Review of Nikon AF-S 28-70mm F2.8D (IF-ED)

For the ability to review the legendary lens Nikon ED SWM AF-S Nikkor 28-70mm 1: 2.8D (IF) many thanks to Dmitry. Dmitry is engaged in the sale of excellent professional lenses, his catalog can be viewed here.

Review of Nikon AF-S 28-70mm f 2.8D (IF-ED)

Review of Nikon AF-S 28-70mm f 2.8D (IF-ED)

The lens Nikon ED SWM AF-S Nikkor 28-70mm 1: 2.8D (IF) was introduced back in February 1999 and was produced right up to 2007, since August 2007 the legendary Nikon AF-S 28-70mm F / 2.8D was replaced by nanocrystalline Nikon 24-70mm f / 2.8G ED AF-S N Nikkorwhich, in turn, was supplemented by the Nikon N VR AF-S Nikkor 24-70mm 1: 2.8E ED.

All Nikon AF-S 28-70mm F / 2.8D lenses were manufactured exclusively in Japan. By the way, there are black (black) and white (gray) versions of Nikon AF-S 28-70mm F / 2.8D, they differ only in the frame of the body.

Nikon AF-S 28-70mm f 2.8D (IF-ED)

Nikon AF-S 28-70mm f 2.8D (IF-ED), front view. The lens uses SIC enlightenment.

Nikon AF-S 28-70mm F / 2.8D refers to professional zoom lenses, this is evidenced by the yellow edging near the front lens. The Nikon AF-S 28-70mm f / 2.8D itself is huge, it uses a 'professional' front filter diameter on 77mm, and the weight of the lens is as much as 935 grams, the lens looks simply irresistible on the camera. This whopper did not fit into my small photo bag, and I had to drag my own wardrobe trunk CL-74... Even the execution of the wardrobe trunk is top notch with a comfortable latch and velor interior trim.

Nikon AF-S 28-70mm f 2.8D (IF-ED)

Nikon AF-S 28-70mm f 2.8D (IF-ED), view of the lens with the native HB-19 lens hood. The hood can be worn back and forth.

The optical scheme is made on 15 elements in 11 groups, 2 element are ED glasses (Extra low dispersion) type, and one item is aspherical (PGM ASP) For comparison, the new model Nikon 24-70mm f / 2.8G has 3 ED, 3 APS and one element with a nanocrystalline coating.

Nikon AF-S 28-70mm f 2.8D (IF-ED)

Nikon AF-S 28-70mm f 2.8D (IF-ED), mount type, mount, focus mode switch.

Nikon AF-S 28-70mm F / 2.8D uses special SWM (Silent wave motor), which achieves very fast and quiet autofocus. Since the lens has a built-in focus motor, the Nikon AF-S 28-70mm F / 2.8D will work at any modern Nikon digital SLR camera. The focus on the lens is really very fast. Often the name is assigned to the lens designation IFMeaning Iinternal Focusing, and talks about internal focus the lens. When focusing, the front lens remains stationary, which allows you to easily use any kind of light filter.

Bokeh Nikon ED SWM AF-S Nikkor 28-70mm 1: 2.8D

Bokeh on Nikon ED SWM AF-S Nikkor 28-70mm 1: 2.8D

The lens has a focus mode switchM / AM'. In the 'M / A' mode, automatic focusing is available with a priority of manual control, which means that focus can always be corrected without switching to manual mode 'M'. This mode is very convenient to use, without switching the mode, you can focus both manually and automatically, using this focusing method is very convenient to use focus trap... In manual focus mode 'M', the focus ring rotates 90 degrees in active mode, and then simply slides in passive mode. The focusing ring is rubberized and very comfortable to use. The lens has a focusing distance scale from infinity to MDF, the minimum focusing distance is 50cm at a 70mm focal length, you can get a macro with a magnification of 1: 5.6. There is an infrared shift indicator on the lens. In general, the quality of the focusing system is at the highest level, it is a pity that there is no depth of field indicator.

Two Nikon AF-S 28-70mm f 2.8D (IF-ED) models

Two Nikon AF-S 28-70mm f 2.8D (IF-ED) models - black and white.

When zooming, the lens trunk is slightly lengthened, the minimum lens length is available at a 50mm focal length, as the lens trunk moves in waves. The disadvantage lens is a spontaneous change in focal length under its own weight. The focal length range from 28 to 70 millimeters is very, very convenient, on full-frame cameras the lens allows you to shoot with a wide angle at 28mm and allows you to shoot in a short telephoto range at 70mm. If you use Nikon AF-S 28-70mm F / 2.8D on Nikon DX cropped cameras, then EGF will correspond to 42-105mm, which will not allow you to use a sufficiently wide angle of view. I do not recommend using this lens on a crop, there is a Nikon 17-55mm f/2.8G IF-ED AF-S equivalent for this. DX Nikkor

Optical design Nikon AF-S 28-70mm F2.8D IF-ED

Optical design Nikon AF-S 28-70mm F2.8D IF-ED

An unusual fact is that the Nikon AF-S 28-70mm F / 2.8D is a type D lens, that is, a lens with an aperture control ring and at the same time it has a SWM motor. Usually only AF-S G and AF D lenses are found, and it is very rare to find AF-S D lenses, you can read more about this. here.

