Forgot to add, the F4 needs the aperture ring to work in Aperture or Manual priority modes.
With a G lens you are limited to Shutter or Program priority.
huddy wrote:
On film, on a 12mp D700, I always enjoyed the 28-105. I don't have it anymore, but was a nice lens that I used for a time in the early 2010's when i had my D700. Was an excellent walkaround lens. Not to be confused with some of the more modern lenses certainly for overall performance, but I always found it to be a nice lens to have.
Desmolicious wrote:
While totally fine on film, I just found it too bulky and replaced it with the much more enjoyable to use (and better optically) 28-80 kit lenses.
I have both the D and G versions (the D came with a Nikon N80 for $30 totall). I prefer the G just because it is more compact - optical quality is the same. Even though the D has the aperture ring, I do not recommend this lens - or the 28-105D - to be used on a manual focus body.
This is because the focus throw on these AF lenses are geared so short it makes them hard to use accurately.
28 105 might be great, 28 80 in a plastic mount might be just fine for me. You'd think they could update the performance a bit and release it for digital instead of more computational imaging dependent lenses. Is it pretty good stopped down
I looked at going RF but 24-105 L is expensive. Yes Nikon has never ending compatability issues like G vs D and older etc
28 105 might be great, 28 80 in a plastic mount might be just fine for me. You'd think they could update the performance a bit and release it for digital instead of more computational imaging dependent lenses. Is it pretty good stopped down
I looked at going RF but 24-105 L is expensive. Yes Nikon has never ending compatability issues like G vs D and older etc
I also have the latest gen 24-120 G lens that I use on the F6 and Z7. But when I say I use it, I really mean it sits in the dry box pretty much all the time due to size/weight. The 28-80s get way way more usage.
Desmolicious wrote:
While totally fine on film, I just found it too bulky and replaced it with the much more enjoyable to use (and better optically) 28-80 kit lenses.
I have both the D and G versions (the D came with a Nikon N80 for $30 totall). I prefer the G just because it is more compact - optical quality is the same. Even though the D has the aperture ring, I do not recommend this lens - or the 28-105D - to be used on a manual focus body.
This is because the focus throw on these AF lenses are geared so short it makes them hard to use accurately.
fjablo wrote:
Was that the AF-D 28-105mm f3.5-4.5 (not sure they made another one)? Pretty solid lens imo. But indeed a bit bulky..
I think the AF-D 28-70mm f3.5-4.5 is pretty hard to beat. Quite compact, nice build quality, 52mm filter thread, very sharp, great sunstars.
My 28-105 f/3.5-4.5D is a bit stronger at all focal lengths than my 28-70 f/3.5-4.5D, but I usually pick the 28-70 just for the smaller size. I like both though. And actually, I shot the 28-105 a lot on my D5 of all things for a while.
fjablo wrote:
Was that the AF-D 28-105mm f3.5-4.5 (not sure they made another one)? Pretty solid lens imo. But indeed a bit bulky..
I think the AF-D 28-70mm f3.5-4.5 is pretty hard to beat. Quite compact, nice build quality, 52mm filter thread, very sharp, great sunstars.
Yes Sir!
I 'think' the 28-80G is better but honestly I would have to pixel peep on the same subject etc which I'm not gonna do. So let's just say I like it better cuz it's smaller!
Most of the photographers used the 35-70/2.8 AF back then as a fast normal zoom. I was a noisy shaft drive lens with no declutching in the lens. It later became an AF-D lens without optical change. I still have it.
Desmolicious wrote:
I also have the latest gen 24-120 G lens that I use on the F6 and Z7. But when I say I use it, I really mean it sits in the dry box pretty much all the time due to size/weight. The 28-80s get way way more usage.
Great point at 7 oz it's about the same as my 18-55! Are you as enthusiastic about this lens as KR, he has a really positive review. Another good 7 oz lens is the old 100/3.5 macro mine is vivitar branded IIRC
I looked at going Rf but I'd rather have 28-80 , macro lens and 16-35/4 than just 24-105 or 24-120 for $1200 or whatever they cost now.
Definitely interested in inexpensive mid range zooms like this. I like 28 80 Tamron sp adaptall-2 both I had broke though but inexpensive and I like the glass if you dont mind mf
AmbientMike wrote:
Great point at 7 oz it's about the same as my 18-55! Are you as enthusiastic about this lens as KR, he has a really positive review. Another good 7 oz lens is the old 100/3.5 macro mine is vivitar branded IIRC
I looked at going Rf but I'd rather have 28-80 , macro lens and 16-35/4 than just 24-105 or 24-120 for $1200 or whatever they cost now.
Definitely interested in inexpensive mid range zooms like this. I like 28 80 Tamron sp adaptall-2 both I had broke though but inexpensive and I like the glass if you dont mind mf ...Show more →
I'm enthusiastic about the 28-80 for sure. It's excellent. But KR's enthusiam is over the top for lots of things. Sometimes it just seems he is trying to be contrary.
Received my F4S today. It literally looks brand new. Not a mark on it. It was rated as Ex+.
And it does appear to have the LCD bleed in upper left corner. I assume I am missing exposure compensation and frame counter info. The bleed is in the middle portion. All else is working fine.
Desmolicious wrote:
I'm enthusiastic about the 28-80 for sure. It's excellent. But KR's enthusiam is over the top for lots of things. Sometimes it just seems he is trying to be contrary.
Good to know aout lenses like these so I can fill the important but often inexpensive mid range FLs inexpensively and buy other macro, tele, uwa lenses.
Also these are the kind of lenses that can be left in the car. I've been trying to carry 18-55 more on aps, generally the places I go aren't particularly conducive to landscape , nice to have something wider if the light looks particularly good though
AmbientMike wrote:
Good to know aout lenses like these so I can fill the important but often inexpensive mid range FLs inexpensively and buy other macro, tele, uwa lenses.
Also these are the kind of lenses that can be left in the car. I've been trying to carry 18-55 more on aps, generally the places I go aren't particularly conducive to landscape , nice to have something wider if the light looks particularly good though
I totally recommend it. I bought mine off ebay w no issues. Pro tip… it is often cheaper to buy the lens attached to a camera than by itself as it was a kit lens and most people just sell it together. So also look for N/F80,75,65 cameras - often they have broken film doors (plastic latches that Nikon so wisely went to..) but if the price is right it doesn’t matter as you want the lens.
However it would also be nice to get a sweet working N80:with it!
Desmolicious wrote:
I totally recommend it. I bought mine off ebay w no issues. Pro tip… it is often cheaper to buy the lens attached to a camera than by itself as it was a kit lens and most people just sell it together. So also look for N/F80,75,65 cameras - often they have broken film doors (plastic latches that Nikon so wisely went to..) but if the price is right it doesn’t matter as you want the lens.
However it would also be nice to get a sweet working N80:with it!
