santaliqueur wrote:
How are they different lenses for different uses? One replaced the other. Both are 2.8, and both have nearly identical focal lengths. Of course there are other differences, but I would imagine most users could use the 28-70 for any application that the 24-70 excelled in, and vice versa.
What I want to know if it is $500 sharper than the 28-70...thanks!!
As great a lens that it is, for anything longer than 35mm I tend to use primes. I just prefer the weight, or lack of it with the 35mm f2d, 50 1.8 and 85 1.8. Still couldn't see myself selling it though.
It probably isn't $500 sharper (I have never used the 28-70, only have the 24-70). Is that gonna stop you from wishing you had that extra 4mm on the wide end, and a newer, 'not $500 sharper' lens? Probably not
DragonflyDM wrote:
If it is not sharper, I can live without the 4mm difference....
anyone have any comparison shots??
Dragonfly,
I believe the 24-70 doesn't need quite as much PP-sharpening as the 28-70 does. They're both extremely sharp, but for that extra $500 you get NANO-coating which deepens the colors, you get Nikon's latest element configuration and you get an intangible that can't really be put in words. There is just something about this lens that gives you almost a 3D perspective in your photos, that is, if you know what you're doing with it.
Do you have any stores nearby where you could rent either or both lenses? You may get some sample variations, but it still could tilt you one way or the other.
24-70 is lighter than the 28-70 (but not much). The quality is outstanding,and from tests (i think it was ken rockwell among others) slightly beter too. Why would nikon put out a lens which would be the same as the 28-70? also think of the resale value if you decide it is not for you....
bjorn rorslett:
Compared to the older 28-70, the 24-70 handles adverse light conditions much better and flare and ghosting are rarely an issue. The "micro-contrast" of image details is much better too. It focuses a little closer as well, 0.4m (0.38-0.41m depending on the zoom setting) to give approx 1:3.7x magnfication. Not "macro" of course, but very useful for flowers and larger objects, and image quality held well up into the nearest range.
The 28-70/2.8 has long been recognised as among the best ever made by Nikon. I'm happy to report that the new 24-70 takes this quality even further. It has a very modest amount of field curvature at 24mm and virtually none at 70 mm, so you can approach your subject without fear of the corners going unsharp. Light fall-off can probably be measured in a research lab but is undetectable within the frame of a DX camera. On the FX3 some corner fall-off is detectable when the lens gets toward 24 mm setting. This by and large is gone by f/4.
Very sharp images result on-axis at 24 mm even at f/2.8 and the contrast was good all over the frame with corners ever so slightly softer. At f/4 the entire frame at 24 mm appears sharp and crisply defined with excellent contrast and colour saturation. Stopping down further changed little of these traits until you got near f/16, where lowering of contrast and the onset of loss of detail commenced to be more visible. Still, I would not hesitate shooting at f/16 even on the wide end of the range.
I have the 24-70, and the only way I can possibly think of to make it better (for me) is to not have the front portion of the lens move back and forth while zooming, much like my 80-200 AF-S. Everything else is just about perfect. AND, I got it for $1,299 before prices went up!
That said, I'm sure the 28-70 is a damn fine lens, and would likely have one right now, if not for this amazing 24-70. If you're looking for a great performer, the 28-70 would be an excellent choice, while saving a good chunk of cash over its replacement.
I had the 28-70 for about three years and like yourself could not come to part with the 500.00...I sold my 28-70 for 1300.00 and purchased the 24-70 fpr 1799.00 at B and H....I am very happy with it over the 28-70 in the following areas.. the 24-70 is sharper/better at handling flare/color is better and love the 24mm is it worth it....for my 2 cents it is, especially if you intend on staying in the game and shooting for years to come...It really is a nice piece of glass...my 2 cents
josh im gonna be honest. dont do it. i did the same thing and went right back to primes. the zoom is heavier and after a long day of shooting it kills ya.
i went back to carrying my 20, 35, 50 and 85 instead of a 24-70 and 70-200