Landscape on Nikon ED SWM AF-S Nikkor 28-70mm 1: 2.8D

Landscape on Nikon ED SWM AF-S Nikkor 28-70mm 1: 2.8D

Important: In order for the lens to start working normally on modern DLCs, you need to set the f / 22 value on the lens and click a special switch near the aperture control ring. After such manipulation, it will be possible to control the aperture from the camera, as with any modern lens, in more detail in the section about Non-G type lens.

Nikon ED SWM AF-S Nikkor 28-70mm 1: 2.8D backlighting

Nikon ED SWM AF-S Nikkor 28-70mm 1: 2.8D backlighting

The lens has a maximum aperture. F / 2.8which is available over the entire range of focal lengths. Take off hand is not difficult, even though the Nikon AF-S 28-70mm F / 2.8 lacks an image stabilizer. Nikon AF-S 28-70mm F / 2.8 is one of the 'must have' lenses, as it is included in the classic top three of a professional photographer's kit on the Nikon system: 14 (16) -24 (28), 24 (28) -70 ( 80), 70 (80) -200 (210) mm.

Sample photo on Nikon ED SWM AF-S Nikkor 28-70mm 2.8D

Sample photo on Nikon ED SWM AF-S Nikkor 28-70mm 2.8D

Image quality

Lens uses 9 blade aperture with rounded petals, which allows you to get even circles in the blur zone at any F values. The lens was very surprised by the amazing 70mm bokeh. The Nikon AF-S 28-70mm F / 2.8D was also a sharp, contrasting lens with good color reproduction and minimal aberration. At F2.8 inherent weak software, at 28mm F2.8 noticeably strong vignetting. The lens perfectly transfers backlight. The image quality is high.

Portrait Nikon AF-S 28-70mm F2.8D (IF-ED)

Portrait Nikon AF-S 28-70mm F2.8D (IF-ED)

Sample Photos

All examples of photos from this review were shot on camera. Nikon D700 JPEG JPEG L, Fine, VI, NL using protective filter B + W 77 010 UV-Haze 1X MRC F-PRO. Photos without processing, only the size is reduced to 3MP and the data from EXIF snapshots.

Personal experience

Nikon AF-S 28-70mm F / 2.8D is a versatile lens, very fast, can serve as a reportage lens, especially useful for shooting weddings and other dynamic events.

The zoom ring of the Nikon AF-S 28-70mm F / 2.8D seemed to me more convenient for Nikon 24-70mm f / 2.8G, on the Nikon AF-S 28-70mm f / 2.8D the ring is narrower and closer to the camera mount. By the way, 24-70 and 28-70 have about the same weight, and he Nikon 24-70mm f / 2.8G seemed to me sharper. The fat Nikon AF-S 28-70mm f / 2.8D gives a slightly narrower field of view at 28mm than Nikon 24-70mm f / 2.8G on their 24 mm.

Instead of 24 (28) -70 I use in everyday shooting Nikon 28-105mm f / 3.5-4.5D AF Nikkor... I ran a test, and as it turned out, the focus speed of my non-motorized Nikon 28-105mm f / 3.5-4.5D AF Nikkor exactly the same as the very expensive professional Nikon AF-S 28-70mm f / 2.8D with a built-in motor. I'd also like to add that the Nikon AF-S 28-70mm F / 2.8D lens is something unique, which is difficult to describe, it is better to hold the Nikon AF-S 28-70mm F / 2.8D once in your hands and shoot with it.

Professional fast wagon

Choosing a good high-speed universal lens is one of the most important for a large number of photographers. I pay a lot of attention to this issue, because I prepared this list of all full-frame universal (standard range of focal lengths) fast autofocus lenses:


Bayonet EF:

  1. Canon Zoom Lens EF 28-70 mm 1: 2.8 L USM
  2. Canon Zoom Lens EF 24-70 mm 1: 2.8 L USM
  3. Canon Zoom Lens EF 24-70 mm 1: 2.8 L II USM

Bayonet R:

  1. Canon Lens RF 28-70 mm F2 L USM, since September 2018
  2. Canon Lens RF 24-70 mm F2.8L IS USMsince August 2019


Bayonet F:

  1. Nikon AF Nikkor 35-70 mm 1: 2.8 (MKI)
  2. Nikon AF Nikkor 35-70 mm 1: 2.8D (MKII)
  3. Nikon AF-S Nikkor 28-70 mm 1: 2.8D ED SWM (two body color options)
  4. Nikon AF-S Nikkor 24-70 mm 1: 2.8GN ED Nano Crystal Coat SWM IF Asphericalsince December 2007
  5. Nikon AF-S Nikkor 24-70 mm 1: 2.8EN ED Nano Crystal Coat SWM IF Aspherical VR

Bayonet Z:

  1. Nikon Nikkor Z 24-70 mm 1: 2.8 S
  2. Nikon Nikkor Z 28-75 mm 1:2.8 (the scheme is similar to Tamron a036, animation)

Tokina (for different mounts)

  1. Tokina AT-XAF 28-70 mm 1: 2.8 (Tokina AT-X 270 AF)
  2. Tokina AT-X PROAF 28-70 mm 1: 2.6-2.8 (or 1: 2.8, Tokina AT-X 270 AF PRO)
  3. Tokina AT-X PROAF 28-70 mm 1: 2.6-2.8 (or 1: 2.8, Tokina AT-X 270 AF PRO II)
  4. Tokina AT-X PRO 28-80 mm 1: 2.8 Aspherica (Tokina AT-X 280 AF PRO)
  5. Tokina AT-X PRO SV 28-70 mm 1: 2.8 (Tokina AT-X 287 AF PRO SV)
  6. Tokina sd 24-70 F2.8 (IF) FX AT-X PRO Aspherical

