DSLRUsers.com

Glad to report the 28-70 f2.8 is fantastic lens being tack sharp at F/5 +

the 28mm side isn't too wide on a digital but it's wide enough
Build excellent and weight isn't as heavy as other people think

Little chromatic abberation and halos over f5 under the sun

although f2.8 seems soft as to be expected at widest aperture

AFS speed is insane much faster than the 70-200

and the flower shaped hood looks menacing(like piss off i'm photographing)

best lens for social pics

LOVE IT!

Glad to hear Wendell!
Can't wait to see some images - get cracking son!

I agree with Geoff, sounds awesome so where are the pics ? Take some self portraits, shoot some ducks.. something so we can chimp over the new lens too

wendellt wrote:and the flower shaped hood looks menacing(like piss off i'm photographing)

The 17-55 DX feels very heavy and has a large lens hood, but by comparison the 28-70 is a monster. Hope to see some great results from you with it Wendell!

Pls. come back with all the good news and brilliant photos.

Not the news with faulty or lemon products

Birddog114 wrote:Pls. come back with all the good news and brilliant photos.

Not the news with faulty or lemon products

well i have more news something boke on my last night but i wont discuss it

here is a pic of Pia Miranda at the Loreal Melbourne Fashion Festival Afterparty, looking lovely and sharp



F/4 1/250 ISO100 and believe it or not i borrowed an sb600 from another photographer who was really kind enough to lend me one for the night
almost all the pro photogs there had triple backup flashes bodies & lenses

Please tell us what Broke Wendell, and I don't like the exposure but the shot does look sharp, so you found the sweet spot to be f5 so far in your testing ?

wendellt wrote:almost all the pro photogs there had triple backup flashes bodies & lenses

And that surprises you because ????


Whenever I've had a critical photography task (say a wedding, of which I've done more than my fair share) I wouldn't venture near the job without at least three bodies in tow. You simply cannot afford to not come back home with the images.

Glad to hear it's a winner, wendell. Nice and sharp indeed, as it bloody well should be for the price!!

craig

f5 sweet if the focus point is right
and desired depth of field and distance is considered

exposure off because i was using the sb600 still new to it

commonly for faces f4

in the sun f8 is pretty darn sharp


Gary your right
i shouldn't be surprised, these people are serious, the results is most important.

Very sharp, Wendell. Nice lens. Did you buy it new? How much was it?

Alex

bought it new

around $2600 with gst from Birdy, thanks again birdy your a legend

Yeah, the exposure seems just a bit too "flash lit", but sharp nonetheless.

Alex wrote:Very sharp, Wendell. Nice lens. Did you buy it new? How much was it?

Alex

Alex,
It's cheap as chip! get one for youself and you'll be happy with your model shooting.

wendellt,
do you have or have used the 17-55/2.8? If so, can you make any comparisons between the two.

My next purchase is either the 17-55/2.8 or 28-70/2.8 however would like to know if the extra ~$600 justifies the later whilst losing the wider end of the range.

THANKS

myarhidia wrote:wendellt,
do you have or have used the 17-55/2.8? If so, can you make any comparisons between the two.

My next purchase is either the 17-55/2.8 or 28-70/2.8 however would like to know if the extra ~$600 justifies the later whilst losing the wider end of the range.

THANKS

Birdy has talked me away form that lens many times he says the builld isn't as good

but my first attraction to it was the 17mm end as i thought 28mm wasn't wide enough

wendellt wrote:but my first attraction to it was the 17mm end as i thought 28mm wasn't wide enough

That's the problem I'm faced with at the moment. I'm currently using a <cough> Sigma 28-70/2.8 love the range however some times found it not as wide as I wanted. I have borrowed a mates 17-55/2.8 & loved it however not sure if I want to invest the money in a DX lens....... decisions, decisions.....

The 28-70 AF-S is far lot better than the 17-55Dx. You can't compare apple to orange, most pro shooters like to play with 28-70 or 17-35 AF-S than the 17-55Dx.

The only lens can be compared with the 17-55Dx is the 17-35 AF-S.

I had and used and tried few 17-55Dx, I like to have 20 mm extra on the 17-55Dx and finally I let it slipped thru my door to a new buyer, but the 17-35 AF-S is always still with me and permanent on one of my DSLR bodies + an old trusty F5.

Hey! shooting with 3 DSLR bodies will have lot of fun, guys!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

myarhidia wrote:

wendellt wrote:but my first attraction to it was the 17mm end as i thought 28mm wasn't wide enough

That's the problem I'm faced with at the moment. I'm currently using a <cough> Sigma 28-70/2.8 love the range however some times found it not as wide as I wanted. I have borrowed a mates 17-55/2.8 & loved it however not sure if I want to invest the money in a DX lens....... decisions, decisions.....

