Nikon 28-70mm f/2.8 ED-IF AF-S Nikkor
(From Nikon lens literature) Ideal mid-range zoom lens for architecture and portraiture. Fast maximum aperture for shooting in low light. ED glass element reduces chromatic aberrations providing superior optical performance - even at maximum aperture. M/A switch for fast transitions from AF to manual focus. No power drain when manually focusing.
Nikon 28-70mm f/2.8 ED-IF AF-S Nikkor User Reviews
9 out of 10 points and recommended by dw_js (3 reviews)sharp, solid buildweight, lens hood attaches poorly.
Just an amazing lens. Yes it's heavy but it's built like a tank. Very sharp. I've been shooting it on a D700 and love this lens. I traded up from a 28-105 Nikon lens and wish I had done this years ago. I shoot weddings and the extra speed in low light is appreciated. The only complaint I have is the lens hood mount is not as good as newer Nikon lenses. I would recommend this lens over the new 24-70 2.8 G lens that Nikon has now. This lens is built better, smoother zoom, and Less expensive for a good used copy.reviewed July 24th, 2013 (purchased for $990)
10 out of 10 points and recommended by Robin Leech (2 reviews)tacky sharp; very handy zoom rangeheavy
For me, works better on a full frame (e.g., D700 Nikon) rather than on half framesreviewed August 3rd, 2011 (purchased for $1,450)
10 out of 10 points and recommended by Shaurma (2 reviews)Image quality
The best lens for FF.reviewed June 24th, 2011 (purchased for $2,000)
9 out of 10 points and recommended by winkyphoto (5 reviews)workhorse lens - very versatileHeavy, but I knew that when I bought it! Rubbish lens hood.
You can't kill this. I paid for pro-quality stuff so I could abuse it. From the Sahara to the summit of Aconcagua this hasn't missed a beat. Wicked fast AF. Clear and sharp. Fast. Shit lens hood, though. Mine has been duct-taped in place for 8 years.reviewed October 3rd, 2008 (purchased for $1,500)
10 out of 10 points and recommended by ghamden (6 reviews)Excellent lens very sharp fastnone
I have only had this lens for a few days so far this is a keeperreviewed September 20th, 2007 (purchased for $1,340)
I have now had this lens for a good while it is excellent
10 out of 10 points and recommended by Rezgals (1 reviews)Very fast focusing!No cons!
I'm using this lens on Nikon D2Xs... qulity is perfect!reviewed March 30th, 2007 (purchased for $1,300)
10 out of 10 points and recommended by ArunasM (6 reviews)Image quality, low distortion, build qualityNot as sharp as 17-55 F2.8 wide open, narrower zoom range, weight/size
This lens is large and heavy, but it has amazing image quality when stopped down by 1-2 stops, for both in the in-focus and out-of-focus areas.reviewed January 15th, 2007 (purchased for $1,200)
The sharpness, contrast and color saturation from this lens is impressive. When I show photos taken with this lens, I always get compliments.
I have used this lens as my main short zoom lens on my D200 for both indoor and outdoor photography, including portraiture, and I continue to be rewarded with great results. It has been on my camera at least 75% of the time since I purhcased it, even though I have a number of other lenses, such as the 12-24 and 70-200 zooms and some primes.
Even though the zoom range seems a little long for digital APS sensor bodies, I find I use the extra reach of the 70 mm long end quite often. I find that I only miss the wider angle range of 17-55 when I am shooting indoors.
The lens is very sharp from F5.6 to about F11, whereupon diffraction begins to degrade the sharpness. The lense is somewhat softer at the edges, moreso at 28 mm than at 70mm, but improves as the lens is stopped-down.
Now that I also have the 17-55, I found that the 28-70 is a better lens to have when I am outdoors, have more light, or am in a larger venue, but the 17-55 is a winner when light is low (hence, need for shooting at F2.8 to F4.0, or space is tight).
The main downside is the large size and weight
A Nikon classic.
9 out of 10 points and not recommended by Matthew Saville (21 reviews)AF speed, image quality, build qualitysize / weight, cost...
Aptlly dubbed "the beast", this lens is big and heavy. Some consider it to be worth it, but I had to pass on it after just one engagement shoot.reviewed December 29th, 2006
Why? It's just too much lens compared to how little it does. 28-70mm is barely more than 2x worth of zoom, and the thing weighs almost 2 pounds. With a UV filer on, you're probably at 1 lb per X worth of zoom.