Sigma (for different mounts, in chronological order)

  1. Sigma 28-70mm 1: 2.8 Zoom, from May 1992 (Vivitar 28-70 / 2.8 VMC was made on its basis)
  2. Sigma 28-70mm 1: 2.8 Zoom EX Ashperical [+ -D], from the end 1998
  3. Sigma 28-70mm 1: 2.8 Zoom EX Aspherical DF [+ -D]since February 2001
  4. Sigma 24-70mm 1: 2.8 Zoom EX DG Aspherical [+ -D], [DF version], since February 2001
  5. Sigma 24-60mm 1: 2.8 Zoom EX DG [+ -D], from May 2004
  6. Sigma 24-70mm 1: 2.8 Zoom EX DG Macro [+ -D], From september 2004
  7. Sigma 28-70mm 1: 2.8 Zoom EX DG [+ -D], From september 2004
  8. Sigma 24-70mm 1: 2.8 EX DG HSM, From september 2008
  9. Sigma 24-70mm 1:2.8 DG HSM OS A (ART), from February 2017, Nikon F, Canon EF, Sigma SA
  10. Sigma 24-70mm 1: 2.8 DG DN A (ART)since November 2019, Sony E, Leica L, the layout is similar to Leica Vario-Elmarit-SL 2.8 / 24-70mm, animation
  11. Sigma 28-70mm 1: 2.8 DG DN C (Contemporary)since February 2021, Sony E, Leica L

Tamron (for different mounts)

  1. Tamron SP AF 35-105 mm 1: 2.8 Aspherical Model 65D
  2. Tamron SP AF Aspherical LD ​​[IF] 28-105 mm 1: 2.8 Model 176D
  3. Tamron SP AF Aspherical LD ​​[IF] 28-105 mm 1: 2.8 Model 276D
  4. Tamron SP AF Aspherical XR Di LD [IF] 28-75 mm 1: 2.8 Macro Model A09 (Model A09N & Model A09N II) (scheme like Konica Minolta AF Zoom 28-75mm 1: 2.8 (32) D и  Sony 2.8 / 28-75 SAM)
  5. Tamron SP 24-70 mm F / 2.8 DI VC USD Model A007
  6. Tamron SP 24-70 mm F / 2.8 Di VC USD G2 Model A032
  7. Tamron 28-75 mm F / 2.8 Di III RXD Model A036, (15/12), only for Sony E / FE, the scheme is similar to Nikon Nikkor Z 28-75 mm 1:2.8, animation
  8. Tamron 28-75 mm F / 2.8 Di III VXD G2 Model A063, (17/15), only for Sony E / FE, Fall 2021
  9. Tamron 35-150 mm F / 2-2.8 Di III VXD Model A058, Sony E / FE only, Fall 2021


Sony / Minolta A mount:

  1. Konica Minolta AF Zoom 28-75 mm 1: 2.8 (32) D (scheme like Tamron 28-75 / 2.8)
  2. Minolta AF Zoom 28-70 mm 1: 2.8 (32) G
  3. Sony 2.8 /28-75 SAM (scheme like Tamron 28-75 / 2.8)
  4. Sony Zeiss Vario-Sonnar 2,8 /24-70 ZA SSM T *
  5. Sony Zeiss Vario-Sonnar 2,8 /24-70 ZA SSM II T* (circuit from the previous lens)

Sony E-mount:

  1. Sony FE 2.8 /24-50 G (G, SEL2450G)
  2. Sony FE 2.8 /24-70 GM (G, SEL2470GM)
  3. Sony FE 2.8 /24-70 GM II (G, SEL2470GM2)

Pentax (K)

  1. Pentax SMC FA 28-70 mm f / 2.8
  2. Pentax HD Pentax-D FA 24-70 mm f / 2.8ED SDM WR


  1. Angenieux zoom F.28-70 1: 2.6 AF (for Nikon F, Minolta / Sony A, Canon EF)


  1. Vivitar Series 1 28-70mm 1: 2.8 VMC AUTO FOCUS ZOOM, different mounts, presumably a copy Sigma 28-70mm 1: 2.8 Zoom


  1. Panasonic Lumix S PRO 1: 2.8 /24-70 mm, from August 2019, Leica L


  1. Leica Vario-Elmarit-SL 1: 2.8 / 24-70mm f / 2.8 ASPH., from May 2021, the optical design repeats Sigma 24-70mm 1: 2.8 DG DN Art (animation)


  1. Samyang AF 24-70 / 2.8 FE, aka Rokinon AF 24-70 / 2.8 FE, from October 2021, only for Sony E / FE
  2. Samyang AF 35-150/2-2.8FE, from April April 2023, only for Sony E/FE
The impressive dimensions of the Nikon AF-S 28-70 mm f 2.8 D IF-ED

The impressive dimensions of the Nikon AF-S 28-70 mm f 2.8 D IF-ED

List of all Nikon FX 28-XXX autofocus lenses:

The catalog of modern universal lenses for Nikon can be see here.

Comments on this post do not require registration. Anyone can leave a comment. Many different photographic equipment can be found on AliExpress.


Nikon AF-S 28-70mm F / 2.8D - professional lens with very high image quality and very high build quality. Heavy enough and expensive. I recommend.

