This site requires new users to accept that a small amount of member data is captured and held in an attempt to reduce spammers and to manage users. This site also uses cookies to ensure ease of use. In order to comply with new DPR regulations you are required to agree/disagree with this process. If you do not agree then please email the Admins using info@nikondslr.uk after requesting a new account. Thank you.

 Moderated by: chrisbet, Page:  First Page Previous Page  1  2  3  4  Next Page Last Page  
Should I buy a used 28-70 f2.8?   -   Page   2
 Rating:  Rating
AuthorPost



Posted: Tue May 29th, 2012 09:47
 
11th Post
Dave Groen



Joined: Wed Apr 4th, 2012
Location: St Louis, Missouri USA
Posts: 106
Status: 
Offline
Robert wrote: This may not be the answer you hoped for Dave but if you are hoping to realise the full potential from your new D800 you need Nikon's latest and greatest glass.

If you aren't looking for the full potential the D800 can provide, then keep the D700 and sell the D800 and save a bunch of cash.

According to Nikon even the select range of the most recent glass will only realise all of the D800 resolution at the optimal 'sweet spot' apertures.

My two cent's

:devil:

I am indeed looking for the D800's full potential, so your point is well taken. So I guess I should spend the dollars for the best glass. Your two cents, my thousands of dollars.

I make large prints for gallery exhibition sometimes. I had been using the D700, taking several shots, and stitching them into a pano in Photoshop. I can do this with one shot on a D800.

I have noticed that my fears about handholding are coming true. Even with a VR lens my attempts to handhold at marginal conditions (shutter speeds longer than 1/focal length) usually result in blurred images. It's fine on a tripod. I guess the laws of physics still apply - the D700's pixel pitch is 0.00033 vs D800's 0.00019 inches.

I will be hiking here next week, not wanting to carry a tripod but maybe a monopod.
Garden of the Gods



____________________
I started out with nothing and still have most of it left
 




Posted: Tue May 29th, 2012 12:02
 
12th Post
Robert



Joined: Sun Apr 1st, 2012
Location: South Lakeland, UK
Posts: 4066
Status: 
Offline
Dave Groen wrote:
Your two cents, my thousands of dollars.

Which was why I was treading on eggshells with my reply.

The final ounce of quality comes dear.

I won't presume to explain to you about vibration Dave, only to agree the laws of physics do apply! ;-)



____________________
Robert.

 




Posted: Tue May 29th, 2012 17:07
 
13th Post
richw



Joined: Tue Apr 10th, 2012
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 525
Status: 
Offline
The 28-70 was also a very good lens and top of the tree in it's day. And it's a lot less..........

 




Posted: Tue May 29th, 2012 19:21
 
14th Post
Dave Groen



Joined: Wed Apr 4th, 2012
Location: St Louis, Missouri USA
Posts: 106
Status: 
Offline
Robert wrote: Dave Groen wrote:
Your two cents, my thousands of dollars.

Which was why I was treading on eggshells with my reply.

The final ounce of quality comes dear.

I won't presume to explain to you about vibration Dave, only to agree the laws of physics do apply! ;-)

If my two cents vs. thousands of dollars sounded indignant, it wasn't meant to be. I was only trying to make a humorous comparison.

 No need to tread on eggshells. I value honest opinions that  differ from mine. I could learn something from them, which is why I posted this in the first place.



____________________
I started out with nothing and still have most of it left
 




Posted: Wed May 30th, 2012 02:16
 
15th Post
Robert



Joined: Sun Apr 1st, 2012
Location: South Lakeland, UK
Posts: 4066
Status: 
Offline
It's easy to spend somebody else's money.

And to mis interpret words, I just don't want to upset anybody Dave. We have known each other for a long while but I still don't want to seem free and easy with your money.

It would be easy just to take the expensive option and run knowing I am on safe ground.

I was a bit tired when i made the post. If it were me I would probably go with Riches's solution but I would be uneasy about the outcome. By going with the newer lens you can be confident that you have the best Nikon can offer.

Having read the technical notes about the D800 lens requirements it seems that for the ultimate image quality you need to use the very latest AFS lenses, no surprise I suppose but if they were making false claims I think they would have been shot down in flames by now. What makes that claim more credible to me is they also say they must be used at their sweet apertures too. I think Nikon knew what they were doing and where they were going, when they introduced the new range of lenses with nano crystals and stuff.

So that's my reasoning Dave. I should have explained it in a bit more detail. Put it down to British reserve! ;-)



____________________
Robert.

 




Posted: Wed May 30th, 2012 02:55
 
16th Post
richw



Joined: Tue Apr 10th, 2012
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 525
Status: 
Offline
Well I own the 24-70 for my humble D3s, bought new so that is the truest indicator of my beliefs.

