| Moderated by: chrisbet, |
|
|
| Should I buy a used 28-70 f2.8? | Rating: 
|
| Author | Post |
|---|
| Posted by Dave Groen: Mon May 28th, 2012 13:01 | 1st Post |
| I have a chance to buy a used 28-70 f2.8, condition 9/10, asking $850. I will be using this on my D800. I currently also have the 24-120 f3.5-5.6 VR but could sell it with my D700. The 28-70 was once at the top of the food chain but has been superseded. So my decision is Buy used 28-70 for $850, or Buy new 24-70 for $1900, or Do nothing and keep 24-120. Opinions? (I also have a 17-35 f2.8 and 80-200 f2.8 to fill out the lows and highs)
____________________ I started out with nothing and still have most of it left |
| Posted by Robert: Mon May 28th, 2012 13:17 | 2nd Post |
| This may not be the answer you hoped for Dave but if you are hoping to realise the full potential from your new D800 you need Nikon's latest and greatest glass. If you aren't looking for the full potential the D800 can provide, then keep the D700 and sell the D800 and save a bunch of cash. According to Nikon even the select range of the most recent glass will only realise all of the D800 resolution at the optimal 'sweet spot' apertures. My two cent's 
____________________ Robert. |
| Posted by Squarerigger: Mon May 28th, 2012 13:38 | 3rd Post |
| Dave, I don't have any experience with the D800 but Thom Hogan on his web site recently wrote an article dealing with the lens issue and the D800 after having had his for some time. I believe he has a pretty solid reputation when it comes to Nikon gear. http://www.bythom.com is his site. May 14 was the date of the article. May be of help. Wish I knew how to put the link on here for you.
____________________ -------------------------------------------- Gary |
| Posted by Robert: Mon May 28th, 2012 13:52 | 4th Post |
Squarerigger wrote:Wish I knew how to put the link on here for you. You just did, it worked perfectly. My head is spinning with the numbers!
____________________ Robert. |
| Posted by TomOC: Mon May 28th, 2012 14:24 | 5th Post |
| Hold it, hold it... I know that more is usually better, but let's put this in perspective. At what size print would you start to be able to measure the difference?? My feeling is that it would have to be considerably larger than 16x20 for most types of prints. So I'm not too sure this matters in general. So, Dave... Keep the 24-120 until you see flaws in your prints, then consider trading a couple of your lenses for a down payment on a new one. The pixal peeping can make you crazy!! If you read any of the articles by the folks who RENT lenses, they will tell you there is a major difference in some aspects from lens to lens... Many here have returned a lens because they felt it was not delivering and were happy with the replacement - every lens is a compromise and the 24-120 is a perfect example of that. It is much maligned when compared to primes an the 24-70, but then the 24-70 can't take a shot at 95mm, so which is better when you need that focal length to frame properly? Don't make yourself crazy...enjoy what you can get from arguably the best sensor in the world today and go from there... Just my thoughts... Please don't flame me  Tom
____________________ Tom O'Connell -Lots of people talk to animals.... Not very many listen, though.... That's the problem. Benjamin Hoff, The Tao of Pooh |
| Posted by Squarerigger: Mon May 28th, 2012 14:41 | 6th Post |
Robert wrote:Squarerigger wrote: The article was over my head Robert but I knew you smart guys would understand the article. Can't believe I got the link on here! 
____________________ -------------------------------------------- Gary |
| Posted by Squarerigger: Mon May 28th, 2012 14:44 | 7th Post |
| I like your response Tom. Don't go out and spend the bucks until you see a valid need.
____________________ -------------------------------------------- Gary |
| Posted by Robert: Mon May 28th, 2012 16:47 | 8th Post |
TomOC wrote:Hold it, hold it... I agree Ton, which is why I don't see the point in the D800. A good cheap D3 would do me very well.