Material prepared Arkady Shapoval. Training/Consultations | Youtube | Facebook | Instagram | Twitter | Telegram

Add a comment:



Comments: 159, on the topic: Review of the Nikon AF-S 28-70mm F2.8D (IF-ED)

  • Andrei

    This is glass number 1 for people with ff cameras.

  • vitalik

    Crazy for the review. Arkadiy chi varto brother tsey obktiv on the crop?

    • Arkady Shapoval

      In the review itself, I indicated: 'I do not recommend using such a lens on a crop'

      • Alexey

        Why??? Very convenient FR, ideal for crop, only expensive ...

    • Andrei

      For crop cameras, it makes no sense to buy such an expensive lens. You can try this inexpensive one

      • Alexey

        If we proceed from the message that the main thing is quality, then it is worth ... No Tamrons are here nearby ...

  • Sergo

    Arkady, are you working on microstock?

    • Arkady Shapoval

      I do not work.

  • Eugene

    Hello Arkady, the question is off topic, will you have any reviews of macro lenses, I would like to see your review, thanks

  • Artem

    Good hour, dobie, Arcadia, tell me, be weasel, you can pick up how you can pick up the * Mamiya-Sekor Z 127mm f / 3.5 active on Nikon D80? why will I have mercy?

    • Arkady Shapoval

      First you find out what kind of mount it is (maybe CS), or a thread (maybe M42), it's hard for me to tell.

  • Andrii

    The Mamiya-Sekor Z 127mm f / 3.5 is a medium format lens. You can use it only on cameras Mamiya RZ 67, RZ67 Pro II, Mamiya RZ67 ProIID. There, the focus is vybuvaa for an additional fly and a viddalennya that approximation of the object to the play. On the smallest cameras - niyak. 28-70 chudova linza, but now it is important to know їkh in a normal camp, tse profі lіnsa. Їх were not bathed for a photograph of cats and cats))))
    P.S. The staff for the Mamiya RZ67 - 110 / 2.8 (50mm equivalent for the 135 type sailing) - at a fairly short reduction in all zoom and fixi nikon, including up to 85 / 1.4D, having tried, I know, I am creepy. On a 6x7 frame with an aperture of 2.8, the depth of cut is at 50 / 1.2. And the bokeh …… .. + Ob'ktiv neymovirno sharp !!! At the smallest point of view, the focus is as long as the focus is on the bokeh, and the area in the vuha becomes one focus on the bokeh. The beauty of the bokeh can be as big as 135 / 2DC, and the plasticity of 85 / 1.4 ... ..
    I’m working for offtopic.

  • Lyalya

    Good day. I read both of your reviews on the Nikkor 28-70mm f / 2.8D IF-ED AF-S and Nikkor 24-70mm f / 2.8G ED AF-S, so which is better? I have a Nikon D90, I have a 50mm f1.8 fix, I really want to zoom, and in the future I plan to purchase a full-frame camera. The purpose of shooting is children in kindergarten, weddings, but for portraits there is a fix. Thanks!

    • Arkady Shapoval

      24-70 is generally better

      • Paul.

        "It's better"!!! all right, better. But what is better ??? Sharpness is phenomenal, resolution, minimal chrome. aberration, minimal vignetting and geometric distortion. There is no main thing - a drawing !! It's like in that story about soup, which is amazing in all respects, but in which they forgot to put the main component of the soup - meat !! In a word, this lens is the apotheosis of “techno-robbery” (sorry, of course). I look at the pictures from it and recognize in it my first whale 18-55, dark as a beer bottle. The same plastic in the drawing, everything is absolutely flat, there is no beauty and life in the pictures ....

        • Alexey

          Absolutely agree !!! 24-70, 17-55 - soulless reporters ... If you love photography, you won't use it for your soul ... No money - take 35-70, there is 28-70 ... 28-105 will go to the extreme ...

          • Pavel Chertalev

            Alexey, Pavel - how to understand whether glass has a soul or not?
            Many professional photographers claim that the glass is an excellent 24-70mm. Where does this criterion come from - soullessness. I made a card I like it. Another photographer will look - says there is no soul in it. It's like in the famous film “Adventures on the Road” - when the artists and critics were shown Monet's painting and told that it was not the original, but a cheap copy. And they commented ... "The copy is clearly not very good ... there is no soul in it ... the monet would have turned over seeing this ..." I think the soullessness of the picture is a completely subjective concept. The main thing is that the photographer himself likes the result. And I'm sure there will be many photographers who will also criticize 28-70 and 35-70. Regarding 24-70 versus 28-70 - it is absolutely known that 24-70 is sharper on the open. So that this can be a decisive selection criterion. And also find a new 28-70 or BU, but at least it won't work for a guarantee. Well, the reliability of the focusing motor in the 28-70 is also questionable. So I recommend everyone to make the choice themselves without taking into account their own opinion.

            • Alexey

              Yes, it's not so difficult to understand ... To make a shot one, then another ... The difference is visible right away ... Frames with 28-70 and 35-70 are visible immediately ... They differ in color rendering, volume and contrast, and so on, and so on ... This is what is called "soul" ... C sharpness, they are also all right ...