My favorite lens is my 50mm f1.8 AF-D, but this simply doesn't work on the D3s in any kind of sunlight, so perhaps it is a good idea to go newer where possible.

 




Posted: Wed May 30th, 2012 03:30
 
17th Post
Robert



Joined: Sun Apr 1st, 2012
Location: South Lakeland, UK
Posts: 4066
Status: 
Offline
richw wrote:
Well I own the 24-70 for my humble D3s, bought new so that is the truest indicator of my beliefs.

I am sure that is the case Rich, the D800 is even more demanding than the D3x.

richw wrote:
My favorite lens is my 50mm f1.8 AF-D, but this simply doesn't work on the D3s in any kind of sunlight, so perhaps it is a good idea to go newer where possible.

The 50mm f1.8 is a very old design and some samples are known to hotspot in IR, that indicates to me that it may also hotspot in the visible range. Yours may be in the affected group perhaps.

How does this manifest itself Rich, Can you post an image which is affected please. Perhaps in another thread?



____________________
Robert.

 




Posted: Wed May 30th, 2012 07:26
 
18th Post
richw



Joined: Tue Apr 10th, 2012
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 525
Status: 
Offline
Robert wrote:
richw wrote:
Well I own the 24-70 for my humble D3s, bought new so that is the truest indicator of my beliefs.

I am sure that is the case Rich, the D800 is even more demanding than the D3x.

richw wrote:
My favorite lens is my 50mm f1.8 AF-D, but this simply doesn't work on the D3s in any kind of sunlight, so perhaps it is a good idea to go newer where possible.

The 50mm f1.8 is a very old design and some samples are known to hotspot in IR, that indicates to me that it may also hotspot in the visible range. Yours may be in the affected group perhaps.

How does this manifest itself Rich, Can you post an image which is affected please. Perhaps in another thread?


On the iPad so can't post example at the moment, but I did on the last forum. It's a bluish area in the middle of the image. Depending of the severity and aperture you can see the shape of the hole the blades make. Only happens with sunlight, but outside the lens is just no use with he D3s. No problem with the D200. Lens is great indoors in dim conditions, so I still have plenty of use for it.

 




Posted: Wed May 30th, 2012 07:50
 
19th Post
Robert



Joined: Sun Apr 1st, 2012
Location: South Lakeland, UK
Posts: 4066
Status: 
Offline
OK, Thanks Rich. Sounds like reflections from the LPF (Low Pass Filter) to the rear element of the lens. That I understand, is what a hotspot is.

This is part of the 'optimisation' for Digital. The 50 mm f1.8 is one of Nikons original designs and may account for the AFS version that was released. Presumably that version is optimised for Digital.



____________________
Robert.

 




Posted: Thu May 31st, 2012 08:46
 
20th Post
Dave Groen



Joined: Wed Apr 4th, 2012
Location: St Louis, Missouri USA
Posts: 106
Status: 
Offline
Dave Groen wrote: I have noticed that my fears about handholding are coming true. Even with a VR lens my attempts to handhold at marginal conditions (shutter speeds longer than 1/focal length) usually result in blurred images. It's fine on a tripod. I guess the laws of physics still apply - the D700's pixel pitch is 0.00033 vs D800's 0.00019 inches.
I have been doing some testing with handholding the D800 during the last few days. Way back when, I used to be able to use a shutter speed slower than 1/focal length. With the D800 I need to use a shutter speed faster than 1/focal length. For example, for a 100 mm lens I could shoot at 1/50, but now I need 1/200 for consistently sharp photos.

HOWEVER, in fairness to the D800 I think this may be due not only to the increased pixel density but also to my physical condition. I have a genetic nerve condition that is gradually shutting down random muscles in my legs. I can still walk and stand but am a bit wobbly.



____________________
I started out with nothing and still have most of it left
 

Reply
1st new
This is topic ID = 178     Current time is 11:12 Page:  First Page Previous Page  1  2  3  4  Next Page Last Page    
Nikon DSLR Forums > Camera and Lens Forums > Lenses > Should I buy a used 28-70 f2.8? Top

Users viewing this topic

Post quick reply

Go to top
Go to end
Messages
Home
Recent topics
Unread posts
Last posts
Splash

Current theme is Modern editor



A small amount of member data is captured and held in an attempt to reduce spammers and to manage users. This site also uses cookies to ensure ease of use. In order to comply with new DPR regulations you are required to agree/disagree with this process. If you do not agree then please email the Admins using info@nikondslr.uk Thank you.


Hosted by Octarine Services

UltraBB 1.173 Copyright © 2008-2025 Data 1 Systems
Page processed in 0.0466 seconds (79% database + 21% PHP). 91 queries executed.