I've had my 35-70 for a couple of years. I enjoy using it at f/2.8 and isolating the subsect so a fast normal lens will always be in my bag. I now have the money to upgrade to the 28-70 and would like to know if this is a good upgrade? If I had the money the 24-70 would be the lens to get but the 28-70 is $1000 less that a 24-70 and it uses 77mm filters which I share with a few other lenses. As for the 24 range I sometimes carry an old 24 f2.8 non D lens.
How often do you find yourself at 35mm on the 35-70? If it's a lot more than the rest of the lens, you clearly need something wider. If you're upgrading for IQ reasons, the 28-70 is a little better, but you're likely to get a bigger bang for the buck in many other ways. I would upgrade if you need the focal range and not for IQ reasons.
_____ Brian... a bicoastal Nikonian and Team Member
My gallery is online. Comments and critique welcomed any time!
Sat 27-Oct-12 08:40 PM | edited Sat 27-Oct-12 08:41 PM by dgs2
I haven't used the 24 - 70, but I love my 35 - 70. I also like the quirky but useful macro feature for use when I don't have a true macro lens handy. I think the upgrade would be more compelling if Nikon added VR to the 24 - 70.
Sorry, I misread your question and responded comparing the 24 -70. Don't know anything about the 28 - 70.
Yes, the 28-70 is the Beast because it's big and heavy.
Bought an excellent used one early this year from a fellow Nikonian, and I am truly in awe of just how good it really is. The 28-70 is one of those Legendary lenses for a reason, because it takes incredible pics.
I haven't used these particular lenses so I cannot comment on them. But my general advice for this kind of question is - look at your overall kit and see if any lens you might add instead that would open up new possibilities for you, like macro, fast portrait lens or a fish eye. (I can't tell since the profile you filled out is not very detailed, and it's up to your taste and preference anyway.) Replacing one mid range zoom with another in your kit won't make all that much of a difference, unless that's the one lens that's on your camera every day.
I've had both and still have the 35-70 because relatively speaking, it's a compact lens. The 28-70 is a beast. However, my now most used lens is the 24-120mm f/4 AFS VRII for the following reasons:
1) Coverage 2) AFS, accuracy and focus speed 3) VRII - way underrated on a mid-range (general purpose) zoom 4) Nano Coating 5) light weight
I see that from your lens list that all your glass is f/2.8, but in case that's a blind spot, f/4 is only one stop away and there is also some very good f/4 glass in the Nikkor line.
I used my 35-70 with a 24mm f/2.8 AIS plus 24mm f/2.8 AFD and 85mm f/1.8 AF. For subject isolation I had the 35-85mm range covered with this kit.
However, for me the above numberered/overall advantages of the 24-120 outweighed the other package. I still have the 35-70 if I need f/2.8 in that range, but I prefer to rely on the 85mm f/1.8 AFS (replaced the AF) as it's a better lens for that use.
Note: with whatever of your OP options you choose, you give up all the numbered advantages. Maybe that's not the question for your usage, but for my usage that's a long list and I wouldn't trade the daily carry aggravation of the weight and bulk of the "beast" for that list.
Roger It's still, ISO, aperture and shutter-speed, right?
Sun 28-Oct-12 02:33 AM | edited Sun 28-Oct-12 02:39 AM by jrp
Like Roger, I have both and love both. The 35-70mm is lighter and less bulkier than the 28-70mm so it finds itself used when I am skiing. Anywhere else I choose the slightly better (and heavier and bulkier) 28-70mm I have tried the 28-120mm because of some recommendations, however I did not like it in comparison of any of the two. Both of the above lenses perform better from my experience. If I only could have one of the two, I would choose the 28-70mm If I could upgrade (besides other lens priorities I do have at the moment), I would go for the 24-70mm. Of course all of the above is a matter of personal preferences. To answer to your question, if I did not have the 28-70mm. would I upgrade to it from the 35-70mm? Yes. I would.
I have both the 35-70 and the 28-70. I use the 28-70 a lot for shooting people at a gathering with flash (think wedding reception). The 35-70 I don't use much any more unless I really want lighter than the 'beast' but I keep it to lend to friends.
Since I already had the 28-70 when the 24-70 came out I could see no particular reason to upgrade, the 28-70 is a beautiful lens.
For landscape photography the 24-120 f/4 is always on one of my camera bodies and also for general walking around shooting. I agree with Roger's assessment on this lens. Note that it also has a 77mm filter size.
Many might advise you to get the 24-70 since it is the finest lens in that range but saving $1000 is a big deal too.
Thanks for your responses. I've finished reviewing the pictures I've taken with the 35-70 and I seem to use it in the 35-45 range the most. I think I'll benefit from the extra 7mm's on the wide end. As for VR, while it's nice to have I tend to use large heavy lenses on a tripod most of the time. I thought about selling the 35-70 but after reading comments from those that have both I've decided to keep it because it is smaller and lighter and also because my two boys age 14 and 12 are beginning to get an interest in photography and I think the 35-70 would be a great fast aperture zoom to get started with.