AFS 28-70 f2.8

[kongg]

I like the reference to these lenses as "Trinity Lenses". Wow, kool name with a sense of mystique. I like it!!!

 

[espn]

Now... only if I can own any (or all) of them...

AF-S 17-35 f/2.8D
AF-S 28-70 f/2.8D
AF-S 70-200VR f/2.8G

Any sponsors? :angel: :bsmilie:

 

[sykestang]

errrr... I thought you ordering a 28-70 f/2.8 this coming month? BUY! BUY! BUY!

For that you'll be having the 2nd trinity after the 28-70 f/2.8, I presume?

So the third one should not be a prob after all...

 

[AJ23]

errrr... I thought you ordering a 28-70 f/2.8 this coming month? BUY! BUY! BUY!

For that you'll be having the 2nd trinity after the 28-70 f/2.8, I presume?

So the third one should not be a prob after all...

Wahh.... can apply for E.S.P.N. Sponsorship 2004.

 

[scanner]

Now... only if I can own any (or all) of them...

AF-S 17-35 f/2.8D
AF-S 28-70 f/2.8D
AF-S 70-200VR f/2.8G

Any sponsors? :angel: :bsmilie:

Wah.. buying liao.... :devil:

 

[Astin]

Wahh.... can apply for E.S.P.N. Sponsorship 2004.

How about set up a E.S.P.N. Fund?

 

[espn]

Yes please yes please !!!!!

 

[Jed]

Trinity lenses are legendary lenses. Their features, image reproduction capabilities and performance have been tested and well accepted by the pros. Through the years, they may have been replaced with different versions as a form of improvements made to the lens but they have not obsoluted in any case.

You know, the way you speak, you suggest that the trinity is something that is known the world over. I guarantee you if you walk into the States, Europe, Japan, Australia, and you mention the trinity, people will scratch their heads and look at you funny. Eventually some will put 2 and 2 together and figure out what you're talking about.

I suppose the Canon trinity would encompass the 16-35, 24-70, 70-200. At one stage, that list would have read 17-35, 28-70, 70-200. The fact of the matter is the 17-35L was really not very highly regarded at all.

Also, evidently you need to realise what the attitude of most pros is concerning acceptance thresholds. A very, very good number of working professionals (not all) will not care much about whether a lens is sharper than the rest or just sharp enough. If it works for their purposes, that's good enough. If it was that important, you'd be looking at a trinity of primes. The reason a lot of people consider the trinity to be a good set of lenses is because of coverage, everything from 17 to 200 with a constant useable f2.8 maximum aperture.

On the other hand, 12-24 f/4 and the 17-55 f/4, both being DX lenses, their features are limited and cannot be 100% compatible with the older Nikon pro bodies like F4, F3, FM etc. Not to mention even F5 cannot use these lenses without compromising vignetting due to the fact that they are DX lenses.

Okay. And I suppose you can put your 70-200 on an F3, FM, etc as well then? I'm not saying the 12-24, 17-55, 70-200 is *the* trinity for *everyone*. I have "your" trinity, and I'm trying to switch to "this" trinity. But they are a trinity of lenses that provide excellent coverage from 12mm to 200mm at a useable aperture.

By the way, I'm glad to see that you've decided the 17-55 is poor enough to be relegated to an f4 maximum aperture.

Note that photography is not always tied down to only digital. Thus a good lens must be always cater to be used on both body.

No, indeed not always digital. But then I wasn't proposing *the* trinity. If you read my post you'll see that I offered two different possible trinities. Which by definition are just a set of three. A good digital lens shouldn't be a wastage of resources either, in terms of glass, materials, coverage, cost, size.

Personally I do not own a 12-24. Although at one stage, I was tempted to get one, but after I have borrowed 2 different sets of the 12-24 and have used it on 2 different bodies, namely D100 & D2h. I do not like this lens. The images produced is soft. Thus I give up the idea of owning this lens.

Really, was that the reason you gave up the idea, or because it isn't part of the trinity? As I said, the 12-24 is a very capable lens. Thom Hogan thinks at 24mm it is the sharpest Nikkor ever, including all the 24 primes. At 12 it isn't quite as good but then what other options do you have at 12... not a lot at all.

Or maybe you're considering the Sigma. Ah yes, plenty of bad reviews of the Nikkor in comparison to the Sigma. And I don't dispute that. But I do dispute carrying around a 135 format lens to fill only 16x24mm. The 80-200 and 70-200 both have bad vignetting and not quite so sterling edge performance on full frame cameras either. Perhaps you would consider using medium format lenses for 135 work then?

BTW the term 'Trinity' is not created by me. Thus it is not my 'trinity'. If you have followed the thread on 'trinity' they always referred to 17-35 f/2.8; 28-70 f/2.8; 70-200 f/2.8.

No, it was created by a certain "Nikon Council" (term also coined by them) that meets in town. Right.

But as there is no right or wrong as there is also no such thing as a 'Nikon Trinity' as it is just a fun term that Nikonian CSers like to name it, thus to each his own.

