A Site for Photographers by Photographers

Community > Forums > Nikon > Nikon Lenses and Optics > Nikon 28-70mm f/2.8 vs. Nikon...

Featured Equipment Deals

Portrait Photography - Part II (Video Tutorial) Read More

Portrait Photography - Part II (Video Tutorial)

Learn the basics of Portrait Photography in Part II of this video tutorial, covering the essentials on timing, posing, and cropping.

Latest Equipment Articles

10 Stocking Stuffers under $50 Read More

10 Stocking Stuffers under $50

We've searched high and low to put together this list of 10 small photo-related gifts that any photography lover would be delighted to receive. No matter your budget, these are also fun to give (or...

Latest Learning Articles

State of the ART: The Little Lens That Could Read More

State of the ART: The Little Lens That Could

Fine art photographer Pete Myers talks about his love for the Cosina Voigtländer CV ULTRON 40mm SLii, a lens he considers to be "The Little Lens That Could."


Nikon 28-70mm f/2.8 vs. Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8

Michael Grugal , Oct 18, 2007; 09:27 p.m.

I know I will be purchasing the D3 when its release so my question, is it worth spending the extra $500 for the new Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8 or I am good with the 28-70mm.

I currently own a D80 with a 17-55 f2.8 and I really like that zoom range so I figured 28-70mm would be the same in full frame.

What are your suggestions?

Should I even consider the 35-70mm f2.8?

Responses


    1   |   2   |   3     Next    Last

Ellis Vener , Oct 18, 2007; 09:28 p.m.

Get the 24-70mm f/2.8.

Really, it is a terrific lens. I got a chance to shoot with one back in August inwhile in Japan forthe D3 /D300 launch.

Shun Cheung , Oct 18, 2007; 09:32 p.m.

Michael, you are spending $5000 on a camera. Why skim on the lenses? Get the one that is desinged during the digital era for the D3 and FX DSLRs.

Harvey Edelstein , Oct 18, 2007; 10:52 p.m.

It would be nice if they had made a 24-105mm f4.0 vr/afs. Pair a lens like this with your favorite F1.8 or F2.0 prime 35-50or 85mm for oof blurring and you are not carrying huge lenses. The D3 sensitivity changes lens choices to a new paradigm.

Michael Grugal , Oct 19, 2007; 12:53 a.m.

To Shun Cheung.

I just wasn't sure if spending an extra $650 was worth it for 2mm. And I don't understand what you mean by getting the lens designed for the digital era? Is the quality of glass really different between the 2 lenses?

I am just trying to save money where I can, didn't want to make a mistake and buy something brand new where there is already a similar cheaper product out.

Snoopyleong leong , Oct 19, 2007; 12:57 a.m.

Depending whether the extra 4mm is relly important to you or not. For me, i still prefer the 28~70mm f/2.8. I still believe there won't be much different.

William Wu , Oct 19, 2007; 02:02 a.m.

I am a few who will agree with Snoopyleong. Its all about Price that you are paying and value you will get. I doubt that 24-70mm will be 1/3 Better. Sure 28-70mm is 1/3 less expansive.

Why not wait until 24-70mm come out then decide. What is your hurry? The more you wait, the better the review 24-70mm might be, cheaper the 28-70mm will be. For me, I still shoot heavily with old cameras. No matter how good the lens will be, I am just not going to change my gear until Nikon figuer out a way to put back aperture ring with weather seal...is it possible?

Jose Angel , Oct 19, 2007; 03:13 a.m.

I asked to the Nikon staff about the performance of "older" non-FX pro-lenses on the D3. The answer was conclusive: some lenses could give an acceptable performance, others don`t, it must be checked to avoid surprises. Even some cheap lenses could give better performance than some very expensive ones. FX lenses are tested to to ensure top performance on the D3.

I haven`t any kind of doubt: the 24-70G is the lens to use with the D3; $500 is less than 10% of the total cost, do you need to save a 10%?. If so, I would keep the 17-55 to be used on a D300.

If you want to buy a 35-70 or 28-70 for whatever the reason, I would wait to read the experts opinions about their performance on a D3.

Shun Cheung , Oct 19, 2007; 04:25 a.m.

During the film days, my fellow moderator Todd Peach and I typically point out that there is a significant difference between a zoom that starts from 24mm vs. 28mm. It is nice that you have the option to go to 24mm because IMO the extra coverage is important.

Digital sensors have different requirements on the optics than film. That is why not every old lens designed in the previous era will continue to perform well on the FX sensor. If you would like to know the specifics, wait a bit until the D3 is available and folks such as Bjorn Rorslett will test the old 28-70 on it. I have the 28-70 too and most likely will eventually add the 24-70.

If one wants to save money, I would wait 6 months to a year before getting these new stuffs. The D3 will likely be a $4000 camera in a year and the 24-70 will also get a bit cheaper after the initial demand subsides.

Elliot Bernstein , Oct 19, 2007; 04:32 a.m.

Shun, with limited production of the D3 and demand likely to be very high, why would you expect the price to drop so much next year? The D200 is still selling close to its introduction price two years ago even with the pending release of its replacement.

Is is issue with older lens designs limited to the wider zooms, for example, do you believe with the 70-200 2.8 work correctly with the FX?


    1   |   2   |   3     Next    Last

Back to top

Notify me of Responses