| Joined: | Sun Apr 1st, 2012 |
| Location: | South Lakeland, UK |
| Posts: | 4066 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
17-35 AFS or 28-70 AFS?
Thread started 1st May 2001
Post #1 Peter:
I am thinking of buying either the 17-35 AFS or 28-70 AFS. Which one would you recommend as standard lens to be used in many different situations. You know the kind of lens you're happy to see mounted on your camera when you get it out of your bag...
I currently have :
- an 80-200mm 2.8 (old generation),
- a 85mm 1.8 D, great lens but limited use for portraits,
- a 20mm 1.8 D (unusable on my D1, all pictures get overexposed, I don't know why).
Thanks for your help,
Peter
Post #2 Clive:
Hi peter, The lens that I am pleased to see on my camera is the 80-400 VR as most of shots are candid from a distance and this lens gives me what I want most of the time and its very sharp.
However to answer your question more directly I have both of the AFS lenses you mention and I suspect dependant upon what you shoot you will not be disappointed with either.
The 20-70 for portraits etc and the 17-35 for landscapes generally. These are, however, my personal opinions and these are more proficient photogs in this group you might find provide a more professional opinion. But I doubt you will be disappointed with either from my experience - if you can afford both then have both you won't regret it.
I want the AFS 300 next with 2x tele convertor for wildlife but am waiting for the pennies to come in!!
Post #3 Ustein:
We have both lenses and they are fine. But what is standard changes all the time:
As we have to cameras we can complement each other.
Wildlife/birds:
80-400 VR + 300 f/4 AFS + TC-14E/TC-20E
+ 105 Micro for flowers in the bag
City:
28-70 + 17-35 (we are not that much in wide angle photography but sometimes we need it)
Read here:
http://www.outbackphoto.com/reviews/equipment/lenses/mylenses.html
and
http://www.outbackphoto.com/reviews/equipment/lenses/steinmueller.html
Uwe
Post #4 Larrynip:
I have both, and find I use the 28-70 far more for my "people stuff", and my 17 for my "nature, scenic" stuff. It really depends what you shoot more of. If I were pressed to make a decision, I would probably go with the 28-70
Post # 5 Carol Steele:
I was pretty much in the same situation. Because I shoot mainly people I decided to save money and go for the 28-70 as I felt this would be my main lens, but I went for a prime 17mm Tokina lens for the wide angle. If I need anything between 17 and 28 I just pop on the 17mm and move forward a few inches.
Post # 6 RonRoss:
Peter,
I too have both. I started with the 28-70 and when I got the 17-35 I switched.
One thing to keep in mind. The 17-35 has a greater tendency to back focus.
Post #7 Don Zawadiwsky:
I purchased the 28-70 AF-S a couple of weeks ago and love it. Especially nice for me is the macro capability--not true macro, but close enough that I don't worry about grabbing another lens for closeups.
Rather than purchasing the accompanying 17-35 AF-S lens, I've been happy with a 20/2.8 AF(non-D) Nikkor and the Sigma 14/3.5 AF.
Post #8 Dennis Barnes:
My all around lens is the 28-300 Tamron -- the most versatile lens I know of -- from wide angle to telephoto. For my money you cannot beat it.
Dennis
Post #9 Paul Chiu:
There was a rather spectacular shot on page 72-73 of September Pop Photo by Tom Sperduto of the World Trade Center site. He took it with a D1X and the Tamron 28-105 f2.8 zoom.
The details were amazing. Any of you with experience with this lens?
Paul
Post #10 Terence F. Treppa:
Peter,
I have both lenses. I began with the 28-70 and continue to use it most of the time. I take a lot of people pictures and this lens gives me the versitility that I desire.
I use the 17-35 mainly indoors for pictures of medium to large groups of people.
Both are excellent.
Terry Treppa
Post #11 Steve Saunders:
I have the 17-35 & 28-70AFS lenses. I rarely use the 17-35 at all, except for group shots & landscapes that are not my usual type of shooting. I do however use the 28-70 almost all of the time, the 80-200AFS takes care of the longer stuff.
Post #12 Paul Chiu:
Guys !
The lens used in the 2 page layout was a TAMRON 28-105 2.8 LD; not the Nikon 28-70 AFS.
Sorry for the confusion !
Paul
Post #13 ajdel@mindspring.com:
As this is very much a personal preference thing I suppose as many opinions as possible are desirable. I too own both lenses and find that I seldom install the 28-79 with the exception being occasions where I'm going to shoot people outdoors. For most of what I do it's the shorter lens. What really surprises me is the fact that for nearly all the shots I take with it the focal length is set for 17 mm. Can't say why. Just personal preference I guess. With Lensdoc to take out the pincushion and perspective distortion the main minus of short focal length is gone (IMO). For the record, I believe these lenses both take fine pictures (not as fine as a prime,of course) so that is not a factor in which I mount. I guess I just like wide angle photography.
A.J.
Post #14 Dave Higdon:
Peter -- An understandable question, given the prices of the gear. But wonder whether you might be better off approaching this on the basis of the effective focal length on a Nikon D-series SLR...when you think about the two, ask yourself whether a 40mm-105 would be more useful than a 24-50. One of Nikon's earliest successes in zoom lenses was in the 43-80 range, and the 28-70 functions in the same range, only a little bit longer.
FWIW, we use both lenses and find we need to go to them with equal frequency....shooting a lot of people, airplanes, people in/with airplanes. For some staged events -- press conferences, etc. -- often use an 85/1.8D, an old 80-200/2.8ED or the 28-70/2.8AF-S...personally, I like it the best, but it's not always the right one.
For truly wide, in-tight and the like, we use the 14/f2.8 rectilinear -- it gives us about the same as a 20, with no distortion.
Again, think specifically about the effective length after the D-series lens-flation before you make a pick.
Dave
Post #15 jjphotos:
My paper has supplied me with the 17-35 and the 80-200 AFS lenses. I thought I should fill the gap and get the 28-70. I should have saved the money and bought a 50mm f/1.8. I rarely use the 28-70 for newspaper work. We do a LOT of getting in close to the subject in their environment, filling the frame with the person as much as possible and then using the wide-angle to show the surroundings. Now, were I shooting film with my F5 the 28-70 would be ideal.... but when you consider the magnification factor I often find myself wanting the 17-35 to be even a touch wider angle....
Of course if you really want to save some cash and have the sharpness of Nikkor lenses, I suggest you buy the 20mm f/2.8; the 28mm f/2.8 and the 60mm Macro.... prime lenses are smaller and the great thing about them is that they make you work more for your shot -- rather than get lazy and stand in one place and zoom I find that I move around my subject a lot more to get the right framing and composition.
____________________
Robert.