Nikon 28-70 f/2.8 and the NIkon 17-55 compared

[Nikonfreak]

Well, today I had a buddy over to do some comparisons of the two lenses in a studio atmosphere.

Before I post this, let me just say that both of these lenses are excellent lenses and the reality is that folks select the one that best fits the range of their focal needs and not just results of what others do here or post.

Many folks have analyzed both of these lenses to death and I'm not going to bore you to death with a long analysis.

Here's just a simple post of 100% crops from the original images and I'd love to hear everyone's thoughts on these.

Studio shots... so lighting was controlled.
Camera Nikon D200
2 Alien Bee 800
1 Alien Bee 400 background light.
Both shots taken at f/9 @ 1/60
2:1 lighting ratio


Neither of these shots are edited, they are straight out of the camera and cropped.

First the 17-55 Nikkor....

[Nikonfreak]

Now the Nikon 28-70


There you go...let the games begin.


Personally, I see the 28-70 bringing out more detail and it definitely is a bit sharper, but even at 150% crop, which we looked at, we're kind of splitting hairs because if you are using these lenses for portraits, you don't want a road map of 42 year old Aunt Nellie's face. She ain't gonna be happy with you.

(I'm sorry but I snicker a little when someone asks about using macro lenses for portraits, but it depends on what the portrait is for I guess) National Geographic type portraits where you want to exacerbate and bring out the wrinkle, road map detail is one thing, but a nice portrait for 35 year old mom...well... macro detail and sharpness may not be what you want. (I'm ready for my flaming)

I may go ahead and post a few other 100% crops to show for example the detail in the pattern on the collar of the T-shirt, clearly defined and present in the 28-70, but not clear and defined in the 17-55 shot. Again, all under the same lighting conditions and the same f/stops.

Anyway, what do you folks think?

Julio

http://www.pbase.com/loansharkx

[Nikonfreak]

Now for a little more fun... collar detail from the same image as in the first posts.

The 17-55

[Nikonfreak]

And the 28-70

Detail in the collar is present given same lighting on the 28-70 and 17-55 in the front, but lost as you move left on the collar in the 17-55 image.

[Blinky]

This is interesting. You use the exact same D200 nad changed lenses right?

The difference in collar detail is surprising.

I think the 28-70 ehibits better local contrast but not dramatically so. I guess we shouldn't expect dramatic differences anyway now that I think about it.

Chip

[badpickev]

interesting

[Nikonfreak]

Yep, same camera, just changed lenses on the spot, recomposed and shot. *Granted, I should have used a tripod, but at 1/60 and the studio strobes we just didn't bother. *This was one of those "I rented this lens for a wedding tonight..." and my response... "Bring it over, let's put it under the lights and compare to the 28-70..."

I posted this on dpreview and I'm getting flamed left and right. *They're crawling out of the woodwork..."f/9 isn't the sweet spot of the lens, the 17-55 shot is 44mm and the other is 52mm" *You name it. *Silly. It's not like I'm slamming the lens at all.

I even had a guy say that (GASP) amateurs might actually form an opinion on this. *Holy cow... I sure as heck did and so did my buddy who is considering that lens, but he (and no one else) can make a purchase decision based upon what I (or anyone else) really posts here or anywhere else. *If you need an f/2.8 lens at 17mm, that's the one. *It's a very good lens and let's be honest... how many shots are we going to look at prints at 100% crop level? * But... how many folks on there are making lens decisions on a 20% crop from a shot that's been sharpened and processed to death? *Hmm...

Here's my answer to the f/9 issue. *I was metering for a studio shot. *We wanted to compare. *The reality is you WILL shoot at f/9 with that lens, somewhere...sometime... maybe an outdoor wedding... maybe you want a landscape shot... maybe you want DOF at a wedding to shoot the wedding party using, imagine that... studio strobes.

I was actually VERY surprised with the results, but again, these are 100% crops. *What kind of print is going to reveal that level of detail and what customer that anyone has dealt with is going to actually be able to pick these minute issues up that I'm mentioning here for fellow photographers whom I'd expect to look at these kinds of things. *I wonder if the white background had anything to do with it...

I also was expecting someone to notice that for these test shots we pushed the backdrop light up to 2 f/ stops over the main light. *No one has. *We did that wanting to see if we would see anything funky in blown out areas or high contrast areas, but at f/9 we didn't think we would..but you never know.

Doing these kinds of things with gear is fun and we certainly had a good time doing this today and maybe we learned something and maybe we didn't. *Either way, he's closer to making a decision on his lens. *He'll use it tonight at that wedding and we'll both look at the results and see how they look.

Chances are that the images will be splendid. *

[Blinky]

DPReview, the more I hear about that forum the happier I am I never bothered with it. Clearly it's not a bench test... people should just take the comparison at face value... nodody's going to agree on a test methodology that's rigorous and affordable by normal humans... sheesh! :

I shoot at f8 in the studio all the time... and frankly, a lens in the $1000 category should have a mighty big sweet spot and I would hope f2.8 to f16 would be in it.