Oh this is precious. No right or wrong? So how come your posts have purely been to tell me that one of my two suggested trinities is wrong? I never said yours was wrong, merely that they might also be the 12-24, 17-55, 70-200, and the three 1.4 primes. Next thing I know you're telling me I'm wrong, the DX lenses cannot be part of a trinity.

So what happened to "... there is no right or wrong as there is no such thing as a 'Nikon Trinity' " then?

 

[sykestang]

You know, the way you speak, you suggest that the trinity is something that is known the world over. I guarantee you if you walk into the States, Europe, Japan, Australia, and you mention the trinity, people will scratch their heads and look at you funny. Eventually some will put 2 and 2 together and figure out what you're talking about.

I suppose the Canon trinity would encompass the 16-35, 24-70, 70-200. At one stage, that list would have read 17-35, 28-70, 70-200. The fact of the matter is the 17-35L was really not very highly regarded at all.

Also, evidently you need to realise what the attitude of most pros is concerning acceptance thresholds. A very, very good number of working professionals (not all) will not care much about whether a lens is sharper than the rest or just sharp enough. If it works for their purposes, that's good enough. If it was that important, you'd be looking at a trinity of primes. The reason a lot of people consider the trinity to be a good set of lenses is because of coverage, everything from 17 to 200 with a constant useable f2.8 maximum aperture.

On the other hand, 12-24 f/4 and the 17-55 f/4, both being DX lenses, their features are limited and cannot be 100% compatible with the older Nikon pro bodies like F4, F3, FM etc. Not to mention even F5 cannot use these lenses without compromising vignetting due to the fact that they are DX lenses.

Okay. And I suppose you can put your 70-200 on an F3, FM, etc as well then? I'm not saying the 12-24, 17-55, 70-200 is *the* trinity for *everyone*. I have "your" trinity, and I'm trying to switch to "this" trinity. But they are a trinity of lenses that provide excellent coverage from 12mm to 200mm at a useable aperture.

By the way, I'm glad to see that you've decided the 17-55 is poor enough to be relegated to an f4 maximum aperture.

Note that photography is not always tied down to only digital. Thus a good lens must be always cater to be used on both body.

No, indeed not always digital. But then I wasn't proposing *the* trinity. If you read my post you'll see that I offered two different possible trinities. Which by definition are just a set of three. A good digital lens shouldn't be a wastage of resources either, in terms of glass, materials, coverage, cost, size.

Personally I do not own a 12-24. Although at one stage, I was tempted to get one, but after I have borrowed 2 different sets of the 12-24 and have used it on 2 different bodies, namely D100 & D2h. I do not like this lens. The images produced is soft. Thus I give up the idea of owning this lens.

Really, was that the reason you gave up the idea, or because it isn't part of the trinity? As I said, the 12-24 is a very capable lens. Thom Hogan thinks at 24mm it is the sharpest Nikkor ever, including all the 24 primes. At 12 it isn't quite as good but then what other options do you have at 12... not a lot at all.

Or maybe you're considering the Sigma. Ah yes, plenty of bad reviews of the Nikkor in comparison to the Sigma. And I don't dispute that. But I do dispute carrying around a 135 format lens to fill only 16x24mm. The 80-200 and 70-200 both have bad vignetting and not quite so sterling edge performance on full frame cameras either. Perhaps you would consider using medium format lenses for 135 work then?

BTW the term 'Trinity' is not created by me. Thus it is not my 'trinity'. If you have followed the thread on 'trinity' they always referred to 17-35 f/2.8; 28-70 f/2.8; 70-200 f/2.8.

No, it was created by a certain "Nikon Council" (term also coined by them) that meets in town. Right.

But as there is no right or wrong as there is also no such thing as a 'Nikon Trinity' as it is just a fun term that Nikonian CSers like to name it, thus to each his own.

Oh this is precious. No right or wrong? So how come your posts have purely been to tell me that one of my two suggested trinities is wrong? I never said yours was wrong, merely that they might also be the 12-24, 17-55, 70-200, and the three 1.4 primes. Next thing I know you're telling me I'm wrong, the DX lenses cannot be part of a trinity.

So what happened to "... there is no right or wrong as there is no such thing as a 'Nikon Trinity' " then?

Yo... cool it... :blah:

 

[espn]

You know, the way you speak, you suggest that the trinity is something that is known the world over. I guarantee you if you walk into the States, Europe, Japan, Australia, and you mention the trinity, people will scratch their heads and look at you funny. Eventually some will put 2 and 2 together and figure out what you're talking about.

Chill out dude. Although clubsnap is not locally based only, majority of us do come from Singapore with some exceptionals like the real professionals who do stay over in the US or AU.

So the term trinity was catered to more locally than anywhere else. Anyway, it's not a term coined up by NC (dang, hope I don't get mentioned for forming an abbreviation for Nikon Council), I've heard of it mentioned pretty many times back before NC was formed..

Chill out... don't have to get so 'right'

 

[dirtbiker]

On the other hand, 12-24 f/4 and the 17-55 f/4, both being DX lenses, their features are limited and cannot be 100% compatible with the older Nikon pro bodies like F4, F3, FM etc.

