Nikon 28-85 vs. 28-70 or 35-105 non "D"
Mark Sisson
Is there anyone who has had experiences with all three
of these lenses? I have a Nikon 8008s so the "D"
capability is unimportant. Primary use will be as a
backup to my 55mm micro AF. I'm using that lens to
photograph my artwork and need an AF zoom lens to shoot
a wide scale of student artwork without continually
having to move the tripod back and forth.
A lens with a focal distance on either side of the 55
best suits my purposes of interchangability. I'm looking
for the lens with the least amount of barrel distortion.
Speed is unimportant since I shoot with tungsten bulbs.
Are these lenses all optically comparable? Used lenses
are all simlarly priced so cost isn't an issue. The 24-120 costs
nearly twice as much. Does it merit the expense?
Fred Whitlock
--
Fred
Maplewood Photography
http://www.worldphoto.com/Maplewood_Photography/Welcome.html
Neuman - Ruether <rp...@cornell.edu> wrote in article
<65vj5o$5...@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu>...
> Mark Sisson wrote in message <3482FF...@okway.okstate.edu>...
> You may want to check out my Nikkor evaluation list
> (which has all three lenses you mentioned) on my web
> page under "I babble"... As zooms go, all three you
> mention can be good if stopped down, though all will
> show moderate barrel or "mustache" distortion at the
> short end and pincushion (worse!) at the long end, as
> do most zooms. The 28-85 may be the best of the three
> (the 24-120 is even better, especially if well stopped
> down), the 28-70 is one I am not fond of , and the 35-105
> can be really excellent in a rare good sample (the MF
> version also allows close focus at any FL. Though I
> generally find the range too limited to be of interest,
> for your use, there are two other choices: the 35-70mm
> f2.8 AF, and the 35-70mm f3.5 MF (62mm filter version,
> which has unusually low linear distortion). None of
> the above will provide sharpness comparable with the
> 55mm prime at stops wider than about f8.
> Hope This Helps
> David Ruether - http://www.fcinet.com/ruether
>
Assuming David doesn't mind my adding to his response I can tell you that
the AF 35~70 f3.3-4.5 N is a terrific little lens with little distortion
and more contrast than the models you asked about. It can be had on the
used market for between $100 and $200 depending upon condition. This
little lens isn't as good as the 35~70 f2.8 but for the money it's a great
value. I've owned one for many years and, even though I own many
sophisticated Nikkors as does David, I've kept this little zoom and I enjoy
using it. My experience is that it outperforms the lenses you asked about
above. I also have a good amount of experience with the AF 35~105 f3.5-4.5
D and it is significantly improved optically from the manual version which
I used for almost 10 years. I can recommend that one to you as well. I
own the 24~120 as well and I'm not as enthusiastic about it as David is
mostly because of its small maximum aperture at the longer end of the zoom
range. If you use fast film or shoot in bright available light conditions
or want a terrific lens for flash photography, then the 24~120 is worth the
asking price. It is exceptional optically for an extreme 5X zoom. Take a
look at David's web site. He's spent many years testing Nikkors and knows
them as well as anyone I know. Good shooting.
Fred
>
cg
On 2 Dec 1997 01:42:40 GMT, "Fred Whitlock" <a...@cl-sys.com> wrote:
>Assuming David doesn't mind my adding to his response I can tell you that
>the AF 35~70 f3.3-4.5 N is a terrific little lens with little distortion
>and more contrast than the models you asked about. It can be had on the
>used market for between $100 and $200 depending upon condition. This
>little lens isn't as good as the 35~70 f2.8 but for the money it's a great
>value. I've owned one for many years and, even though I own many
>sophisticated Nikkors as does David, I've kept this little zoom and I enjoy
>using it. My experience is that it outperforms the lenses you asked about
>above. I also have a good amount of experience with the AF 35~105 f3.5-4.5
>D and it is significantly improved optically from the manual version which
>I used for almost 10 years. I can recommend that one to you as well. I
>own the 24~120 as well and I'm not as enthusiastic about it as David is
>mostly because of its small maximum aperture at the longer end of the zoom
>range. If you use fast film or shoot in bright available light conditions
>or want a terrific lens for flash photography, then the 24~120 is worth the
>asking price. It is exceptional optically for an extreme 5X zoom. Take a
>look at David's web site. He's spent many years testing Nikkors and knows
>them as well as anyone I know. Good shooting.
>
>Fred
>>
I don't usually do this but,
I must compliment you on the tone and demeanor of your post.. It is great
to see someone be civil, informative and complimentary all at the same time.