              • Pavel Chertalev

                Alexey, everything is simple. Nikon 24-70 is a great glass and it has excellent color reproduction, volume and contrast, and so on and so forth ... This is technically proven and practically confirmed. And these parameters are better than 28-70 and 35-70. Those. considering your criteria it is more animated than 28-70 and 35-70. If you call me at least one parameter by which 24-70 loses to other glasses, then we will discuss the definition of the spirituality of lenses. :)

            • Dmitriy

              Pavel, 24-70 wins in MTF charts, in sharpness in corners. Technically proven, yeah.
              But just in volume, vividness of the picture loses. Examples where 24-70 vs. 28-70 for boke, plastic and volume can you give a link in favor of 24-70? :)
              A person either "sees" or not. As one friend of mine said, “only one parameter in optics is valuable to me - sharpness”. And there are most of them: the photo-wallpaper for the kitchen is clearer than the “daub” from the Tretyakov Gallery.

              • Pavel Chertalev

                Dmitry. You made me laugh)))
                “But just in terms of volume, the vividness of the picture loses” - what do you know about the volume in the pictures? Judging by your words, nothing. I recommend reading the excellent post and you will understand that replacing 24-70 with 28-70 will not increase the volume in the frame at all.
                You are talking about the vividness of the picture - do you really believe that the vividness of the picture depends on the lens?)) And I’m afraid you’ll bet that you will not distinguish between 2 pictures taken 24-70 and 28-70 in the same conditions.
                The beauty of the picture, the volume, the liveliness, it all depends entirely on the "straightness" of the photographer's hands. Of course, the aperture ratio with the boke pattern also plays an important role - but in this 28-70 is no better than 24-70.
                As for giving an example - sorry, but I only have 24-70 and I cannot make comparisons. On the internet I only found this:
       <= it is difficult to distinguish between pictures
       <= there is clearly a 24-70 winning on open.
                So, my verdict 28-70 is also an excellent glass. The main differences are:
                - 24-70 sharper on open corners
                - 24-70 is slightly wider
                - 24-70 more reliable - no problems with the focusing motor
                - Optically 24-70 and 28-70 excellent standard zooms
                And exotic opinions about a "synthetic" picture in 24-70, or a "more plastic picture" in 28-70 - these are for spiritualized people (and among the professionals I have not met such opinions), who see what others do not see.

            • Dmitriy

              Pavel, and you made me laugh))

              "What do you know about volume in pictures?"

              - In general, I've been shooting with the Nikon system since 2003, I've tried a bunch of optics, incl. very rare, such as Voigtlander 125 / 2.5 macro apo-lanthar. That is, it has gone all the way from "whale optics" (both on film, 28-105, and on a figure from 18-70) to "tops", 28-70 2.8, 70-200 2.8, 135 2.0 and etc. Also in use were third-party optics, Tamron, Tokina and even one Sigma lens :)
              Now I left myself 85 1.4D, 35-70 2.8D, 28-70 2.8D (the motor started to "whistle") and 135 2.0 DC in full frame.
              In addition, I have been working with photography in the printing industry since January 2001.
              So what about "what do you know?" - I have the courage to answer “I know”.

              "The beauty of the picture, the volume, the liveliness, it all depends entirely on the" straightness "of the photographer's hands."
              - Yeah? Let's go for a walk at the weekend, take pictures in the park, I'm with 85 1.4, and you with any 18 ... up to 200mm AF-S zoom from Nikon, we will take pictures of people, and then, looking at the pictures, let's talk about the "vividness of the shot" :)

              “Main differences:
              - 24-70 sharper on open corners
              - 24-70 is slightly wider
              - 24-70 more reliable - no problems with the focusing motor
              "Optically 24-70 and 28-70 excellent standard zooms"

              - So I do not argue, I wrote earlier
              - “Pavel, 24-70 wins on MTF charts, sharpness in corners. Technically proven, yeah. " You mean arithmetic, and I mean painting. :)

              “And exotic opinions about a“ synthetic ”picture in 24-70, or a“ more plastic pattern ”in 28-70 are for spiritualized people (and I have never met such opinions among professionals), who see what others do not see."

              Pavel, pro - they are different. There are reporters, they don't care about anything but sharpness. There are landscape painters - they also have equal volume and bokeh. There are portrait painters - with them everything is more difficult, and if the portrait painter is really intelligent, he sees this difference in optics. I also see, for example, the difference between 50 1.8G and the same 35-70 2.8, the nature of the pattern and the same volume are different for them with the same aperture. Compared to the 24-70 and 28-70, everything is much thinner, but there is a difference, as well as, for example, between the 85 1.4G and the D-version and much than others.

              If you do not see, then it is better not to rush to people who are in the subject. It looks ridiculous, I've been watching such conversations on the Internet for the second decade.

            • Dmitriy

              Pavel, here are two snapshots from ten years ago. Both are made by Nikon's zooms, one is an old screwdriver, the other is AF-S and all kinds of nano-marketing stuff is present in it, it is sharp and does not catch hares even without a hood. Designed for modern and trendy bipedal vertebrate “photographers” who are technically advanced. Do you see the difference in the picture? Which picture is nicer to your eye?

              • Denis

                eh. but as in the beginning it was beautifully written (((

              • Victor

                You just made my day, even after more than 4 years)))))

                It happens that “in the words of Leo Tolstoy,” yes ...

