500 lens was used to capture it. A crappy image still sucks no matter how sharp, contrasty or colorful it is. But, this lens is cheap enough to give it a try. I have one because I don't want to always carry my 80-200 2.8 -- it's heavy. Plus, on a bright day when I could use a little extra reach, this lens is fantastic, and it has no equal in its price range. </p>

Definitely don't buy into the notion that it has to be new to be good. Just look at the construction and feel of the older

Nikkors. They are spectacularly built. Today you get lots of plastic, Chinese and Taiwanese construction and bigger

quality gaps. Optically you could pick some of them apart but not so much that most would ever notice. I have the 50mm

1.2, 55mm micro 2.8, 25-50 f/4 zoom and 85mm 1.4 ais. They all work great on my D700 and I would put the 55mm up

against anything for sharpness and the 85mm for bokeh.

Get the 80-200 2.8. Tank like and versatile. That 28-300 is junk. Zoom in to 300 and watch the dark rain cloud enter your

viewfinder.

One thing you could do is take it out with you (rent one) and make that the only lens you use. Use it for everything and see if you can be

creative at that focal length. You will find uses for it. If you have a 70-200 2,8 I don't know that I would invest in a 1.8 85mm. Shooting at

1,4 is another world since the dof is the thickness of a magazine.

I have a 85mm 1.4 ais manual for use mainly on my F3 or F5. I use it for low light and particular types of portraits. But it is more versatile

than you think. I also have a 135mm AF-d DC and THAT is a portrait lens. It screams portrait with its reach and beautifully washed out

backgrounds.

Yes, my guy is an authorized Nikon

repairman. If there is something wrong

he would tell me and fix it. He made a

call to another tech who is a little more

experiened with 28-70s and he said a

little tiny bit of rattle is no big deal. The

focal ring instead of having a feint

shhhhh sound as you rotate has a feint

soft more of a grindy type sound it's not

rough. It's smooth, with just a different

sound. I'm not sure if because the lens

is so large and thick that perhaps it

comes with the territory. If a Nikon tech

said so I'd never think of it again. But

something tells me something inside

the lens might be a tad loose. I don't

want to return it. If it needs tweaking I'll

deal with it. The seller has even offered

to come to me with his other 28-70 and

let me compare the two. I also saw a

recent receipt with matching serial from

Bikon that said the lens is perfectly

usable. Any squeaks are due to the

AFS motor which can be replaced. One

way or the other I will reach a

conclusion, even if I have to pay or split

a repair bill. The lens is sharp and

bright, so I know the optics are fine.

Just hoping another 28-70 owner could

describe some of the idiosyncrasies of

this lens. Thanks!

No aperture ring, no thank you. Another plastic lens.

Just wondering if any other owners of the Nikon 28-70 2.8 zoom have any issues with the lens sounding or feeling loose. Let me explain.

I am new to this lens and purchased on that was regularly serviced every 2 years with no issues during its lifespan. However I notice a

few things:

 

1. The focal length ring when you turn it gives off a light grinding noise as it slides between 28 and 70. It's smooth but a little noisy.

 

2. The focal ring I believe is a tad loose. When I hold the lens and turn it upside down and right side up the insides sound a little loose.

Like a few knocks and pings. There is also maybe 1/2 mm of play in the ring.

 

Any other owners experience this? I mean, if I take my brand new 50mm 1.4 AFS prime and lightly rotate it or shake it I feel movement

inside as well, so I am not sure what to make of it.

 

I have a Nikon lens/camera friend whose been repairing cameras and lenses for 40 years so I do plan to let him tune it up, but before I do

I was hoping to hear from some fellow owners.

 

Much thanks!

Yes.. 35mm 1.8 on a D3000 would be nice.

Anyone still rocking the 28-70 2,8? Seems like a better build quality than 24-70 and just as good.