I need to buy this lens here in Canada the 24-70 cannot get for some time. should I wait ? I can get 28-70
witch it a better lens?
#3. "RE: 24-70 or 28- 70" | In response to Reply # 1Thu 21-Feb-08 05:33 PM | edited Thu 21-Feb-08 05:37 PM by MelT
>wait 24-70 much better lens
Much better? Isn't this a tad of an overstatement? Please give the specifics that make the 24-70/2.8 "much better" when compared to the 28-70/2.8.
#4. "RE: 24-70 or 28- 70" | In response to Reply # 1mwhals Nikonian since 18th Apr 2004Thu 21-Feb-08 06:10 PM
My 28-70/2.8 AFS lens is incredible, so how can you say the new one is way better. Marginally better maybe, by way better? I think not!
Shoot nature with respect and don't trample it or startle its inhabitants. :)
#5. "RE: 24-70 or 28- 70" | In response to Reply # 4Nicholas Registered since 25th May 2002Thu 21-Feb-08 09:37 PM | edited Thu 21-Feb-08 09:41 PM by Nicholas
(Read the review at the bottom of the page, too)
There was thread a couple of weeks ago where it was mentioned that you need to compare raw images from this lens and the 28-70 to see the difference. And that difference involves sharpness across the frame, contrast and color that the older Nikkor was no slouch at. But the 24-70 is much better wide open as the review states and is maybe a bit sharper at distant objects or vistas.
The 24-70 also has a fixed rear element so there is no air transfer from the lens to the chamber and Nikon has really beefed up the weather sealing of the whole lens. I'm not sure what the Nano Crystal Coating does for a lens, but someone here probably knows. I've heard that it may add a certain "depth" to the overall color and contrast.
#6. "RE: 24-70 or 28- 70" | In response to Reply # 5Thu 21-Feb-08 11:04 PM | edited Thu 21-Feb-08 11:08 PM by MelT
You have pointed to a pixel peeping review. I will not dispute or argue about the differences found between the two lenses. Now I must ask, are differences in tests like this and shown in MTF evident in finished prints? In a practical sense, how relevant are the pixel peeping observations?
I like Michael Weber's reviews. His reviews seem to be from the viewpoint of a photographer and not a technician. In his review, he made the following statement:
"As a conclusion I may say that both on test charts and practical photography the AF-S 24-70 delivers a slightly better quality then the older 28-70/2.8, but would that justify a purchase? No, not if you take solely build quality and optical performance into account".
THis hardly sounds like "much better". I have no doubt that the 24-70/2.8 now sets the standard when it comes to mid-range zooms. I have no doubt that the 24-70/2.8 is a better performer at maximum aperture. If I did not already have the 28-70/2.8, there is no doubt that I would probably opt for the 24-70/2.8. At this stage, I just feel that the phrase that I originally question..."much better" is a tad over-the-top when comparing these two lenses. Over-the-top statements like this are made far too often within forums.
I do look forward to Jason Odell's and Rick Walker's comparison of these two lenses. I feel a review done by these two would be balanced towards the practical as oppose to the pixel peeping level.
#7. "RE: 24-70 or 28- 70" | In response to Reply # 6Nicholas Registered since 25th May 2002Thu 21-Feb-08 11:29 PM
Is there any difference between a Ferrari, Lamborghini or Maserati? I wish I knew the answer to that one. Again for the umpteenth time, the 28-70 is a legend and will continue to make pros a lot of money. I'm not here to bury it.
But pixel peeping has nothing to do with seeing a depth or 3D effect in a photograph, or an improvement in contrast which the 24-70 does better than the 28-70 in my honest OPINION. I mean we all have one and that's mine and I sold my 28-70 after seeing what this lens can do. That's all. You love your 28-70 and I am happy for you and see no reason for you to switch. You're getting outstanding results and that should be all that matters, whether you pixel peep or not.
#10. "RE: 24-70 or 28- 70" | In response to Reply # 6walkerr Nikonian since 05th May 2002Sat 23-Feb-08 03:23 PM
>I do look forward to Jason Odell's and Rick Walker's
>comparison of these two lenses. I feel a review done by these
>two would be balanced towards the practical as oppose to the
>pixel peeping level.
This is something we'll discuss in our next podcast, which will be out on 6 March. As some know, I already had a 28-70mm 2.8 and chose to keep it when I purchased my D3. Jason didn't have a zoom that covered the mid-range and chose to buy a new 24-70mm 2.8 when he got his D3. The punch line: both of us are likely to be pleased with our decisions.
My thoughts based on initial testing with my D3:
- These are both excellent lenses and images have the same look and feel. For the vast majority of shots at maximum aperture and stopped down, you would think they were made with the same lens.
- The character of the out-of-focus areas (bokeh) are identical.