              • KalekseyG

                And they also say that if in the UHF a couple of wires are changed to the telefun of the year 1939, the sound will become very inspired. And to compare fifty dollars and shirik in the portrait is very sincere

              • Pavel Chertalev

                Dmitry, I apologize if I hurt you - I re-read my comment, it really has a pronounced bad emotional color.
                I've been taking pictures myself for quite some time, but I recently read an article about how to add volume to a photo. You can agree with this or not - but there is a set of tricks on how to make a picture larger. And most of these techniques are available to the photographer with any lens. Of course, the most important things are lighting, shadows and geometry. But the easiest way to add volume to an image is with a small grip that highlights the foreground, middle, and background. And of course a faster tele-range lens will make it much easier to achieve the effect of volume in the picture. But in this case, we are comparing two almost identical lenses with the same aperture and focal lengths.
                At the expense of going to shoot together - I will be happy! I live in St. Petersburg and am always glad to any communication with the same amateur photographers like myself.
                As for the fact that you will take more “vivid” pictures than me - for me it sounds like “I am much better at photographing than you”. What do you mean by "liveliness" of the picture? For me, this is emotion, an interesting action in the frame. I don't understand how this has to do with the lens. I saw awesome photos taken with an iPhone, which, according to my criteria, were perfect in terms of liveliness in the frame. Looking at your examples, it seems to me that you are drawing a parallel between “beautifully blurred background” = “vividness in the frame”. But I don't agree with that.
                You say you can see the difference. Great - I would be very grateful if you could help me and other readers of this post to see too. From my point of view, this can only be shown by having paired photos taken in the same place, at the same time with the same settings. I don't understand how you would do this without both lenses.
                About your examples - I see that people have already started to post upset comments. I am sure you yourself understand (know) that:
                - The left picture was taken with a high-aperture lens of at least 50mm
                - The right photo was taken at a wide angle less than 35mm and almost point-blank - it is beautiful from a comic point of view - the face is distorted by geometry - the tree in the background creates the illusion of green hair on the head
                It is obvious to me that it’s impossible to compare “plasticity”, “synthetics”, “drawing”, etc., etc. on these pictures.
                About the lenses.
                In my experience most of the new G lenses are much better than the old D film lenses. I have had experience with 1.8G and 1.8D and 14mm 2.8D lenses. I can say for sure - the new fifty is much better. The same can be said about 14mm. I would gladly exchange it for a new 14-24 if it were more compact. I also owned an 85mm 1.8G and was just pissed off by chromatic aberration. And that's the reason why I would never buy a 135mm f2. When I bought the 70-200 - 85mm I just lay on the shelf. In the end, I sold it, as the 70-200 fully covers my needs for a portrait on the street.
                When I hear people talking about a specific “pattern”, for me it means only the nature of the background blur. He's really different. For example, 85mm has an interesting curling of the background. The old 1.8's XNUMXD has a nut-shaped boke. And that's all that I highlight in the glass drawing. Maybe there is something else. But apart from being sharp, nothing else comes to my mind.

            • Dmitriy

              For Pavel and KalekseyG (about “fifty dollars” and “shirik” of the respondent): two pictures in the example were taken at 35-70 2.8D and 17-55 2.8G (the same one that was aspirated in Nikon's pre-full-frame era).
              The photos do not represent any artistic value, they were taken "on the go" in the park with a friend 9 and 8 years ago, respectively.
              There is no “fifty dollars” here, they are both on the verge of “shirikam” and standard zooms, both with a constant aperture of 2.8 - one for crop, the other for film. But they draw in different ways, or rather, one of them does not draw at all - this is what I wanted to show. And the invitation to go to the park to take pictures (I'm from Moscow, by the way) is about the same thing that universal zooms are not able to compete with the "portrait" when photographing people close-up.
              The picture from 35-70 2.8D was taken at 2.8 and 35mm, from 17-55 2.8G at aperture of 3.5 and 19 mm (in both cases crop, Nikon D200), however, the nature of the image at 17-55 at aperture 2.8 does not change much.
              Alas, I do not have paired pictures taken from the same point with the same focal points, in this regard, the example is not entirely successful of course. But 17-55, as it was a reporting carrion at a wide angle, it remains at any focal points.

              Pavel, by the “liveliness” of the picture, I did not mean the movement or emotions in the frame, but the general perception of the picture. There is an expression “as alive in the picture”. For example, if with “whale” optics you get a flat, gray image (by the way, about the color rendition: I don’t know how things are with Nikon’s “whale” line, but 18-70 also consumed color - the difference in comparison with 35-70 / 2.8 D was obvious to me even on the camera display), then ...
              By the way, why then do people go to the site of Arcadia, if according to your theory there are only the concepts of "small grip" and "zone of blur"? He doesn't have informative graphics like on, he doesn't shoot newspapers with brick walls :)
              What would seem simpler - you need fifty kopecks 1.4-1.8 - you go to the store and buy any, what difference does it make, Nikon D or G, Sigma Art or Tamron 45 / 1.8 in general? After all, everything else can be "furnished" according to the article, the link to which you gave me (an excellent article by the way, the author is a fine fellow, but it is not about optics), right? For what purposes do people buy 85 1.4G / 1.2L / 1.4 GM when there is 1.8 available on all systems? They pulled money from the unfortunate for pitiful millimeters in the depth of field, after all, according to the drawing, it's all the same? Look at the sacrifice of marketers, he threw out a lot of money:
              For me, optics itself has a character, in addition to blurring the background.

