A Site for Photographers by Photographers

Community > Forums > Nikon > Nikon Lenses and Optics > 24-70 2.8 vs 28-70 2.8

Featured Equipment Deals

Portrait Photography: Fixes and Tips in Lightroom (Video Tutorial) Read More

Portrait Photography: Fixes and Tips in Lightroom (Video Tutorial)

This video tutorial teaches you how to use the tools in Lightroom to enhance a portrait while also ensuring your subject still looks natural.

Latest Equipment Articles

The Week in Photography News Read More

The Week in Photography News

November 15-21, 2014: Hear the latest goings-on in the photography world, from product releases to event and campaign announcements and more.

Latest Learning Articles

Introduction to Creating an Album in Lightroom - Part I (Video Tutorial) Read More

Introduction to Creating an Album in Lightroom - Part I (Video Tutorial)

Learn to create an album in the Book Tab of Lightroom that you can publish and present to clients.


24-70 2.8 vs 28-70 2.8

Kim Ritsema , May 06, 2009; 02:29 p.m.

Hey all-
I'm new to this forum, in fact I'm a brand new to the Nikon Family! Just purchased my first Nikon -- bought a D700 and am pumped to start getting the right lenses for it! I upgraded from a Sony Alpha, which I got into by way of having many Minolta 35MM lenses. Long story short , I am a family and children outdoor portrait photographer. I'm budget conscious, but also want to ensure that I am making the best possible choice in the long run, as we all know how glass holds its value. Here is my dilemma-- I found a used 28-70 2.8 for roughly $1000 and a used (cannot believe I found this used right now) 24-70 2.8 for about $1600. Given what I'm shooting, is the extra $600 and additional 4mm worth the spend? Any advise would be greatly appreciated! Thx!

Responses

Carl Becker , May 06, 2009; 02:45 p.m.

You may want to read what Bjorn has to say about both of them:
http://www.naturfotograf.com/index2.html
Looks like the 28-70mm is prone to flair otherwise its excellent.

danny liao , May 06, 2009; 02:55 p.m.

you can't lose with either. 1000 for a used 28-70 is slightly high. you could find some at 800 in excellent used condition if you shop around vs. 1200-1300 for a used 24-70. i personally like the 28-70 because i could use it on my manual fm3a camera. with the 24-70, you can't set the aperture on manual cameras.

Sasvata (Shash) Chatterjee , May 06, 2009; 03:18 p.m.

I have shot with both, a D80 with 28-70, and a D300 with 24-70. Even beyond the D80/D300 differences, the 24-70 to me is better without a doubt in sharpness, contrast and color-rendition, but only when you compare them side by side. Whether it is worth the $600 difference can only be answered by you. But also consider that the 28-70 is no slouch whatsoever, and until the 24-70 came out relatively recently, the 28-70 was THE mid-range zoom to get. The 4mm on the wide-end is a significant difference, 24mm is a perfect wide-angle without going into super-wide and (too much) inherent perspective distortion. In other words, get the 24-70 if finances make sense, but you will be quite happy also with the 28-70 otherwise.

Paul Aylett , May 06, 2009; 03:18 p.m.

I picked up a 35-70 2.8D yesterday - USD 280, used but in mint condition. I'm absolutely blown away with it - as sharp as my 50 1.4 (perhaps more so), really nice contrast, smooth bokeh and built like a tank. If you're looking for a bargain and can live without the extra 7 - 11mm at the wide end, you should consider the 35-70. It's also a lot lighter.

Robert Gulotta , May 06, 2009; 04:28 p.m.

if you are going to buy a 14-24 or a 17-35 too, get the 28-70 and save the money. If you are going to skip a real wideangle, go for the 24-70. I shoot with the D3 and the 28-70 and I love the combination for almost anything. I have an old tamron pos 19-35 (and a d2x with a 12-24) for anything that I need really wide, but I find that I rarely use it anymore since I went full frame.

Of course this is families and children specifically... If I shot more weddings I think I would get the 14-24 and the 24-70 too.

Nic Coury , May 06, 2009; 04:44 p.m.

I use the 28-70 daily as a pro PJ on my D700 and it's flawless. 4mm isn't too bad when saving nearly $700, where one could almost buy a 17-35 f/2.8 for a tad more
It's sharp, contrast-y and the build quality is fantastic and sturdy.

Christian Balslev van Randwijk , May 08, 2009; 06:42 a.m.

Hello,
I just got the 28-70mm for my D700, and it is a fantastic lens. It is huge, though. Sharpness is great, as is contrast and colour. I have found that it is particularly good at rendering skin tones. But, if I had the money, I guess I would have gotten the 24-70mm. For the extra 4mm, tiny bit of extra sharpness, and the slightly less imposing size. But you won't go wrong with the 28-70mm, it is a true pro performer, newer lenses won't change that.

Dan kahler , May 18, 2009; 01:24 p.m.

I have currently 2 D700s and Nikon 24-70 and 70-200 VR. I am looking for a backup to the 24-70. Thus I am looking for a used 28-70. I can vouch for the 24-70 as it has no equal. If I were just a hobbyist and did not have an income from the equipment I buy, I would'nt think twice to get the 28-70. Yes it's big, and yes it's heavy. You can't go wrong with either, but if I had those same options I'd buy the 28-70 and use the remaining $600 to get the Sigma 50mm f1.4 HSM and a nice filter or two. JM2C.

Ron Anderson , May 31, 2009; 09:36 p.m.

Just dropped my Sigma 28080mm 2.8 Looking for a replacement, and you guys got my attention with the Nikon 28-70, but the cheapest used one I can find is $1250. Any ideas where I can get my hands on a great used one?

Back to top

Notify me of Responses