____________________ Robert. |
| Posted by TomOC: Mon May 28th, 2012 18:12 | 9th Post |
| Robert- I agree with that - I'm sticking with my D3 for now. But if you are buying new, you might as well buy the latest technology and let the rest of your kit gradually "grow into" it. I think that actually will result in fewer purchases than trying to match everything at once. But there is no bad choice here, is there? Tom
____________________ Tom O'Connell -Lots of people talk to animals.... Not very many listen, though.... That's the problem. Benjamin Hoff, The Tao of Pooh |
| Posted by jk: Mon May 28th, 2012 18:17 | 10th Post |
| Been using a cheap Nikon 28-200 f3.5-5.6 AF ED on my D800 as that is all I had to use in UK. D800 images look fine but when magnified up I think the lens is soft, but on a D300 results seemed OK. Those 36MP need best quality glass to support them. I cant wait to get back to Spain to put my 24-70 f2.8 AFS on it.
____________________ Still learning after all these years! https://nikondslr.uk/gallery_view.php?user=2&folderid=none |
| Posted by Dave Groen: Tue May 29th, 2012 10:47 | 11th Post |
Robert wrote: This may not be the answer you hoped for Dave but if you are hoping to realise the full potential from your new D800 you need Nikon's latest and greatest glass.I am indeed looking for the D800's full potential, so your point is well taken. So I guess I should spend the dollars for the best glass. Your two cents, my thousands of dollars. I make large prints for gallery exhibition sometimes. I had been using the D700, taking several shots, and stitching them into a pano in Photoshop. I can do this with one shot on a D800. I have noticed that my fears about handholding are coming true. Even with a VR lens my attempts to handhold at marginal conditions (shutter speeds longer than 1/focal length) usually result in blurred images. It's fine on a tripod. I guess the laws of physics still apply - the D700's pixel pitch is 0.00033 vs D800's 0.00019 inches. I will be hiking here next week, not wanting to carry a tripod but maybe a monopod. Garden of the Gods 
____________________ I started out with nothing and still have most of it left |
| Posted by Robert: Tue May 29th, 2012 13:02 | 12th Post |
Dave Groen wrote:Your two cents, my thousands of dollars. Which was why I was treading on eggshells with my reply. The final ounce of quality comes dear. I won't presume to explain to you about vibration Dave, only to agree the laws of physics do apply! 
____________________ Robert. |
| Posted by richw: Tue May 29th, 2012 18:07 | 13th Post |
| The 28-70 was also a very good lens and top of the tree in it's day. And it's a lot less..........
|
| Posted by Dave Groen: Tue May 29th, 2012 20:21 | 14th Post |
Robert wrote: Dave Groen wrote:If my two cents vs. thousands of dollars sounded indignant, it wasn't meant to be. I was only trying to make a humorous comparison. No need to tread on eggshells. I value honest opinions that differ from mine. I could learn something from them, which is why I posted this in the first place.
____________________ I started out with nothing and still have most of it left |
| Posted by Robert: Wed May 30th, 2012 03:16 | 15th Post |
| It's easy to spend somebody else's money. And to mis interpret words, I just don't want to upset anybody Dave. We have known each other for a long while but I still don't want to seem free and easy with your money. It would be easy just to take the expensive option and run knowing I am on safe ground. I was a bit tired when i made the post. If it were me I would probably go with Riches's solution but I would be uneasy about the outcome. By going with the newer lens you can be confident that you have the best Nikon can offer. Having read the technical notes about the D800 lens requirements it seems that for the ultimate image quality you need to use the very latest AFS lenses, no surprise I suppose but if they were making false claims I think they would have been shot down in flames by now. What makes that claim more credible to me is they also say they must be used at their sweet apertures too. I think Nikon knew what they were doing and where they were going, when they introduced the new range of lenses with nano crystals and stuff. So that's my reasoning Dave. I should have explained it in a bit more detail. Put it down to British reserve!
____________________ Robert. |
| Posted by richw: Wed May 30th, 2012 03:55 | 16th Post |
| Well I own the 24-70 for my humble D3s, bought new so that is the truest indicator of my beliefs. My favorite lens is my 50mm f1.8 AF-D, but this simply doesn't work on the D3s in any kind of sunlight, so perhaps it is a good idea to go newer where possible.
|
| Posted by Robert: Wed May 30th, 2012 04:30 | 17th Post |
richw wrote:Well I own the 24-70 for my humble D3s, bought new so that is the truest indicator of my beliefs. I am sure that is the case Rich, the D800 is even more demanding than the D3x. richw wrote: My favorite lens is my 50mm f1.8 AF-D, but this simply doesn't work on the D3s in any kind of sunlight, so perhaps it is a good idea to go newer where possible. The 50mm f1.8 is a very old design and some samples are known to hotspot in IR, that indicates to me that it may also hotspot in the visible range. Yours may be in the affected group perhaps. How does this manifest itself Rich, Can you post an image which is affected please. Perhaps in another thread?