I believe the list you've given earlier, 12-24 f/4; 17-55 f/4 & 70-200 f/2.8 is your trinity as you may be a fully Nikon digital photographer, thus the DX lenses suits you better.
QUOTE]

AFS 17-55 f2.8 DX bro

 

[espn]

On the other hand, 12-24 f/4 and the 17-55 f/4, both being DX lenses, their features are limited and cannot be 100% compatible with the older Nikon pro bodies like F4, F3, FM etc.

I believe the list you've given earlier, 12-24 f/4; 17-55 f/4 & 70-200 f/2.8 is your trinity as you may be a fully Nikon digital photographer, thus the DX lenses suits you better.

AFS 17-55 f2.8 DX bro

It can't be used on a FF body dude :devil: and not to mention fall off at the corners at f/2.8 wide open

 

[sykestang]

On the other hand, 12-24 f/4 and the 17-55 f/4, both being DX lenses, their features are limited and cannot be 100% compatible with the older Nikon pro bodies like F4, F3, FM etc.

I believe the list you've given earlier, 12-24 f/4; 17-55 f/4 & 70-200 f/2.8 is your trinity as you may be a fully Nikon digital photographer, thus the DX lenses suits you better.
QUOTE]

AFS 17-55 f2.8 DX bro

opps... some typo on my part. :embrass:

But personally I still don't like the images from the AFS17-55 f/2.8. Can't compare with the 17-35 f/2.8 and 28-70 f/2.8...

 

[concuss]

It's not a white elephant provided you understand and know how to use the len and it's powress. The FOV is 42mm but that doesn't discount anything else. Different lenses have different usage and different results, 18-70 might get the work done, the 28-70 can just do it better. ;p

Begging your pardon, but FOV is FOV. it is not about optical quality, build construction etc etc.

at 42mm, it is hard to do any landscape work that the 18-70 will excel better at. Trust, me, i know, cos I am using a "lowly" 28-80mm f3.5-5.6.

Otherwise, i would never have bought my 12-24!

 

[smallaperture]

my opinion of this lens is that it's a white elephant on our 1.5x FOV DSLRs..

i'll stick with my 18-70 anyday. it's light and does its work.

The days of affordable Full-frame SLR is getting very, very near at the rate Technology is advancing, so no more problem with the 1.5x Fov. That day might be in 6 months time, or 2 years time, is anybody's guess. Or how affordable is it? Depending on one's pocket or use that credit card, gold or platinium. Perhaps we are not far away from the 3 to 4k FF dSLR. :bsmilie: :bsmilie:

 

[espn]

Begging your pardon, but FOV is FOV. it is not about optical quality, build construction etc etc.

at 42mm, it is hard to do any landscape work that the 18-70 will excel better at. Trust, me, i know, cos I am using a "lowly" 28-80mm f3.5-5.6.

Otherwise, i would never have bought my 12-24!

Why so? Just because it's not wide enough? Not valid to justify the len cannot be used for landscape, it's like saying the 12-24 cannot be used for portraits cos the 85 f/1.4 is much better since I use a "lowly" 50 f/1.8.

 

[scanner]

I like the reference to these lenses as "Trinity Lenses". Wow, kool name with a sense of mystique. I like it!!!

hahaha... sounds cool.
Anyway, this is only a discussion on the len AFS28-70 f2.8.
It an interesting thing to see that it evolved into a discussion of the definition of trinity.

To some, trinity lens are defined as:

Those FF len:
AFS 17-35 F2.8D
AFS 28-70 F2.8D
AFS 70-200 or 80-200 F2.8D.

Those DX lens which offers 2.8D constant througout
or those fast prime lens. (their own definitions)

To each his own, this is only a discussion, I'm so surprise that they are people who get so worked up on such trivial matters and the way they commented sounds that they are the professional and what they commented is always correct.

Anyway, I'm not here to start a war, but rather I would say again and again...no matter how good the len is, if you don't use it or rather you don't really knows the characteristics of the len well, what the point in getting an expensive len (the best)? You can state all the theories, but if you can't shoot, you better start shooting and learn! (I'm learning as well).

 

[Clown]

Why so? Just because it's not wide enough? Not valid to justify the len cannot be used for landscape, it's like saying the 12-24 cannot be used for portraits cos the 85 f/1.4 is much better since I use a "lowly" 50 f/1.8.

12-24 for portraits?! wah liew... super deformed nose and ears.. EEEEK!

 

[geoyip]

Any pics to share for this lens?

i mean the AFS 28-70 f2.8 <

 

[espn]

Anyway, I'm not here to start a war, but rather I would say again and again...no matter how good the len is, if you don't use it or rather you don't really knows the characteristics of the len well, what the point in getting an expensive len (the best)? You can state all the theories, but if you can't shoot, you better start shooting and learn! (I'm learning as well).

:thumbsup: Well said, words from an amatuer always hits the nail on the head. I also can't shoot

12-24 for portraits?! wah liew... super deformed nose and ears.. EEEEK!

Watch it, Watcher's coming after you now... hee.