24-85 vrs 28-70??

[HulaMike]

Would you trade the top lens (Nikkor 28-70) for the bottom lens (Nikkor 24-85 G) and net $700 smackers to put into a Sigma 50-500??

What's your opinion? Am I nuts to be thinking of trading a pro Nikkor f2.8 zoomer for a slower f3.5-4.5 consumer lens???

[fujifilmnut]

Mike,

There seems to be a color difference with the $$ lens more saturated and darker. Lower shot seems less sharp in corners. Very close. Without VR, the speed is a help in the $$ lens.

[Swampy]

I was just talking to my buddy about the 50-500 at the airshow today. While I'm more like you Mike, in that I shoot more landscapes, my friend and I both agreed that my 50-500 would sit in the case again until the next air show possibly. But then again, I do have my 400mm to use and use I do.

Think about the reasons why you're going to get the 50-500 before making the jump. And I mean, take a step back. It may be valid, it may not be. Some people have bought it because they want to shoot wildlife economically. Again, I use my 400 for that as it's clearly superior, however, I'm fortunate to have one while others can't justify dropping $8000 on a lens.

Just some food for thought perhaps? Maybe just some rambling on my part. :)

[Melody]

No way I would Mike

I've spent a small fortune on lenses in less then a 1yr, I too spent $8000 on that 400 and just shelled out $4500 on a 200 2.0 vr

here's what I have:

I have purchased the following lenses all since December 2003

400 2.8 nikon
200 2.0 vr nikon
70-200vr nikon
28-70 2.8 nikon
60mm 2.8 nikon
105mm 2.8 nikon
12-24 nikon
14mm sigma

and the D2h what can I say B & H loves me :)

NOW I certainly have more expensive lens, with that said, I would if I had to give them away and ONLY keep 2 they would be the 70-200 and the 28-70 out of all of the lens they are definitley my favorite. I can afford the 50-500 however no desire for it, there again that's why there is such a wide choice in lens everyon likes something different.

hehe here is the Libra in me I have to look at everything two ways, if you can get a similar image out of a lessor product and that enables you to have another lens with greater range and variety then the business person says it's a no brainer!

Hey I'm sure I just helped a tremendous amount :lol:

Good luck in your decision whatever you decide is ultimately the right one for YOU :)

Melody

[sandman]

I'll fall into 50-500 camp mainly because i've just bought one for the reasons Bryans said , need to get closer to shoot wildlife and birds , but can't justifiy paying a kings ransom for one , i just shoot for myself so the image quality is important but not that exacting .
The little 18-70 that came with my D70 is a good little lense to for general work , but i still lean 75% of the time towards the 24-120 VR . it sits on my camera most of all .
The 12-24 again is a great lense and i love it in the right conditions , and i have the 60mm micro , so with those 5 lenses i can cover everything i need ......for now , watch this space .

Brian

[Igor]

Mike, I can't stand aside when I hear the word "lenses" :)

To be brief, you know one shot doesn't make a decision.
In many cases shots taken with $50 lens and $1,000 lens look the same (especially downsized), but sometimes the good optics really stands out and feels worth its price...

Talking down, I know, but I wouldn't sell the 28-70 :)

[Steve P]

Hi Mike, Iv'e looked and looked again and your pics and the only diff my eyes can see is maybe a slight levels adjustment. Ok, if you blew them up then I'm sure you'd see a bigger difference but when one considers the price, the 28/70 is what, three times the price of the little 24/85? I would and have infact questioned this comparison myself before.

I guess it comes down to how useful the 50-500 would be to you. If it were me I would love to have the Sigma in my bag!

Just my opinion that's all :)

[VA_Shooter]

Well, Mike, it's hard to say...the shots are so different and appear to have been taken one with cloud, one without cloud, but to my eyes the top shot is sharper, has more contrast, the color saturation is better and the fine details are better. Keep the 28-70. Like Melody says, it's one of my favorites.

[Sneakyracer]

I had the 24-85mm AFS and frankly I found it to be way overated while the 24-120mm AFS VR was way underrated, go figure, so I sold the 24-85mm and kept the 24-120. At f8~f11 its as good (or very very close) as the 17-35mm AFS and the 28-70mm of course the 28-70 AFS has great capability in the f2.8-f5.6 range (and above).