- I did not see an appreciable difference in contrast. It's possible the 24-70mm was slightly better, but it wasn't conclusive. There were shots where the 28-70mm looked slightly better. The difference was so incredibly trivial that I can't imagine anyone caring. This was based on 100% viewing, which is incredibly picky.
- I saw no difference in light fall-off at any focal length or aperture. Both had excellent characteristics in this respect.
- The only time that I noticed a truly tangible difference was at 28mm and f/2.8. In that situation, the 24-70mm was noticeably sharper at the edges. In the center, they were identical.
- I didn't see any differences in chromatic aberration. Both were excellent in this respect.
- I haven't tested for flare yet (the conditions haven't been good to do that), but I haven't had a big issue with my 28-70mm on that front. I don't routinely take a lot of shots straight into the sun, though.
- The 24-70mm feels much more compact in the hand, but I've never found the 28-70mm uncomfortable. My hands might be slightly larger than average, but not much. The zoom control of the 24-70mm was smoother, but my 28-70mm has a few miles on it.
- The 28-70mm's focusing scale is spread out over a longer distance, making it slightly to set hyperfocal distances. I don't see this as a big deal, but it doesn't hurt.
- The obvious benefit of the 24-70mm is its wider range. 24mm is a handy thing to have on a mid-range zoom.
Again, these tests were made with a D3, so I was looking at the entire image area. All images were processed in Lightroom using the same sharpening settings. No chromatic aberration removal was used.
The bottom line: I'm sticking with my 28-70mm since the only circumstance where I saw a difference (f/2.8, 28mm, edges) doesn't matter to me. When I shoot wide open with a lens like this, I usually don't need the entire frame perfectly sharp since I'm trying to isolate a single subject. If you need that frequently, you may want to get the 24-70mm. The 24-70mm strikes me as a very nice evolutionary step for Nikon. If I didn't have a mid-range zoom already, I'd probably make the same decision that Jason made and buy the 24-70mm. If I was tight on funds, I'd buy a used 28-70mm and be happy.
I hope this helps. I'll have some updates and additional thoughts in the podcast.
#16. "RE: 24-70 or 28- 70" | In response to Reply # 10Tue 26-Feb-08 05:56 PM | edited Tue 26-Feb-08 06:10 PM by MelT
I just noticed this post of yours. Thanks for the summary. Since the 24-70/2.8 does not appear to be "much better" (which I originally questioned), then I will not be distracted by feeling I must have it . Current NAS funds can still be directed at getting a D3 and 200/2.
I look forward to the podcast.
#8. "RE: 24-70 or 28- 70" | In response to Reply # 0
The amount of information already posted on this site about these lenses must be daunting to a newbie. If you need the f/2.8 performance in the 28-70mm range immediately, then get that lens. If you don't need the the lens for something special immediately and you do need the better flare control of the nano optics and the increased zoom range of the 24-70mm f/2.8G AFS lens, then I don't know why you wouldn't wait.
Your profile shows you use a DX format camera. IMO the zoom range of the 24-70mm is much preferable on a DX format. The wide end is still just barely wide and the long end is an excellent portrait. This would be a terrific events lens on DX. If you are really using FX then IMO there really is IMO no choice other than the 24-70. But our usage may be very different. If your choice is really just wildlife, then forget all the above and get the 28-70 you probably won't use the 24mm end at all.
It is still ISO, aperture and shutter speed, right?
#11. "RE: 24-70 or 28- 70" | In response to Reply # 8Mikey264 Basic MemberSat 23-Feb-08 08:16 PM | edited Sat 23-Feb-08 08:20 PM by Mikey264
I really appreciate all of this information and opinions.
Always tough making decisions on immediate need or waiting when a lens is in short supply.
Visit my Nikonians gallery.
Visit my Nikonians gallery.
#9. "RE: The new lens is much better shooting towards a light source." | In response to Reply # 0
Attachment#1 (jpg file)
Attachment#2 (jpg file)
Photography is a bit like archery. A technically better camera, lens or arrow may not hit the target as often as it could if the photographer or archer does not practice enough.
#13. "RE: The new lens is much better shooting towards a light source." | In response to Reply # 9Sat 23-Feb-08 11:42 PM
Len, I'm not sure what you are trying to show here. According to the EXIF you have two different exposures. #1 = 1/2000 and #2 = 1/2500.
Since that would explain the over/hazy look in #1 and even things out in that respect they both are showing the same flair and ghosting to me.
Am I missing something?
#18. "RE: The new lens is much better shooting towards a light source." | In response to Reply # 13
#20. "IRE: The new lens is much better shooting towards a light source." | In response to Reply # 13mwhals Nikonian since 18th Apr 2004Sat 01-Mar-08 03:40 PM
Based on Len's comments about practicing, I would say he did the different exposures on purpose to show that you just need to practice to get good results instead of buying more stuff. Also, note in his subject, he has it in quotes indicating he is quoting someone.
