 |
| |
| 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, | ||
| Author | Post | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
chrisbet
|
Any experience or views on the 28-70mm f/3.5-4.5 D AF macro zoom lens? |
|||||||||
jk
|
I have an old 35-105mm macro which I like but not this lens. From a personal perspective I have been trying to concentrate on AFS lenses to get the most out of my AF in the camera. I am very much complete in my lens a**enal. |
|||||||||
Robert
|
Home again at last... (Have been house sitting.) Back at my beloved Mac, I can finally find stuff I want. My favourite lens guide by Birna R¸rslett. http://www.naturfotograf.com/lens_zoom_02.html#AF28-70 |
|||||||||
chrisbet
|
Welcome home! Yes I looked at that review but wasn't certain it is the same lens as Birna doesn't mention it as a macro lens. |
|||||||||
Eric
|
Perhaps stating the obvious but zooms are renowned for more variability. I tried three 17-35 f2.8 (£1500 lenses) before getting one that was the same quality across its range. And that was only a 2x zoom! The infamous 18-200mm DX lens suffered at one end or the other. Mine was soft at 200mm ...other people said theirs was soft at 18mm. What I learnt was .... 1) You have to try the lens you intend to buy to ensure THAT lens is good. 2) Avoid zooms with more than 4/5 x range, the risk of variable quality appears to increase with zoom range That said, the 28-70 range should be sufficiently far away from wide angle to avoid edge exposure drop off and distortion. And if you intend to use it on a DX camera you will be using the centre of the lens which is invariably the best. But taking Jonathan's point, trying to get AFS lenses is a better strategy. Changing your camera to a more modern model will make a significant improvement to your photos ....add AFS lenses and the camera will feel more responsive, even though the IQ of AFD lenses may be just as good. |
|||||||||
jk
|
Eric wrote:Perhaps stating the obvious but zooms are renowned for more variability. I tried three 17-35 f2.8 (£1500 lenses) before getting one that was the same quality across its range. And that was only a 2x zoom! The infamous 18-200mm DX lens suffered at one end or the other. Mine was soft at 200mm ...other people said theirs was soft at 18mm. What I learnt was ....Agree with Eric. You need to try before you buy which isnt possible if you cant find it locally or it is on eBay. My reason to move to AFS for any new lenses is because. I love my 85 f1.4 but it is only AFD. Yes I know there is now an AFS version but it is very expensive and I already have the AFD version which is very good. |
|||||||||
Robert
|
chrisbet wrote:Welcome home!Same focal length, same aperture, to Birna the 'macro' feature is meaningless because it isn't a macro lens. The macro term is grossly misused, macro means the lens magnifies the subject by more than 1:1 to the actual size on the film or sensor. Even the 'proper' Nikkor Micro lenses only go to 1:1, no more without extension tubes or extra lenses to increase the magnification. Many popular lenses are called macro but should be called close up or micro. |
|||||||||
chrisbet
|
It does seem a bit odd, since the "macro" setting seems just to be an extension of the distance scale - unless that last rotation moves a different part of the lens to increase the magnification. Nikon say the ratio is 1:4.4 for that lens, but I presume that gives the same result as a 1:3 on a APS-C sensor? I guess the only thing to do is see what results it produces! |
|||||||||
Robert
|
I'm not truly technically expert in this but my understanding from reading many articles and posts on close up photography by technically proficient photographers is that 1:1 ratio is a pure lens process. If you photographed a measuring ruler at 1:1 the image on the sensor or film would be exact same size as the original measuring ruler, the image projected onto the imaging medium would be identical in size at both the subject and the capture point, irrespective of the sensor (or film) size. Obviously when displayed on a screen or printed from a negative the resulting image could be much bigger than the original article. I suspect that's what an advocate of the term macro, for less than 1:1 might argue but the pure meaning of macro is 1:1 or greater at the sensor, not the print. As for the 'macro' setting on a lens, I suspect there is a close range correction mechanism, which moved certain elements to allow closer focus. Some lenses have a distinct change in the focus movement when they enter their 'macro' mode. |
|||||||||
Gilbert Sandberg
|
Chris, My personal views: -this seems to be an older compact / plastic era lens, according to Roland Vink's list the last ones were made in 1999. -the so-called macro feature is quite useless, I would rather use any real Micro-Nikkor lens. Conclusion: If the lens were for free, I might like to try it, but not spend any real money on it. Regards, Gilbert. |
|||||||||
GeoffR
|
If you really want a 28-70 then, if you can afford it and it isn't to heavy, the 28-70 f2.8 is AF S and will knock spots of this one. |
|||||||||
novicius
|
I stay with Constant Aperture lenses, them are usually of better quality. |
|||||||||
jk
|
novicius wrote:I stay with Constant Aperture lenses, them are usually of better quality.I agree and much easier to work with. |
|||||||||
chrisbet
|
Well I picked up a pre D version of the lens from Japan for peanuts even with the import VAT and handling. I know Nikon advertised it as a macro lens ( not micro ) but it is a con - the M setting is only a few inches closer focus and negligible magnification. Quite pleased with the results though - until you tell me different!   |