The 24-85mm wasnt bad it just wasnt consistent plus the build quality was sketchy and the lens barrel wobbles while the 24-120mm AFS vr is solid and has nice build quality / feel. I miss that lens (now i have Canon, and the 28-135mm I didnt buy, doesnt feel as solid as the Nikon, but the L glass I got is very nice though ;) )

[HulaMike]

Thanks to all. I'm sending the 24-85 back. Kind of knew I would but wanted validation as the *PC crowd might say...hehe

Actually it wasn't about affording the 50-500, don't know why I threw that in. I can buy whatever I want, I'm just frugal and not a lens collector. I thought I saw an improvement in detail on long scenics with the 24-85 but I think that translates to less contrast and saturation. Still as a landscape shooter that did look promising. T. Hogan liked this lens, (value/wider and longer/sharp) said he prefered it to the 28-70 for landscape work and so I tried it out. Frugal Mike thought, 'why not pocket $700 beans if a less expensive lens can do the job?' But as I don't want both (something else I considered) The 24-85 is going back.


*politically correct, not the OS :eek:

Melody, that is SOME lens kit! You on the list for a D2x?

[HulaMike]

Hi Mike, Iv'e looked and looked again and your pics and the only diff my eyes can see is maybe a slight levels adjustment. Ok, if you blew them up then I'm sure you'd see a bigger difference but when one considers the price, the 28/70 is what, three times the price of the little 24/85? I would and have infact questioned this comparison myself before.

I guess it comes down to how useful the 50-500 would be to you. If it were me I would love to have the Sigma in my bag!

Just my opinion that's all :)

Steve, as you're the only one who 'saw' what I saw in these pics a bit more background.

I shot all my tests as raw. When each was custom converted in Fuji HU (I never use the presets) they are AMAZINGLY similar at full rez but the 28-70 is a bit sharper. For some reason, the less expensive 24-85 brought out better dimensionality in cloud formations and to my eye more detail in long greener scenics. (see shots above).

Its still a bit unclear to me whether or not I'd be happy with selling the 28-70 and so I'm keeping it. Maybe I should test a few more lenses for the type of work I do.

PS: I also like the smaller more compact size of the 24-85 for general shooting but that's not a good enough reason to dump a superior lens.

Thanks for the comments.

[Steve P]

Thanks Mike, Yes I was the only person to kinda rave about the cheaper lens wasn't I. When one considers the price diff here the smaller lens doesn't look so bad. Iv'e never acually owned the 28-70 but have tried one and yes I must say it's a lovely thing but man it's big! I really couldn't believe the size of the thing when I attached it to the S2. I did own the 24-85 however and found it pretty good, weight, size and contrasty etc although I agree not perfect.

:D

[jhawk1000]

I go in cycles. When I am in the photo mode, I want everything imaginable. Coupled with the wants, my parents were very lower middle class in their income but they did teach me one thing---look at your needs and buy to the needs rather than the wants. This was their credo mainly because they just did not have the money to buy just what they wanted. My father was a frustrated photographer who had "relieved" several German soldiers of old Zeiss-Ikon folding cameras during the war. He shot candids all over Europe and brought these cameras home. Later, he was able to afford an Argus C4 amd he bought a very cheap enlarger and would buy outdated paper. He carried that C4 to every amateur photo event (his favorite was when female models posed for free at a then annual photo day) and worked in a bathroom with a cheap aluminum enlarger. He lusted after a Leica but never could justify the price. He bought me my first single lens reflex, a Praktica FX, and you could tell that he wanted it for himself but he passed the torch, so to speak, to me and was happy to do it.
My first "telephoto" lens was a Zeiss binocular held in front of the lens of my Praktica. The Zeiss binocular had come from the war so the price was only 6 years of service during WWII for my dad and a few minutes to try to hold the binocular steady for me. Dad let me "buy" a Spiratone 135mm 2.8 manual focus lens but somehow the money came from him even though I felt that I had bought it. Dad was able to trade for a telephoto and wide angle lens for the Argus C4 and he was in heaven. We would shoot anything moving with our "monster telephoto" lenses. Mom got very nervous with us running around with our "long lenses".
Linda and I have the ability to buy lenses within reason and my background still requires that I have a REAL need for a lens before buying. Would I like a 400mm 2.8. You bet but I do not need it! I have a very sharp Tamron 300mm 2.8 with a 1.4x converter and I get the results I want and the range I need.
I would love to buy VR but I need it not! I salute those who can and do buy the latest and greatest but for me it would be gross overkill.
I own the 1980 Porsche 911, not a Turbo 2005 Model because I do not need the Turbo, do not want to pay over $100K for the latest. I am often accused of being a gadget freak but Linda and I are very modest in what we buy and we really have to see the need before we buy on the sizzle.
Please do not take this as an indictment of those who like the latest and greatest but as retirement grows nearer, funds need to be logically applied and if a 24-85mm does the job, then the 28-70 becomes a luxury. We did this analysis when buying the 12-24mm and Sigma won hands down. Hell, our newest car is a 2002 Jeep Liberty with the only added option being a roof rack. It is manual transmission, manual 4wd and we did spring for the V6 as the optional engine. It was built for off road 4wd and we bought it for snow and off road so we got what we needed and passed on leather, CD changer, automatic butt scratcher and so forth.