              About 135mm f2: well, chromatic aberrations are forgivable for him, his “cinematic” picture is a priority for me, a similar one cannot be obtained on 85 and 180 mm fixes or 70 / 80-200, here I am again about mine, sorry :)

              I just sold 70-200 (first version) a long time ago. I rarely shoot farther than 135mm (well, several times concerts "for myself"), but this thing is heavy and cumbersome :(

              • Pavel Chertalev

                Dmitry, well, that means we guessed about the focal ones. Pictures are taken on completely different focal points.
                As you said, I don’t see any character, just like in another lens, if only because I don’t know what that means.
                In lenses, I usually compare the following parameters in descending order of importance to me:
                1. Sharpness (at different focal points and especially at open)
                2. Speed ​​and accuracy of autofocus
                3. Background blur pattern
                4. Aberration
                5. Dust and moisture protection
                6. Reliability
                7. Vignette
                I also don't understand what a "flat image" is. Any glass is transparent and it does not in any way affect the plane of the picture. Light influences. You put a person under a bright one, there are no shadows - everything is a flat picture. And the problem of whale lenses is usually in low sharpness and low aperture. For me, the image becomes flat if I bang a flash into the forehead, as the shadows will be burned out and the skin of the face will turn into a sheet. But this is a problem with any lens. I'm sure if you take a pair of lenses that have the same focal length and aperture, and take paired shots at the same settings and at the same focal length, then you will not see any difference in the picture except for those on my list. And I'm sure your 85mm prime at f2.8 will show exactly the same picture as the 70-200 at f2.8. Why I'm sure - I just had an 85mm 1.8G and at 2.8 it shot sharper than zoom and more interesting bokeh - but that's where the differences ended. He chromated more - sometimes it is difficult to fix. I recently bought a Nikkor 35mm 1.4g - compared to 24-70 at f2.8, it shoots almost the same, except that the prime is sharper. The only difference is the presence of f1.4. If you want, I can take paired shots at 35mm at f2.8 versus 24-70 - I'm sure it will be about the same.
                When I just started shooting, I often sinned on glass, I thought that by switching to fixes, I would get super pictures. But now I think that the main thing is the hands of the photographer. And everything else is just technical specifications. And there is no “magic”, “synthetics”, “volume”, “liveliness” in them. There is aperture and sharpness.

                About the “sacrifice of marketers” - judging by the quality of the images and the abundance of photoshop, I am sure he will shoot beautifully with any lens, including the whale one. And this is not criticism, but praise. Somewhere, of course, there will be problems with aperture ratio - but the main thing is the ability to work with light and frame the frame correctly. Processing is of course also important.
                See for example the work of master Nikolai Zlobin
                What portraits you can take without blurring the background just by choosing the right place! I saw an interview with him - if I am not mistaken, he said that he does not shoot Canon EF 17-35 / 2.8 zoom. Previously, I also believed that blurring the background in portraits is the key to a beautiful photo. But I changed my mind.

                But we, by the way, in this lively conversation deviated from the topic. :)

              • Ilya

                Dmitry, you can experiment, I currently have 35-70 28-70 and 24-70, I can go to the park for example and take pictures with them at the same settings, and then you can determine what was taken from the picture?

              • Michael

                I doubt it, but it would be very interesting to get paired shots from these lenses.

              • KalekseyG

                There is no point in taking paired photos. maximum someone will guess, but so that for sure…. I doubt it! If only the class (level) of the lenses were different, then yes.

              • Ilya

                Tests made see comments below, waiting for your opinions

  • Lyalya

    Thanks again!

  • Max

    I shoot nikon d600 most often at 50 / 1,4 I tried to shoot for a week at a zoom of 24-70 (fifty dollars is more artistic, but I also like the zoom - I was going to take it. Option 28-70 appeared. Now the dilemma 24-70 or 28-70? 4mm is not important. They say that 28-70 is a little larger, and 24-70 is sharper)))
    both are definitely not needed in my household)))
    I will be grateful for the answer.

    • anonym

      ps goal - children, kindergarten, a wide angle when traveling….

  • Paul.

    Thanks for the review, Arkady! Tell me, is there any experience of using this lens with the Nikon D800 camera? Maybe someone from your friends and acquaintances used such a bundle? I am interested because I am going to buy this camera, but will this legendary "old man" have enough resolution for such a 36 - megapixel giant, or is it just a newer 24-70 suitable ??? The newer 24-70 is not bad, no doubt, but it has repeatedly slipped in the reviews that the picture from it is more openly digital, plastic.
    The difficulty of buying this glass is a little alarming, they are rarely sold, but those who are looking for it will always find it, especially if they are puzzled in advance ..
    I would be very grateful for the answer

  • Ivan

    Please tell me the problems of using this glass on the crop lie only in the focal? Or are there any other pitfalls?

  • Rostislav

    Good evening Arkadiy. Say be weasel, so as if you’ve been able to behave yourself on the D800, who can give us 36 megapixels? dyakoy

  • Alain

    Hello! Is it suitable for Nicon D5100?

    • Alexey

      For a crop sensor, a 17-55 f2.8 is good. DX. There is simply no point in overpaying. I met 17-55 for only 500 USD. The same lens is unlikely to be let go to you for such a price. However, if you plan to switch to FF in the next couple of years, then it makes sense so that you do not lose on resale later ...

  • Alexey

    Good day! At various forums, owners of the Nikon AF-S 28-70mm F / 2.8D pay attention to possible and particular problems with the focus motor (sort of like this is the first generation of motors). Hence the question, if the motor fails, is it possible to autofocus on cameras with a screwdriver in the future, or will I have to work in manual mode? And in general, is the truth so unreliable in this regard Nikon AF-S 28-70mm F / 2.8D?

