Thanks for the post. I'd happily pay any amount of money for a mid range zoom. Being a person who's somewhat picky and precise about sharpness,I would rather pay more for Better glass. Would you know if the 28-70 f2.8 is a good lens. Far cheaper secondhand the The 24-70
Hi Kathy, Thanks for this. it's a toss up between the 28-70 or 24-70 both f2.8. Not had a proper change to field test my 700. But I'm sure it will be a beauty. I owned a 300 also. Had a scoot at your images, stunning
Scott, I too moved from the D300 to the D700. I started with the 28-70 and more recently upgraded to the 24-70. I would say the 28-70 is a good lens; the 24-70 is a great lens! For me it was well worth the extra $$$.
>Hi Len > >Thanks for the post. I'd happily pay any amount of money for >a mid range zoom. Being a person who's somewhat picky and >precise about sharpness,I would rather pay more for Better >glass. Would you know if the 28-70 f2.8 is a good lens. Far >cheaper secondhand the The 24-70 > >Thanks in advance >Scott
Scott, I have the AFS 28-70mm f2.8. It's a pro lens and the predecessor to the AFS 24-70. It's excellent. I personally can't justify upgrading to the new lens even though there is a slight improvement in sharpness. I probably wouldn't see it.
I have the 28-70mm and a 24-70mm. Both are optically superb. The 24-70mm is slightly sharper across the zoom range and more resistant to flare and ghosting. I would rate the 28-70mm superb and the 24-70mm superb +. The bottom line is you won't be dissappointed with either lens.
I believe the 24-70/2.8 and the D700 are made for each other. I think its main advantages over the older 28-70/2.8 are the nano coating and the additional 4mm at the wide end. The nano coating provides for better flare resistance and the improved wide angle range is quite essential for landscape and architectural photography.
I too still have my 28-70 f/2.8 and have never seen the need to upgrade to the 24-70. The 28-70 is a sharp and contrasty lens with excellent color characteristics. I must confess that I use my 24-120 f/4 far more often for both the range and the VR.
Another vote for the 28-70/2.8, but beware: it's big! It was called "the Beast" around here for a while. So while your optician could call it a good lens, your osteopathy practitioner could see it otherwise!
Olivier Rychner __________________________________________ Jetez un oeil à ma galerie if you feel like it! And it's a bit void as of now, but I also have a Nikonians blog
Auta i lomë! And my Nikon's only awaiting daylight...
Another to consider that gets high marks is the latest version of the 24-120mm VR f4. You can't really go wrong with any of these mentioned. If money is an object, that 24-85VR can be had used for ~$325... Lotta bang for the buck. The 24-70mm 2.8 gets the best reviews, but high price, limited range and no VR has kept me from getting one. If I saw one for 1200 or so, I'd snap it up...
The 28-70mm 2.8 is sharp, but is nicknamed the beast for a reason... lol
I would look closely at the Tamron 24-70 VC for your mid-range FX needs. It costs about 35-40% less than the Nikon 24-70, and was recently rated ahead of it by Dxomark, including in sharpness. Truth be told the scores are so close that you likely wouldn't see a difference in practice - but that's the point - the image quality of the Nikon 24-70 at a much lower price AND it has VC which will buy you about 3 stops when shooting stationary subjects. It also has a longer warranty.
Personally, I keep my 24-120mm F4on my D700 and it is my walk around lens. Some don't like it due to it's distortion, but I find it to be acceptable... besides distortion can be taken out in PP and every lenses, esp telephoto, has it's compromises. I see everyone recommending the 24-70mm, a fantastic lens, but very heavy as well as expensive. One of the penalties of a 2.8.
Thu 25-Jul-13 01:05 AM | edited Thu 25-Jul-13 01:08 AM by simonleung101
The 24-70 f2.8 is my everyday lens. If you don't want to spend more, get the 24-70 now, because you'll probably get it later. Believe me, I've learned my lessons, compromise now and end up spending even more.
If you were on a budget (like I am) I would recommend to look at the older version of this lens: 35-70mm f/2.8. Optically it is superb. The only compromise is the 24-35 range. On the other hand, if you have cash for 24-70, I would go for it. It is definitely the lens that can stay on FX 90% of the time. 24mm on FX is plenty wide that you can save on another wide lens (unless you are really into UW range). So, if you are counting votes, I vote for 24-70