Mel

[photoworks]

Mel, I wish I could attach my Leica lenses on the S2 and D70 and my other Nikons, but unfortunatelly I can't.
Talking about sharpness, tonal gradation and dimensionality, these lenses are unbeatable.
Sometime I think I'll try and post a test between analog Leica and digital S2 just to verify what I'm talking about.

_______
Vasilis

[jhawk1000]

I have an old, and I mean old Contax IIIA with a f2.0 Sonnar lens. It is as sharp as a razor. I do not use the IIIA any longer but it looks nice on the shelf with some of my other cameras which includes 2 Argus C-3s, a Bolsey B2 my grandmother used, all those old Zeiss Ikon folders, some old Kodak folders, a Yashica Penta J, Minolta 16II, a Nikkormat FTN with Nikkor 50mm 1.4, a Yashica 35 GSN rangefinder, and a pristine Nikon N2020. I have owned a Leica IIIF in the past. I bought it used from one of my law partners. It had a 135mm f4 Elmar, a 50mm f2 collapsable Summitar and a 35mm 3.5 Elmar. Those older uncoated lenses took some getting used to but I ended up selling the outfit because loading it was a chore and I felt the pictures I was getting with my Nikon F were as good or better. There is a quality in those Leicas that is apparent but I guess I prefer the newer stuff.

Mel

[Sneakyracer]

Mel, I wish I could attach my Leica lenses on the S2 and D70 and my other Nikons, but unfortunatelly I can't.
_______
Vasilis

Buy any Canon EOS digital and an adapter and you can use Leica R glass no problem, on the 10D and 20D i recon you can even use the wider glass since they have smaller mirrors on a 1Ds I think 21mm is the wides and some lenses like the 35mm f1.4 cant be mounted on the 1Ds but im not completely sure.

[Melody]

Melody, that is SOME lens kit! You on the list for a D2x?

Thank you I think :lol: Sure I'm on a list for it, and the S3 as well. Pity I know my credit card #'s by memory so hiding them wouldn't help! :lol:

Although I'm really interested to see the difference between the two. I wasn't around at the time however if I remember correctly there were certainly more expensive cameras then the S2 when it arrived although the color image quality was superior in cases.

Cameras I would assume are just like other items the higher price isn't necessarily the best. Although componets, resale, longevity and reputation always play a major factor. Ha that's why I drive a Mercedes and a Toyota and my husband drives a Dodge :lol:

No one is ever gonna figure out my brain and constant comparison of things I think it's a gift, my husband considers it a curse! :rofl:

Melody

[HulaMike]

I'm really torn between you and da udda Mel . :rolleyes: I appreciate fine quality in almost everything, especially tools and equipment. During my 30 year run with my architectural sign business I never hesitated to buy the best when something was needed, my mantra being buy once and keep it forever. But photography is a bit different for me as I don't generate all my income from photography, only a small portion. And I like to own only those lenses that will fit in my Loepro mini trekker at one time.....so the debate goes on re this lens. Friday I was ready to return it, today I want to shoot some more test shots....it never ends does it.

[Melody]

Hey I totally agree! If it wasn't for the zoom and range of the 12-24 there is no reason I wouldn't just have the 14mm Sigma it is very nice and I'm quite happy with it. IF I like something there is no way I'll pay the higher price a true shopper always loves what I consider a bargain! :)

It's like the d2x or s3 they will have to be something because honestly I really like the S2, sure it can be better however for what I use it for the s2 is wonderful. I have the D2h because I wanted the 8fps no the size isn't the greatest however it works for what I want, a smaller picture captured is better to me then missing the shot all together.

I very much agree too there is a difference in what folks purchase or have depending on whether or not they are earning an income from it and have the ability to depreciate some of these items on their taxes. I know I am "blonde" on the list however don't get me started on money that I can do in my sleep backwards and forwards and actually I'm quite conservative from a percentage standpoint.

Those big companies whether it be Nikon, Fuji, or Cannon have the majority of the public right where they want them in line with their credit cards! :lol:

It's sort of like the Mercedes this is my second SL500 it's 5yrs old now less then 38000 miles I love it and they can bury me in it I will never sell it and have no desire for a new one.

HAHA that saying they don't make them like they used to came from a lot of folks experience, it can apply to virtually anything I suppose except maybe computers! :rofl:

Melody

[HulaMike]

Sent the 24-85 back. Thanks for all the advice. The 28-70's a better hunk of glass.