Upgrade 28~70 to 24~70 ?

After many years of happy shooting with DX cameras I finally took the plunge into FX with a D700.

For my own pleasure I will mainly shoot with a 17~35 and 70~200 most of the time with various other choices for specific applications. However, I do get asked to cover various events from time to time, the biggest of which this year will be my Dad's wedding!

Thus I suspect the 28~70 could be one of my most used lenses on FX but I was wondering if anyone else had this lens and made the upgrade to a 24~70? What were your reasons and was it worth it?

I'm really interested to hear from people who made that upgrade and used them specifically on FX. I'm not really interested in other lenses (e.g. I'd stick with the 28~70 in preference to the Sigma and Tamron choices, good as they are) and I'm not interested on DX use as you're only using the middle 2/3rds of the frame.
--
http://www.andrewsandersphotography.co.uk

--
....I stuck with my 28-70 Nikkor....gives me great skin tones.

I had the latest 24-70.

Used it for about a year then flicked it in for a 17-35 2.8. I just did not like it at all. It never felt right in my hands and I rarely got results that made me go 'wow'. Nothing bad - but just not awesome.

The 17-35 I love. Might change it for the the new 16-35 VR but then again might just not bother wasting another $1000 on depreciation and keep the perfectly excellent one I have!

Thanks guys. I was reviewing my lens collection as I moved from DX to FX. I suspect I should be sensible and carry on using the same lenses.
--
http://www.andrewsandersphotography.co.uk

Hi Andy,

I made the upgrade from 35-70 to 28-70 to 24-70.

The 24-70 is by far my most used lens. The reasons I like the 24-70 is it's sharpness wide open (noticeable sharper than the 28-70) it's lack of flaring and the 4mm extra wide makes quite some difference. It Focuses smooth and build is as you can expect comparable with that of the 28-70.

I don't want to change back to the 28-70, difference is absolutely there between those 2.

Michel

slimandy said:

After many years of happy shooting with DX cameras I finally took the plunge into FX with a D700.

For my own pleasure I will mainly shoot with a 17~35 and 70~200 most of the time with various other choices for specific applications. However, I do get asked to cover various events from time to time, the biggest of which this year will be my Dad's wedding!

Thus I suspect the 28~70 could be one of my most used lenses on FX but I was wondering if anyone else had this lens and made the upgrade to a 24~70? What were your reasons and was it worth it?

I'm really interested to hear from people who made that upgrade and used them specifically on FX. I'm not really interested in other lenses (e.g. I'd stick with the 28~70 in preference to the Sigma and Tamron choices, good as they are) and I'm not interested on DX use as you're only using the middle 2/3rds of the frame.
--
http://www.andrewsandersphotography.co.uk

Click to expand...

--

Disclaimer: Posts written by me are my views, ideas and opinions only, and should not be taken as facts, unless stated otherwise.

Light is eveything

http://www.fotopropaganda.com
http://www.fotopropaganda.com/fotopropaganda-blog/
http://www.pbase.com/photopropaganda

I made the switch and didn't look back.

Note that there is (IMO) a "minority view" that the 28-70 offers better skintones - initially perpetuated by some folks on nikoncafe - but funny, when I used both lenses in the studio with controlled lighting and the same WB, the 24-70 was a bit closer to what I saw with the model right there, although slightly warm, while the 28-70 was very much a bit cold. Interestingly, over time I've know a lot of photogs who have claimed the colder skin tone rendering lens to be "better for skin" when the people in the picture tend to prefer the opposite. And of course, skin tone rendering is hugely biased by geographic location and preference, so I don't put as much weight onto this "it's better for skin color" opinions anyway - color cast is the easiest thing to correct in post IMO.

So much for that argument in my mind... but I mention it anyway since it's out there.

Essentially the 24-70 is still a 28-70 for all intent because it's 24mm option isn't that stellar - but interestingly, it's (24mm) more "usable" on a D700 than a D300 - go figure - but I still think of it as 28-70 that can drop down to 24 in a pinch.

However, in the shared range, it's definitely sharper in the 30-60mm range, has better contrast, more of a '3d' effect, and is very much one of my most used lenses. That being said, the 28-70 is still a VERY fine lens and UNLESS that range is hugely important to you (as it is me), I'm not sure it's always going to be worth the upgrade in every situation.

Putting it another way, on a D700

Upgrade from 70-200/2.8 VR1 to VR2: absolutely, most definitely, positively

Upgrade from 17-35/2.8 to 16-35/4: yup, the newer lens is better

Upgrade from 28-70/2.8 to 24-70/2.8: yea, I did, but not as big a difference as the two other upgrade options I just mentioned - unless the 24-70 range is critical to you in which case it goes to the middle spot.

-m

M Lammerse said:

I made the upgrade from 35-70 to 28-70 to 24-70.

The 24-70 is by far my most used lens. The reasons I like the 24-70 is it's sharpness wide open (noticeable sharper than the 28-70).

Click to expand...

The difference between 35-70 and the 28-70 is indeed very significant. The 28-70mm is a much better lens. I would go so far as to call it awesome, being close to its optimum when stopped down just once. In fact, I cannot imagine a sharper lens - that is after that is I sent mine back to Nikon TWICE until they had adjusted and calibrated it to my satisfaction. The service made an absolutely HUGE difference to the performance of the lens.

Although I haven't used the 24-70mm, I am afraid that my experience with the 28-70mm makes me suspect that the "absolutely there" difference is down to how well the 28-70mm has been adjusted and calibrated. I absolutely love my copy for portrait work, and cannot imagine a better lens. Given the price difference, there is no way I will be upgrading to the 24-70mm, not least because I have just purchased the 14-24mm f2.8 to cover the focal length.