|||||||||
jk
|
Maybe a +2 dioptre filter on the front when you want to get closer. Looks fine. My 35-105mm ?macro? Is like you say manual focus at such close distance, it is probably a similar design. I only use it occasionally. |
|||||||||
Eric
|
chrisbet wrote:Well I picked up a pre D version of the lens from Japan for peanuts even with the import VAT and handling.That looks ok to me...except that sensor is kicking up a lot of noise. It's the sensor that's now letting you down, Chris. Time for a new body. 😉 |
|||||||||
chrisbet
|
If you mean the white specks on the leaves - they are there in real life! Flowers are closing now but tomorrow I'll try again reducing the ISO  |
|||||||||
Eric
|
chrisbet wrote:If you mean the white specks on the leaves - they are there in real life!Nope...the multicoloured mottling on the petals particularly in the shadow areas.... Attachment: 2D1030D6-1CB2-46A0-9A29-B455783C9DFE.jpeg (Downloaded 57 times) |
|||||||||
Robert
|
Eric wrote:Nope...the multicoloured mottling on the petals particularly in the shadow areas....That's noise OK. Sometimes difficult to tell the difference between noise and texture but if it intensifies in shadow areas, then it has to be noise without even needing to see the subject. The electronic noise intensifies as the sensor is deprived of a strong signal by shadows. If it were subject texture it would be more evident in well lit and obliquely lit parts of the image. Also I think it's exhibiting strong CA, witnessed by the dark lines where there is strong contrast, the boundaries between white/pinkish petals shouldn't show dark lines. This is where the quality of the lens is really tested. My 24-120 suffers badly in this respect. APO lenses are the only answer because they are highly corrected for CA and can cope the the junctions of adjoining areas of strong contrast but as you may guess with anything associated with top quality, they are expensive. OK, the screensaver splash screen just popped up. As you can see this is a quote reply not a 'quick reply'. Also, I am editing my original reply, so it may be associated with editing a post, I have yet to understand why I don't see typo's in the text edit box but they scream at me once I hit the 'Post' button!!! The average person viewing this image will love the detail and 'closeness' but unfortunately once you are aware of noise and CA it does spoil the image a bit, I suspect the yellow parts may be slightly blown out but let's not go there LOL. |
|||||||||
novicius
|
Nice One !! Nice photo when " viewed "...shows flaws when " scrutinized "....what photo does n`t.. |
|||||||||
chrisbet
|
Robert wrote:OK, the screensaver splash screen just popped up. As you can see this is a quote reply not a 'quick reply'. Also, I am editing my original reply, so it may be associated with editing a post, I have yet to understand why I don't see typo's in the text edit box but they scream at me once I hit the 'Post' button!!!Thanks for reporting it - I have changed the edit screen template to stop that happening in future. Sadly there is nothing I can do to stop the typos |
|||||||||
chrisbet
|
I lowered the ISO and stopped the lens down - different flower, the noise seems a lot less and the CA is gone. I am looking at D610s at the moment, good used examples with low shutter counts are going for about £420.  |
|||||||||
Eric
|
chrisbet wrote:I lowered the ISO and stopped the lens down - different flower, the noise seems a lot less and the CA is gone.That's a lot better Chris. The early sensors were only really noise free below 400 iso. On a D610 you should be noise free upto 1000iso and even then the monochrome nature of the noise that starts to develop means you should be able to photograph at 2000iso without noise become invasive. |
|||||||||
Robert
|
chrisbet wrote:I lowered the ISO and stopped the lens down - different flower, the noise seems a lot less and the CA is gone. Much better, I like the oblique lighting, light and shade, without the bright being too strong (retaining bright detail). Never looked at the D610, think it has a good sensor. FX is a much better format, I think you will find a big difference. I always found DX constraining for normal range photography DX may be a little more compact but the smaller FX bodies are not much bigger than the DX equivalents. |
|||||||||
chrisbet
|
I think I am getting the hang of this, thanks to your helpful comments Today's experiment, upping the ISO to 200 and keeping the lens stopped down at f22 - the detail is quite good, I think....  |
|||||||||
jk
|
At f22 you will be getting diffraction effects which limit you sharpness. It is difficult as peak sharpness will be around f8/11 and thereafter you start to get loss of sharpness due to diffraction but you get greater depth of focus. It is always a trade off. I tend to use f11 or f16 if I must as a compromise. https://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/diffraction-photography.htm |
|||||||||
chrisbet
|
Yet more great advice, thanks I should really have known this from my college days using diffraction gratings, but that was a looooooooong time ago! |
|||||||||
jk
|
So many things we learn and forget in a lifetime! |
|||||||||
Robert
|
I'm getting very good at forgetting, had lots of practice recently! |
|||||||||
Current theme is Blue
| 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@nikondsl.uk Thank you. |