    • Alexander

      Motors fly frequently. Repair is very expensive. No, it does not have a screwdriver connector with only handles

  • Eugene

    I join the last question

  • Alexander

    Dear Arkady, I have a question for you on this lens. You had the opportunity to test it, as I understand it in the winter. How does it behave at NIKKOR 28-70 at freezing temperatures of 0, -3,4 degrees? Was there a problem with the wedge focus ring and motor when shooting on the street. It was just in the cold after an hour, the other began to walk tight the ring and an internal mechanical rattle appeared. Having arrived home, warming up for an hour, the other was restored !!! You can share your experience of shooting in winter time Nikkor 28 -70, how was your shooting?

    • Arkady Shapoval

      Everything worked fine, but the zoom ring still rotated a little tight.

    • Victor

      Guys! Excuse me, did you go to school? Have you studied physics? Is it not clear that metal and composite (plastic) have different expansion (compression) coefficients? They, in the manufacture of optics, are not desirable to combine, or even not at all. Hence the problems!

  • Denis

    Good afternoon.
    Very good visibility, and the lens is generally excellent, only heavy, in conjunction with the D800 it weighs 2100 grams. But this is a retreat. There is a question of the following nature: is the problem being treated - at 70 strong backing, at 35-50 the norm, at 28 - a small front focus? Fine tuning the AF on the carcass itself shifts the range at the far and near ends. Will they be able to fix this in service centers or is it not worth contacting, but simply correct after focusing with the pens?

  • Alexander

    Can I find the MTF chart for this glass somewhere?

  • Sergei

    Photographed at temperatures up to -20. Everything was fine.

  • Irina

    Good evening. Thank you for the article. It was just such a lens that was purchased a year ago on the D7000 carcass, but either I find fault, or my hands grow out of the wrong place, I lack the clarity in the pictures. Focusing on one point, like focusing, then I look at the photos and I don’t like the result.

    • Victor

      ... don't jump to conclusions. Work with it slowly, you can use a tripod. Make a cutout printout. And only then, give free rein to the conclusions. And yet, D7000 is not an indicator. Test this lens on a full-frame camera. And you will see the difference.

      • Dmitriy

        I use the year on d800- I don’t like it, there is no sharpness, sometimes AF disappears. The same in sharpness will be on d7000. It is not suitable for multi-pixel arrays. But for d700 it’s the most. I sell for half the price.

  • Lion

    Where to find one that was like new and not very dusty. And then I read as if that the biggest problem is repairing this device, if something suddenly goes wrong with it inside.

  • Vadim Ogolyar

    24-70 2.8G is a piece of dull shit. And not very sharp. It's a pity to beat.
    I would like to shoot at 28-70 2.8D, compare.
    So comparing 70-200 2.8G and 80-200 2.8D Mk4, I chose the latter, selling 70-200.

    • Pavel Chertalev

      I think you either have a problem with the alignment, or with your hands. The glass is very sharp. Sharper lenses with such focal lengths simply do not exist, at least for Nikon. The first problem is easy to solve - in the service. The second is more difficult :)
      I have been using 24-70 for more than a year now - but right after the purchase I took it for adjustment just in case.

  • Dmitriy

    I use the year on d800- I don’t like it, there is no sharpness, sometimes AF disappears. The same in sharpness will be on d7000. It is not suitable for multi-pixel arrays. But for d700 it’s the most. I sell for half the price.

    • Alexey

      Have you sold it?

      • Dmitriy

        Sold on the same day when posted a comment.

  • Ruslan

    Good day dear.
    I have been looking for an unkilled version of this device for a long time.
    I myself am:

    If anyone has a desire to part with this glass, write to me in the mail, I will gladly purchase it)

  • Victor

    Tell me, where can I buy gum for this lens in Ukraine. In the service center, only on order for a month or longer they said.


      dial 13 numbers
      095 888 55 66 - maybe left)))

      • Victor

        OK thanks !

    • BB

      And what about the old ones - torn / frayed, or just stretched out?

      If stretched, then restore is not difficult.

      • Victor

        The rubber bands arrived separately - out of 3 rubber bands (they were given), only one fits, but it is very stretched and the view is not very good. The lens itself is ideal, with rubber bands an ambush.

        • BB

          A stretched gum can be soaked in alcohol (just not cologne, it is better - medical alcohol) - I soaked it for about a day, dry it a little and put it on so that it dries up already in place (otherwise it is difficult to put it on).


            alcohol as an option, but if you follow in the footsteps of Kulibin, then gasoline "galosh" is it. for this kind of rubber bands 40-55 minutes is enough.

            • Victor

              If there are new elastic bands, this will be the best solution for me, anyway there is only one elastic band available.

            • BB

              gasoline has a harsher smell, and then it disappears for a long time + you still need to find it, but there is alcohol in any pharmacy.


                my great experience suggests that the smell disappears in 3-5 hours. After galoshes, wash with soap or shampoo (galoshes leave white stains) and everything is ok. put on a barely warm battery and control the drying after the little pick. alcohol, in turn, will make the rubber too dry and may render it unusable. she can start lomatis if overexposed. you need to take into account the structure of which the gum itself.

Add a comment

Copyright © Blog author - Photographer in Kiev Arkady Shapoval. 2009-2023

English-version of this article

Versión en español de este artículo