Shoot nature with respect and don't trample it or startle its inhabitants. :)
#21. "IRE: The new lens is much better shooting towards a light source." | In response to Reply # 20Wed 05-Mar-08 12:10 PM
>Based on Len's comments about practicing, I would say he did
>the different exposures on purpose to show that you just need
>to practice to get good results instead of buying more stuff.
>Also, note in his subject, he has it in quotes indicating he
>is quoting someone.
I don't think I buy that reasoning. Without any indication in the post and the nature of the OP's original, one will have to assume that Len was comparing the 24-70 against the 28-70. Since they both have the same capabilities except for 4mm at the wide end I would have shot them both at 28 with the SAME exposure. These are not with the results shown here that make the 28-70 look worse than it is being definitely over exposed.
Looking beyond the overexposure on pic #1 the flair on both photos are virtually the same. If someone does see a difference it would be more wishful thinking than anything else.
I am open though and would be interested in hearing Len's version of this.
#14. "RE: 24-70 or 28- 70" | In response to Reply # 0
I'm late to this thread, but offer another perspective.
I have the 28-70 and the new 14-24 mm F/2.8 and the 24-70 mm f/2.8 lenses as well. I will stay out of the "which is better" discussion as it has already been pretty thoroughly addressed by others.
The 28-70 has been an exceptional lens. My first copy was stolen during a burglary last summer and I promptly replaced it while it was still available.
For my grab it and run bag (Actually, grab it and wheel it!), I now include a pair of D2X bodies with the new 14-24 mm on one and the 24-70 mm on the other. Also in the bag are the 70-200 mm F/2.8 AF-S VR, the Nikkor TC-14EII and TC-17EII teleconverters and the Nikkor 10.5 mm F/2.8 fisheye.
This package gives me a continuous 14 mm to 200 mm range (14.3:1.0) at a constant F/2.8 with no gaps, plus the fisheye. All of these lenses at F/2.8 provide bright viewfinder images which are very useful in my night shots of police officers in various tactical scenarios. With the 14-24 and 24-70 mm lenses on the D2X bodies, I do not have to change lenses in the field as often, which is a blessing here in dry, dusty Arizona.
HBB in Phoenix, Arizona
Photography is a journey with no conceivable destination
#17. "RE: 24-70 or 28- 70" | In response to Reply # 15Tue 26-Feb-08 06:05 PM
Finding one made your decision a heck of a lot easier . I would have made the very same decision if I was in your shoes. My mid-range fast zooms have always been my most used lenses. I am sure you will love it.
#22. "RE: 24-70 or 28- 70" | In response to Reply # 19Ian Barrett Registered since 29th Sep 2006Sun 09-Mar-08 05:16 PM
>Len, I'm not sure what you are trying to show here. According
>to the EXIF you have two different exposures. #1 = 1/2000 and
>#2 = 1/2500.
>Since that would explain the over/hazy look in #1 and even
>things out in that respect they both are showing the same
>flair and ghosting to me.
>Am I missing something?
Len's first photo was taken with the 28-70. The second shot is with the 24-70. Both mounted on a D3 (no, not at the same time)
#25. "RE: 24-70 or 28- 70" | In response to Reply # 22Sat 15-Mar-08 02:14 AM
That's readily apparent but still doesn't answer the way over/not so over exposure between the two making the 28-70 look worse. The angle of the Sun isn't that critical in the minute or less to make a difference in exposure switching the lens out. So the exposure could and SHOULD have been the same for anything meaningful. Quite frankly I still don't buy this tripe and have to wonder why these images were posted in the first place.
I was able to use a 24-70 for a good week comparing it with my 28-70 and I sure didn't see this variance. I concur with Rick's findings. And in my own and doing blind tests that printed out if one finds a variance this is mostly wishful thinking. If I had seen a difference that mattered I would consider trading.
#23. "RE:24-70 or 28- 70" | In response to Reply # 0
You have to wait for the 24-70. it;s a much superior lens, about $1500. But it's woth it It's the newer FF lens they call it 24-70N since has an N designated on the lens, just like the 14-28mm
EVANGELIZARE PAUPERIBUS MISIT ME
I despise Evil as sure as the Devil despises God, By my Bible and my Sword
IF I MUST CHOOSE BETWEEN RIGHTEOUSNESS AND PEACE, I CHOOSE RIGHTEOUSNESS -----Theodore Roosevelt
#24. "RE: 24-70 or 28- 70" | In response to Reply # 0
Both lenses are outstanding, A smart choice is a pre-owned 28-70mm since many people are selling it to get the newer 28-70mm. If money and time are no issue, then the 24-70mm is probably a better choice,
I think I am stating the obvious
#26. "RE: 24-70 or 28- 70" | In response to Reply # 0
i would always buy the newer versions.
by the way, just sold my 28-70 for a 24-70 today...
AFS 14-24 f/2.8 G ED
AFS 24-70 f/2.8 G ED
AFS VR 70-200 f/2.8 G ED
AF 50 f/1.4 D