I'm getting a zoom just for the convenience of not having to change lenses in fast moving situations (i.e. event photography). I already have a Nikon 20/2.8, 35/2, 50/1.8, and 80-200/2.8 with my F90. I've narrowed down my choice to either a new Nikon AF 28-105/3.5-4.5D that contains one hybrid aspherical element, or a second-hand Tokina AT-X 28-70/2.8 Pro II that features a high refraction, low dispersion glass (HLD). I have a budget of $350.

My question is, given that neither one of the lens has both features, would a hybrid aspherical element be better than an HLD glass if I'm mainly interested in getting sharpness and good color rendition in my pictures?

-- Ron Gregorio (gregorio@gtzth.org), August 22, 2000

Answers

I would suggest that you make your decision based on whether a longer zoom range is of more or less value to you than a faster constant lens speed. That's a more-important practical difference than the relative merits, in two completely different lens designs, of hybrid aspherical vs. low-dispersion elements. As for me, I choose zooms based on convenience, and with a budget of $350 would look for a used 24-120.

-- John Kuraoka (kuraoka@home.com), August 22, 2000.

I have the excellent 28-105/3.5-4.5 for 18 months now. Sharpness and colour rendition are excellent. This lens delivers top results from f/5.6. When I travel I use this lens together with a 20/2.8, 50/1.8 and a 80-200/2.8. They form an excellent travel kit. For low light situations I use the 50. Tokina or Nikon? I was in doubt also, but now I'm glad I choose the Nikon.

-- Ivan Verschoote (ivan.verschoote@rug.ac.be), August 22, 2000.

Be aware that a lot of the name calling these days used to describe lenses have come from the marketing people as much as the optical engineers. A good example is the very mediocre Tamron "LD" 200 to 400mm lens, that isn't as sharp at 400mm as the $69 400mm preset lenses. There is no governing body that independantly tests a lens, and says "yes, this is an apochromatic performing lens and may labeled as such". Manufactures can label lenses and claim this and that and really stretch it sometimes. They are playing with our heads with this stuff. I am very happy with my Nikon 24 to 120, and the 28 to 105 should be similar in its performance. I like having the slightly wider 24mm, which by the way is very well corrected and not bad wide open, and super sharp by f5.6 and f8.0. I find I'm not using my 20mm f2.8 lens as much since I got the 24 to 120.

-- Andrew Schank (aschank@flash.net), August 22, 2000.

I don't think you should choose the lenses based on whether it has a certain type of glass or element shape. The Canon EF 28-105 lenses has a very good reputation, yet it manage to do without any hybrid aspheric elements. The Canon EF 28-70f/2.8 is very likely better than the Tokina, yet it does not contain any glass that Canon would put a special label on. Nikon's own 28-70 f/2.8 has extraoridnary dispersion (ED) glass and 2 aspheric elements, yet I've heard of no stories of it being superior to the Canon. Nikon's 35-70 f/2.8 manages without either aspheric or ED glass, yet is is very good.

-- Chuck Fan (chaohui@msn.com), August 22, 2000.

Chuck,

Your statement about the Canon 28-70 2.8L is NOT true. This lens has an Aspherical element in it.

-- nguyen thang (nguyentnt@hotmail.com), August 23, 2000.

Nguyen: sorry for the confusion, I didn't say the 28-70 L didn't have aspheric elements. I said it didn't have any type of glass special enough to warrant a name.

-- Chuck Fan (chaohui@msn.com), August 23, 2000.

I thought the "L" meant "Low-dispersion."

-- Mark Wilkins (mark_wilkins@yahoo.com), November 05, 2000.

According to my books, the "L" stands for Luxury. It is put on lenses having the build quality and advanced optical formulas needed for the best performance. This might be aspherics, low dispersion glass or APO correction.

-- Al Smith (smith58@msn.com), November 05, 2000.

Is that like putting "GT" on a car?

-- Mark Wilkins (mark_wilkins@yahoo.com), November 05, 2000.