____________________ Robert. |
| Posted by richw: Wed May 30th, 2012 08:26 | 18th Post |
Robert wrote:richw wrote: On the iPad so can't post example at the moment, but I did on the last forum. It's a bluish area in the middle of the image. Depending of the severity and aperture you can see the shape of the hole the blades make. Only happens with sunlight, but outside the lens is just no use with he D3s. No problem with the D200. Lens is great indoors in dim conditions, so I still have plenty of use for it.
|
| Posted by Robert: Wed May 30th, 2012 08:50 | 19th Post |
| OK, Thanks Rich. Sounds like reflections from the LPF (Low Pass Filter) to the rear element of the lens. That I understand, is what a hotspot is. This is part of the 'optimisation' for Digital. The 50 mm f1.8 is one of Nikons original designs and may account for the AFS version that was released. Presumably that version is optimised for Digital.
____________________ Robert. |
| Posted by Dave Groen: Thu May 31st, 2012 09:46 | 20th Post |
Dave Groen wrote: I have noticed that my fears about handholding are coming true. Even with a VR lens my attempts to handhold at marginal conditions (shutter speeds longer than 1/focal length) usually result in blurred images. It's fine on a tripod. I guess the laws of physics still apply - the D700's pixel pitch is 0.00033 vs D800's 0.00019 inches. I have been doing some testing with handholding the D800 during the last few days. Way back when, I used to be able to use a shutter speed slower than 1/focal length. With the D800 I need to use a shutter speed faster than 1/focal length. For example, for a 100 mm lens I could shoot at 1/50, but now I need 1/200 for consistently sharp photos. HOWEVER, in fairness to the D800 I think this may be due not only to the increased pixel density but also to my physical condition. I have a genetic nerve condition that is gradually shutting down random muscles in my legs. I can still walk and stand but am a bit wobbly.
____________________ I started out with nothing and still have most of it left |
| Posted by jk: Thu May 31st, 2012 16:26 | 21st Post |
| I think the D800 will be an examination of our technique. I have said before that teh 36MP is IMHO too many and 24MP would have been better for me but you can only buy what is offered. I have had occasions in the past where the 12MP of the D3/D3S/D700 have not enough when I wanted to make a crop from an image. The 36MP will remove that barrier if the image is sharp in the first place. I have taken note of Dave's point about needing to move up two stops to get rid of shake/vibration. I was thinking that I may go for a 16-35mmf4 but the 17-35mm f2.8 would give me a bit of extra flexibility, but it is more expensive!!
____________________ Still learning after all these years! https://nikondslr.uk/gallery_view.php?user=2&folderid=none |
| Posted by Eric: Thu May 31st, 2012 18:22 | 22nd Post |
richw wrote:Robert wrote: The afd 50mm lens (both 1.8 and 1.4 variants) also suffer similarly in studio lighting with white backgrounds. I was once shooting black boots against white and couldn't stop the hotspot fogging the centre of the image. Interestingly and somewhat puzzlingly, the super duper 24-70 has an atrocious hotspot when used for IR. it's almost 3/4 of the frame...making it unusable. I haven't considered why it works so well with colour images but fails so miserably with IR?
____________________ Eric |
| Posted by Robert: Thu May 31st, 2012 19:20 | 23rd Post |
| Way out of my depth here but how about a resonance of light at that wavelength? Something is generating spurious light in the IR wavelengths. I know it can happen with sound, so why not light?
____________________ Robert. |
| Posted by jk: Fri Jun 1st, 2012 11:53 | 24th Post |
Eric wrote:
Must be the something to do with the design and the glass used. I think that the ED or new special high refractive index glasses may not behave so well as the older heavier lenses that were made of all the same type of glass. That is purely a guess ..... Someone out there will know.