That would be bearable if 28mm didn't turn into a relatively useless 42mm on Nikon DSLR's. Which is why, unless you're waiting for Nikon's FF DSLR or you just happen to LIKE the 42-135mm focal range, ...I'd recommend getting the DX equivalent, the 17-55 f/2.8 DX. It's a few oz. lighter, smaller, and in my opinion slightly sharper when comparing 35mm full frame results with 17-55mm APS-C results. (I've shot with both lenses)
10 out of 10 points and recommended by mbunge (10 reviews)Very versatile, durable, excellent imagesBig
This is the lens that's on my camera 70 percent of the time. The focal length is great for medium-sized groups, portrait work, and most of my photojournalism assignments. I've had this lens five years and it's never given me any trouble. Images are always sharp. It focuses very quickly. The size of the lens can be a little intimidating to my subjects (they think you're pointing a telephoto at them), but that's a small price to pay. This is a great all-around lens.reviewed December 13th, 2006 (purchased for $1,550)
9 out of 10 points and recommended by risaak (1 reviews)lens speed, sharpness and autofocus speedweight and cost
I take a lot of photos of amateur ice hockey games, sometimes in poorly lit buildings. This lens was the answer to my problems. The lens fast enough and sharp enough to be able to shoot in “natural” light in those buildings and get great results.reviewed December 4th, 2006
The only downside to this lens is its weight and cost. My solution for the weight problem is to use a mono pod as often as possible. The cost is just a function of the speed and build quality of the lens, both of which are excellent.
10 out of 10 points and recommended by nohm (11 reviews)
Whenever I hold this lens, I feel like I'm holding on to a heavy artillery shell because of its rock steady build, weight, and tremendous image quality. Warning to those who are on active shoots that last longer than 2hours...this lens will pull a number on your wrist.reviewed November 27th, 2006
This lens is expensive, and one should consider before hand if they should opp for a wider lens because I did notice myself wanting more wider range.
9 out of 10 points and recommended by colourperfect_co_uk (18 reviews)Image quality, build qualitysize, weight and cost, prone to some CA wide open and @ f4
Known by some as "The beast" its built like a tank with a similar weight and cost.reviewed November 21st, 2006 (purchased for $1,500)
Delivers excellent image quality stopped down abit, but watch out for some CA wide open.
Quick to focus with a big lens hood. Often used for portrait images.
The length extends a bit at extreme's of the zoom range.
Not used as often as my 12-24 or 17-35 but definitely a keeper.
Need to think about justifying its cost over a 24-85 that I sold to buy it. Having said that you feel you have got value for money
10 out of 10 points and recommended by macpurity (4 reviews)Optics, build, AF speedWeight, not made for "snapshots," reversing lens hood for storage
This is my primary landscape lens, and darn good for portraits too. I have owned this lens since August 2003 and it is just an incredible performer.reviewed October 25th, 2005 (purchased for $1,330)
I find this lens to be the perfect companion for the 70-200 f/2.8 VR. In essence one has a continuous 28-200mm of focal length ALL at f/2.8. Yes, there are smaller 28-200's available, but the sharpness of those zooms will nowhere meet the quality found with these two.
I'd say that more than 90% of the photos I take with this lens are tripod mounted. It is comfortable handheld and easy to operate. But its not a lightweight lens for strolling the park or zoo.
One minor drawback, which is strictly a convenience factor and has nothing to do with image quality, is the nasty way the lens hood fits when storing. It essntially nests, facing backwards, and I'm always having a time of it to get it to nest "in the groove" properly. No problem when placing the hood in shooting mode, just in this reverse/storage mode.
Otherwise, a top performer with a sharpness not found very often. Worth every penny.
9 out of 10 points and recommended by David Stockton (2 reviews)Bright, sharp, fast, built like a tankHeavy, looks intimidating with the hood on
F/2.8 gives a bright viewfinder image and helps focusing, both manual and auto. Autofocus is very fast -it makes only a tiny "tunk" sound and it's there. You can turn the manual focus ring or hold it at any time, friction clutches mix manual and motor control.reviewed October 23rd, 2005
Handling is a dream, controls are in the right places for comfortable holding. It balances well with an F5 body.
Image quality can be beaten by the best primes, but the gap isn't big and Nikon haven't put their AFS motor in primes of this range. Someone has designed an artful compromise variation of slight pincushion/slight barrel across the zoom range.
The build quality is "Scientific instrument" grade. The matching hood is rather large, but effective. The front element moves forward at the wideangle end so the petals' shading effect is a better fit to the field of view range.
If you don't mind the price and the weight doesn't drag you backwards, I can thoroughly recommend it.
I've shot sunrise from Phoenix Arizona, with very little trouble with flare. I'm not sure that you can get more "Contre jour". Mine has been backpacked up damp Scottish mountains, travelled on quad-bikes across the Sonoran Desert, and been on horseback* without problems. Heat, humidity and vibration testing in a user review :-)
The hood bayonet doesn't seem to be as strong as the rest of the unit. Mine is still OK, but I treat it gently and I still sometimes mis-start the lugs.
*This lens on a large camera needs the big Lowepro zoomster with the body harness to carry it and anchor it against the movements of English riding (Western is much smoother). Reckon on 10 seconds before the first wisecrack about the rider carrying more harness than the horse....