I can tell you by looking at them that your lights had a duration of less than 400ths of a sec so hand holding should be no prob. What I would be interested in seeing is an f2.8 comparison... I wanna know how sharp they get with minimum diffraction.

I've thought about asking you to write a review of the 28-70 for the reviews forum but I haven't taken the time to gather the review criteria.

Chip

[badpickev]

what kills me about the people that shred the testers is this. ifthe stopped and listened they might actually learn something. this test tells the gear was used how a experieced photog would use it in a casual setting. since all the shooting i do is a casual setting i can get and apply some of what i see here.

cause i dont shoot in the scientific arena. i shoot birds and whatnot in the middle of the day in the hot florida sun. and i like it.

[Nikonfreak]

Absolutely. Badpick may be looking at using that lens for landscape photography, in which case you'll definitely be looking at f/ stops beyond f/4 and f/5.6 and you'd want some detail in bright sunlight at f/8 or f/11.

Chip hit the nail on the head as well and a big point that some of these folks miss, if I spend $1,200 on a lens, it better darn well perform at quite a few f/ stops. Forget about the softness issues, You can dress that up. The softness issue doesn't bother me so much as losing detail in resolution in an area that is clearly well and evenly lit with a 2:1 ratio from strobes. What I expect in a pro-level $1,000+ lens is no excuses.

Now, that lens was a rental... and knowing how I treat rental cars, I wouldn't be surprised if folks beat up on the lens a tad... ssshhhh.... don't tell anyone.



Chip, just let me know what you'd like to see on a 28-70 test out and I'll be happy to do it as long as I have the equipment.

Julio

[Nikonfreak]

One follow up to this whole scenario.

My buddy ended up buying the 17-55 f/2.8 Nikkor and it's a fine lens. The copy he ended up getting was brand new and he did have to AF Fine Tune the lens in his now D300 menu. At a setting of +17 I believe, all is well in sharpsville.

The lens is excellent and he has no problems with it. He very much likes it for his wedding and event work. Personally, I really like my 28-70 f/2.8 and I now have the new 24-70 f/2.8 Nikon. All three of the lenses mentioned here are absolutely top notch and exhibit professional lens characteristics in just about every way. I continue to believe that the 17-55 is too short on the long end. I like having the reach.

Also, now that we have a Nikon FX camera body, I won't be buying any more DX lenses. It's something to consider going forward if you are spending $1,200 to $1,600 on a lens for your system, regardless of the size of your business or if you shoot just for fun / hobby / enthusiast.

Julio

[Eero Makela]

I am glad I did not get the 17-55 2.8
Nikkor AF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 G IF-ED DX - Review / Test Report

[Crapshoot]

Both are great lenses.
Though pixel peeping is highly over-rated I did find the resolution differences surprising...Especially at f/9

If I were keeping my D-200 I would select the 17-55.
The 28-70 will be my next lens...Mainly because I am switching to a D3.

Thanks for the comparison Julio!

Cheers,

Jamie

[spystyle]

I have a request : Next time use a Chinese gal for the model

[stdon]

I don't have any experience with the 17-55 but a ton with the 28-70 and 17-35. The 28-70 is my main carry on the d700. It's just been my stead workhorse for a long time now. As you said, the quickest way to get your head handed to you on a platter is to take a sharp portrait of a mature lady. But I'd rather start with the excellent contrast and detail and soften (bring down) than try to recover (bring up) what isn't there.
I agree, you need a different model)).
As far as sites, they all have the experts who don't know an aperture from a diaphragm. Nikonians and even Fred Miranda. In the digital age everybody is an expert. I just shine it on now.

[dgs]

I picked up a 50mm 1.8, and was shocked how much better the images are. I am beginning to see why spending the extra $$ for good lens makes a difference.

[vario]

In the past, i did not know any better, and only got the sigma or tamron lenses thinking it was the camera. You start to get a little discouraged when time after time the pics don't quite look right. Then you spend all the money on good glass, and the pics are there. It cost more, but its worth it in the long run.
Joe

[stdon]

Bodies came and go. Good glass is money well spent. Back in the day all bodies were pretty much the same, it was the manufacturers with the great glass that made the name.

[jankerson]

Looks to me like the 28-70mm wins all the way around IMO, sharper, more detail etc.

[Eero Makela]

Originally Posted by vario

In the past, i did not know any better, and only got the sigma or tamron lenses thinking it was the camera. You start to get a little discouraged when time after time the pics don't quite look right. Then you spend all the money on good glass, and the pics are there. It cost more, but its worth it in the long run.
Joe

In some cases it is the camera. I had a D50 for 3+ years and then May 2008 got the D300. Same Lens new body and my pictures came out with a WOW factor. I did not change anything besides the body. The lens was still the 18-55 Kit that came with the D50.

According to many old time pros the lens does not matter, it is the photographer.

I had the chance to spend a day with Master Photographer Ed S. and he took two shots with my camera in the same light/setup and his look way better then mine, (he used my D300 with the kit lens). Bottom line any camera in the hands of a Master will produce better results.