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

Basic Image Development in Lightroom: Color Editing (Video Tutorial) Read More

Basic Image Development in Lightroom: Color Editing (Video Tutorial)

Learn basic HSL (hue, saturation, and luminance) color adjustments as well as split toning (adjusting color in highlights and lowlights) in this next video.

Latest Equipment Articles

4 Outdoor & Adventure Photo Packs Read More

4 Outdoor & Adventure Photo Packs

Photo packs have come a long way in the past decade, especially those that are targeted toward outdoor and adventure photographers. Alaska-based adventure photographer Dan Bailey takes a closer look...

Latest Learning Articles

Getting Started in Video Read More

Getting Started in Video

Photographer Ted Kawalerski made the transition from still to motion and has never looked back. Ted takes you through the steps to get started in a medium that will open your photography business to...


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