Ok, easy and simple! just follow my steps and you'll be happy:
- 20/2.8
- 28/1.4
- 35/2.8
- 50/1.4
- 58/1.2 Noct
- 60/2.8 macro
- 105DC/2
- Tamron 90 macro.
- Tamron 180 macro
- 200 macro/f.4

Still more to add.

Then:
- 17-35 AF-S
- 28- 70 AF-S
More zoom to add.

The only Dx lens which I have is the 12-24Dx

Birddog114 wrote:
Ok, easy and simple! just follow my steps and you'll be happy:
- 20/2.8
- 28/1.4
- 35/2.8
- 50/1.4
- 58/1.2 Noct
- 60/2.8 macro
- 105DC/2
- Tamron 90 macro.
- Tamron 180 macro
- 200 macro/f.4

Still more to add.

Then:
- 17-35 AF-S
- 28- 70 AF-S
More zoom to add.

The only Dx lens which I have is the 12-24Dx

Let me check my drivers licence...............no, the name's not Packer

myarhidia wrote:

Birddog114 wrote:
Ok, easy and simple! just follow my steps and you'll be happy:
- 20/2.8
- 28/1.4
- 35/2.8
- 50/1.4
- 58/1.2 Noct
- 60/2.8 macro
- 105DC/2
- Tamron 90 macro.
- Tamron 180 macro
- 200 macro/f.4

Still more to add.

Then:
- 17-35 AF-S
- 28- 70 AF-S
More zoom to add.

The only Dx lens which I have is the 12-24Dx

Let me check my drivers licence...............no, the name's not Packer

Packer doesn't know these toys and you don't needed to be rich to have these, just hard work and you'll earn them, get there slowly but get all.

myarhidia wrote:I have borrowed a mates 17-55/2.8 & loved it however not sure if I want to invest the money in a DX lens....... decisions, decisions.....

I was worried about that too, but then I figured DX is here to stay for a long time. Nikon has just released a DX camera (D200) and lens (18-200 VRII DX). How long before we see a full-frame Nikon DSLR? Well at the earliest a couple of years, and then it'll be at the top end. This will then take at least another couple of years to filter down to the D200/D70 level, if it does at all. It's clear that Canon is committed to cropped sensors as well with the release of the EF-S 17-55 f/2.8, and I doubt Nikon will switch to a totally full frame lineup at all. Bottom line: it's going to be 5 years at a minimum before we see full-frame in a body I can afford (if we ever do), and I will get a lot of use out of the 17-55 DX in that time. In any case, you can still use it between 35-55 without vignetting. I'm very happy with mine.

For Pro work where you can often choose your position I'd probably go with the 17-35 or even primes, but the extra reach of the 17-55 DX comes in handy if you're not in ideal position.

Trent,
The new 105 VR is not Dx.
And Nikon full frame will be on its way to my belief, not now but sooner.

They have to introduce few DX lenses to all the newcomers to the DSLR market but Nikon will retain its range of lens for full frame and there should be a reason, otherwise you'll see heap of DX lenses in Nikon Pro range.

And the good thing is you can use non Dx lenses in both formats, not vice versa.

wendellt
i'm glad your real happy with the 28-70 ! because i ordered one off birdy last week for a wedding in sydney early next year, show us some more please....

cheers rob

Rob, sounds like the wedding was a convenient excuse, you ordered a lens in February for use next year

Glen wrote:Rob, sounds like the wedding was a convenient excuse, you ordered a lens in February for use next year

Glen,
R&D + testing training is a must prior to engage! and guess what? he doesn't want to ask two toys in one request, don't you know how all the "boss" like?

Rob,
Good planning!

Love the 28-70 also. Agree with Wendell on his points, no other nikkor II have ever used is sharper at f8-11, with no optical probs at all. Just took pic below the other night - in Mauritius for another week, then back too Dubai then back home - will post pics when have time - Dubai is amazing.

HB,
Welcome back! you let your brother suffering while you're away!
All the 28-70 or Tamron 28-75 achieves the sharpness at f.5 or above and it's no doubt!

Beeeeeautiful photo HB, well done! Showing off the lens capabilities really well. Can't wait to see some more picks Heath when you return! Meanwhile we are helping your brother spend his ca$h on lenses

Alpha_7 wrote: Meanwhile we are helping your brother spend his ca$h on lenses

Are you sure that we help him or try to make him broke?

I spoke briefly with him, poor guy seems to have a lust for the cream machine (85 1.4). No cure.

Heath Bennett wrote:I spoke briefly with him, poor guy seems to have a lust for the cream machine (85 1.4). No cure.

Only one cure I know, and it doesn't come cheap!