S.
--
Wait, watch, listen, then pounce !

anotherMike said:

Upgrade from 70-200/2.8 VR1 to VR2: absolutely, most definitely, positively

Upgrade from 17-35/2.8 to 16-35/4: yup, the newer lens is better

Click to expand...

Thats interesting because I have these two and love them both. There is absolutely no question - I won't be upgrading either.

I think you have helped me decide not to upgrade the 28~70 either. It's also a fine lens. I appreciate the 24~70 is probably better, but the extra 4mm is one of the big selling points for me, so if that isn't great the lens doesn't offer enough advantages to warrant the extra cost.
Thanks for your thoughts.
--
http://www.andrewsandersphotography.co.uk

Stoker98 said:

The difference between 35-70 and the 28-70 is indeed very significant.

Click to expand...

Well, by means of construction there is, however by image quality I don't see so much differnece, the 28-70 is wide open a bit sharper, but not that much. Both the 28-70 and 35-70 show also the same weakness, that is the flaring.

I still kept a copy of the 35-70 f/2.8D, the 28-70 f/2.8D AFS is gone. Both lenses are very good, the 24-70 is just better. You can notice easily by using and comparing them, no scientific testing needed.

Michel

--

Disclaimer: Posts written by me are my views, ideas and opinions only, and should not be taken as facts, unless stated otherwise.

Light is eveything

http://www.fotopropaganda.com
http://www.fotopropaganda.com/fotopropaganda-blog/
http://www.pbase.com/photopropaganda

slimandy said:

anotherMike said:

Upgrade from 70-200/2.8 VR1 to VR2: absolutely, most definitely, positively

Upgrade from 17-35/2.8 to 16-35/4: yup, the newer lens is better

Click to expand...

Thats interesting because I have these two and love them both. There is absolutely no question - I won't be upgrading either.

Click to expand...

Same here for the 70-200 VR1... not upgrading that anytime soon.

slimandy said:

I think you have helped me decide not to upgrade the 28~70 either. It's also a fine lens. I appreciate the 24~70 is probably better, but the extra 4mm is one of the big selling points for me, so if that isn't great the lens doesn't offer enough advantages to warrant the extra cost.

Click to expand...

What about the 14-24? It will give you the 24mm FL and then some! Its not a direct replacement for the 28-70.

slimandy said:

Thanks for your thoughts.
--
http://www.andrewsandersphotography.co.uk

Click to expand...

Yea, if you really want 24mm, it's not worth the upgrade unless the 30-60 range, where the 24-70 is better, is an absolutely critical range for you.

Might just want to take the bucks and save it for a future 24/1.4G or something

-m

I have the 28-70mm that I bought used in great condition for about half the price of the 24-70mm.

Quality wise, my lens gives me great pictures with lots of contrast. Since I bring my d700 and this mid zoom lens on all of my travels, I take lots of landscapes and at home

landscapes while going on hikes. For potraits and landscapes I rarely go wide towards f2.8 so, sharpness is never an issue.

Now, there is one thing that this post hasn't mentioned:

Handling wise, I would not change my 28-70mm for the 24-70mm (unless mine breaks). The 28-70mm is shorter and bigger compared to the 24-70mm which is longer and thinner. So, for handling, for me, the 28-70mm is better balanced, having the weight closer to the camera. I have a friend who has a 24-70mm and I must say, again, that I much prefer the handling of the 28-70mm. Also, for me, turning the rings (focus and zoom), I prefer the larger diameter.

I must agree that the 24-70mm has a better flare control resistance.

Michel

I switched from 28-70 to 24-70 about a year ago (maybe a little less), but still did not sell my 28-70. @ 2.8 new lens is better, but it seems to me that it's not the sharpness but a lower contrast of 28-70 that makes it less pop (only @ 2.8). Having said that i wouldn't switch just for that reason as difference isn't big enough. My main reason for switching was to get extra 4mm on the wide end, since i shoot weddings and a lot of prep shots are in small rooms, and i don't want to switch lenses a lot. extra 4mm really helps there.

One thing i noticed reviewing first shots from 24-70 is that i don't like the overall feel of the photograph as much as of 28-70 28-70 gives me more pleasant look and IMO a little better bokeh than 24-70 that produces 'clinical' look. i did not try printing pictures though and don't know how it translates to print.
just my 2 c.

Jogger said:

What about the 14-24?

Click to expand...

I would regard that lens very much as a luxury item. I don't need 14mm, I would like to be able to use my existing filters, and its very expensive. I would buy it anyway, but only when I win the lottery.
--
http://www.andrewsandersphotography.co.uk

no text
--
http://www.andrewsandersphotography.co.uk

When I upgraded to the D3s from a D80 I had both lenses. The 24-70mm 2.8 is with out a doubt a great lens. I must be lucky. Mine does not have the problems that most people complain about. I use it about 70% of the time.

The other lens I sold to pay for more memory cards. Have not looked back.

--

....I did the same "light test" (which has a lot of in camera setting variables anyway) between the 28-70, and the 24-70...and the 24-70 was a little too saturated to the yellow/orange for me. With the same settings in camera I was able to get more "faithful" skin tone from my 28-70...not "cold". I shot an asian, and non tanned american skin tone in the test, and all favored the 28-70. I had the 24-70 for awhile and tried to dial down the sat/hue some in camera but preferred the 28-70 anyway. I had read some about this (and it wasn't on Nikon cafe') because I had bought the 24-70...turned it back in and got a used mint 28-70 instead. I am a 30 year shooter and cut my teeth on plenty of chrome and print film, so I come here with experience instead of "what lens should I get for my vacation" input. Get what pleases you, but I add saturation/color in post if needed because I shoot all sorts of people, and prefer faithful color reproduction from the lens. Cameras are D700 and D3.