Thank You.
G Brown
One thing: the 35-105 does not allow continous focussing. The manual
version stops at about 5 feet. For people shots, the short focusing
range gets in the way. The new af version can focus to 3 feet.
Usable.
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/photo/35mm/nikon/afnikkorzoom.html
The 28-70 is very small and light, but the 28-85 has the best range and
you can focus under 3 feet.
Actually, a very usefull lens may be the Tamaron 28-105/f2.8. it looks
small, light, and 105 @ f2.8 ! None of this f5.6 stuff. Don't know about
quality though.
--
gbr...@va.med.umich.edu -- real address
Neuman - Ruether
Fred Whitlock wrote in message <01bcfec4$48d82060$0ce440ce@utcpoqki>...
>Neuman - Ruether <rp...@cornell.edu> wrote in article
><65vj5o$5...@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu>...
>> Mark Sisson wrote in message <3482FF...@okway.okstate.edu>...
>Assuming David doesn't mind my adding to his response I can tell you that
>the AF 35~70 f3.3-4.5 N is a terrific little lens with little distortion
>and more contrast than the models you asked about. It can be had on the
>used market for between $100 and $200 depending upon condition. This
>little lens isn't as good as the 35~70 f2.8 but for the money it's a great
>value. I've owned one for many years and, even though I own many
>sophisticated Nikkors as does David, I've kept this little zoom and I enjoy
>using it. My experience is that it outperforms the lenses you asked about
>above. I also have a good amount of experience with the AF 35~105 f3.5-4.5
>D and it is significantly improved optically from the manual version which
>I used for almost 10 years. I can recommend that one to you as well. I
>own the 24~120 as well and I'm not as enthusiastic about it as David is
>mostly because of its small maximum aperture at the longer end of the zoom
>range. If you use fast film or shoot in bright available light conditions
>or want a terrific lens for flash photography, then the 24~120 is worth the
>asking price. It is exceptional optically for an extreme 5X zoom. Take a
>look at David's web site. He's spent many years testing Nikkors and knows
>them as well as anyone I know. Good shooting.
T'enks fer d' kom-mentz...! (Just after posting my comments, I thought of
that sometimes-gem, the 35-70 f3.3-4.5 Nikkor [though there is noticeable
sample variation with this lens, it is less than with the MF 35-105 {which
*can* be one of the best of zooms in a good sample, but most samples
unfortunately aren't <which is, I think, why FW and I come up with
different opinions on this lens - but mine is crisp to the corners
wide-open - a rarety with short FL zooms>}]). On the 24-120, I think
it is best thought of as a very good 24-85 zoom that has the capability
of going out to 120mm when needed [and practical]...;-).
Christian Bauer
In article <gbrown-ya02408000...@news.itd.umich.edu>,
gbr...@va.med.umich.edu.-nospam (G Brown) wrote:
> One thing: the 35-105 does not allow continous focussing. The manual
> version stops at about 5 feet. For people shots, the short focusing
> range gets in the way. The new af version can focus to 3 feet.
> Usable.
>
> http://www.bhphotovideo.com/photo/35mm/nikon/afnikkorzoom.html
>
> The 28-70 is very small and light, but the 28-85 has the best range and
> you can focus under 3 feet.
Quality of the 28-70 is good the 28-85 is good to mediacore and the
35-105 also. the 28-85 is an old non D contstruction. All people are
waiting for a D-Version which should be out soon. Many of us hope it is a
2.8 version in Pro quality. but who knows. the 28-80 is a cheap version
with good to mediacore optics but a very plastic case/tube - made in
china/taiwan.
> Actually, a very usefull lens may be the Tamaron 28-105/f2.8. it looks
> small, light, and 105 @ f2.8 ! None of this f5.6 stuff. Don't know about
> quality though.
Its one of the best 2.8 zooms with its optical limits. Only limit is the
lost of brilliance at 105 f2.8 which disappears stopped down to f4. At f4
it is equal or better than the 28-70 due to some MTF diagramms. But I dont
trust the
diagramms anymore - make real pictures and tell us the difference. I will
do when I can afford such a lense next year.
Christian
Paul Cavka
Mark,
I have the 28-85. A very nice sharp zoom. I also have a 35-70 3.3-45. I
think the smaller zoom is a touch sharper at the smaller end.
A friend from Uni had the 35-105, I didn't think this was as sharp as my
smaller zoom.
Regards
Paul
Mark Sisson <MarkS...@okway.okstate.edu> wrote in article