Glen wrote:Rob, sounds like the wedding was a convenient excuse, you ordered a lens in February for use next year

am i that transperant ? i did mention to my boss that it would be good to have this lens for her sister's wedding and the reply was ... "well get it then ! " now i gotta work on how the fisheye lens would enhance her sisters wedding ..... any idea's .. anyone have any fisheye pics of wedding ? iv'e been drooling over stubby's pics

cheers rob

many thanks to fozzie for lending me his 17-55 for a wedding in adelaide a couple of weekends ago

Still, fun can be had with the old D70 and kit lens - weekend... Grande Bai

robw25 wrote:

Glen wrote:Rob, sounds like the wedding was a convenient excuse, you ordered a lens in February for use next year

am i that transperant ? i did mention to my boss that it would be good to have this lens for her sister's wedding and the reply was ... "well get it then ! " now i gotta work on how the fisheye lens would enhance her sisters wedding ..... any idea's .. anyone have any fisheye pics of wedding ? iv'e been drooling over stubby's pics

cheers rob

many thanks to fozzie for lending me his 17-55 for a wedding in adelaide a couple of weekends ago

Glad to see, it's your next move!

Use the fish Eye for tight places in the church, and wedding cakes.... hmm nope can't think of viable story... Or for the crowd shots with everyone standing around the bride and groom.

Alpha_7 wrote:Use the fish Eye for tight places in the church, and wedding cakes.... hmm nope can't think of viable story...

Yes, it's, never try never know.

I reckon I could convince my boss the Fisheye would work, but no way he's just going to say, 'Yeah sure by it'. Rob does your boss use you regularly as photographer ?

Alpha_7 wrote:I reckon I could convince my boss the Fisheye would work, but no way he's just going to say, 'Yeah sure by it'. Rob does your boss use you regularly as photographer ?

His "boss" is Loraine and his lovely wife!

You talk to your boss: Katie, and she''ll let you get one.

Roger that Birdy, that kind of boss. (Not too bright today, am I )

Alpha_7 wrote:Roger that Birdy, that kind of boss. (Not too bright today, am I )

Old French saying:
"Tu comprends vite lorsque l'on t'explique longtemps!"

Roughly translated: You understand fast if we explain long enough! BTW, certainly looks like an amazing lens. Why such a price difference between the Tamron and Nikkor lenses?

Cheers,

André

Birddog114 wrote:The 28-70 AF-S is far lot better than the 17-55Dx. You can't compare apple to orange, most pro shooters like to play with 28-70 or 17-35 AF-S than the 17-55Dx.

The only lens can be compared with the 17-55Dx is the 17-35 AF-S.

I had and used and tried few 17-55Dx, I like to have 20 mm extra on the 17-55Dx and finally I let it slipped thru my door to a new buyer, but the 17-35 AF-S is always still with me and permanent on one of my DSLR bodies + an old trusty F5.

Hey! shooting with 3 DSLR bodies will have lot of fun, guys!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Just had a thought, does the DX lens have a focal multiplier as the normal lens' do?

Just had a thought, does the DX lens have a focal multiplier as the normal lens' do?

For the un-informed, what is a focal multiplier.. I could guess, but I'd rather know

Alpha_7 wrote:

Just had a thought, does the DX lens have a focal multiplier as the normal lens' do?

For the un-informed, what is a focal multiplier.. I could guess, but I'd rather know

When you put a normal lens on a DSLR, you get the focal multiplier. i.e. the 28-70 lens will actually give you a focal range of 42-105. So my question, b/c the DX is specifically for a DSLR, will the 17-55 give me a focal range of 17-55 or 25-82?

sorry,
forgot to mention Nikon has a consistant focal multiplier of 1.5. The canon team has your choice of 1.3, 1.5 or 1.6 depending on which model camera you bought, and no mulitplier for a full frame DSLR.

EDIT:

More details here http://www.dpreview.com/learn/?/key=foc ... multiplier

myarhidia wrote:

Birddog114 wrote:The 28-70 AF-S is far lot better than the 17-55Dx. You can't compare apple to orange, most pro shooters like to play with 28-70 or 17-35 AF-S than the 17-55Dx.

The only lens can be compared with the 17-55Dx is the 17-35 AF-S.

I had and used and tried few 17-55Dx, I like to have 20 mm extra on the 17-55Dx and finally I let it slipped thru my door to a new buyer, but the 17-35 AF-S is always still with me and permanent on one of my DSLR bodies + an old trusty F5.

Hey! shooting with 3 DSLR bodies will have lot of fun, guys!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Just had a thought, does the DX lens have a focal multiplier as the normal lens' do?

Yes, it's, and it's @ 25-82 with Nikon 1.5x.

myarhidia wrote: The canon team has your choice of 1.3, 1.5 or 1.6 depending on which model camera you bought, and no mulitplier for a full frame DSLR.

As a "Canonite" I have to point out that the only crop factors in EOS DSLRs are: 1x, 1.3x, and 1.6x.

DaveB wrote:

myarhidia wrote: The canon team has your choice of 1.3, 1.5 or 1.6 depending on which model camera you bought, and no mulitplier for a full frame DSLR.

As a "Canonite" I have to point out that the only crop factors in EOS DSLRs are: 1x, 1.3x, and 1.6x.

Yes, you're correct.