____________________ Still learning after all these years! https://nikondslr.uk/gallery_view.php?user=2&folderid=none |
| Posted by Dave Groen: Fri Jun 1st, 2012 13:36 | 25th Post |
| I heard that it's more about the reflectivity of the coating used on the rear element of certain lenses. Specific coatings reflect IR light better than others. Coatings that reflect it very well are more efficient at creating hotspots.
____________________ I started out with nothing and still have most of it left |
| Posted by Eric: Fri Jun 1st, 2012 17:25 | 26th Post |
Dave Groen wrote:I heard that it's more about the reflectivity of the coating used on the rear element of certain lenses. Specific coatings reflect IR light better than others. Coatings that reflect it very well are more efficient at creating hotspots. It's those naughty nanos again!
____________________ Eric |
| Posted by jk: Fri Jun 1st, 2012 18:11 | 27th Post |
| Maybe then we are better without coatings for IR work.
____________________ Still learning after all these years! https://nikondslr.uk/gallery_view.php?user=2&folderid=none |
| Posted by Robert: Sat Jun 2nd, 2012 05:47 | 28th Post |
| Could be a factor but I think there are two fairly obvious factors which are plainly visible, firstly the size of the rear element, and secondly the curvature on the rear face of the rear element. I don't have enough lenses to be able to sort this out but the worst offenders seem to have large and flat rear elements, whereas the better performers have smaller and less flat rear elements. I may of course be wrong, it's only a hunch limited by the small sample of lenses I have.
____________________ Robert. |
| Posted by jk: Sat Jun 2nd, 2012 06:07 | 29th Post |
| I know it depends on design but I think larger flat optics for the rear elements are medium/telephoto type lenses. Smaller more curved rear elements are more common on wideangles. Might be completely off base with this.
____________________ Still learning after all these years! https://nikondslr.uk/gallery_view.php?user=2&folderid=none |
| Posted by Robert: Sat Jun 2nd, 2012 07:19 | 30th Post |
| The 50 f1.4 has a very large and flat rear element, it is also guilty of hot spotting both in Vis and IR. When I get home I will check out all my lenses and compare them.
____________________ Robert. |
| Posted by Dave Groen: Sat Jun 2nd, 2012 07:24 | 31st Post |
| Here is what LifePixel says: There are a few reasons that hot spots can occur, the most common culprit is the matte black coating on the inside of the lens barrel. The coating is designed to absorb stray light from bouncing around within the lens and creating hot spots. Unfortunately this coating may behave the opposite in IR light, instead of absorbing light it may reflect it and end up causing a hot spot. The other less common reasons for a IR hot spot would be the coatings on the glass lens elements themselves behaving in a way other than what was intended when used in visible light. Sometimes it can also be the interaction of the lens and sensor/micro lenses that causes the light to bounce in a certain way between the surfaces that cause a hot spot. A large flat rear element would be worse in this regard.
____________________ I started out with nothing and still have most of it left |
| Posted by Robert: Sat Jun 2nd, 2012 07:54 | 32nd Post |
| Thanks Dave, That makes sense, the same applies with UV, that is one of the things which is special about the UV Nikkor 105mm. Also the costal optics 60 and 105mm UV lenses all of which are outstanding IR performers.
____________________ Robert. |
| This is topic ID = 178 | ||
| Nikon DSLR Forums > Camera and Lens Forums > Lenses > Should I buy a used 28-70 f2.8? | Top | |
Users viewing this topic |
||
Current theme is Blue
| A small amount of member data is captured and held in an attempt to reduce spammers and to manage users. This site also uses cookies to ensure ease of use. In order to comply with new DPR regulations you are required to agree/disagree with this process. If you do not agree then please email the Admins using info@nikondsl.uk Thank you. |
Hosted by Octarine Services
UltraBB 1.173 Copyright © 2008-2024 Data 1 Systems
Page processed in 0.2036 seconds (85% database + 15% PHP). 211 queries executed.
UltraBB 1.173 Copyright © 2008-2024 Data 1 Systems
Page processed in 0.2036 seconds (85% database + 15% PHP). 211 queries executed.