24-70 or 28-70

FUCK DPREVIEW!! · Dec 21, 2002

df photo said:
Is there a quality issue regarding the new lens?

That's not what I ment and I don't think so: The 24-70mm is AT LEAST equal in optical performance to he 28-70mmm (theoretically, it should be better because it has one more aspherical and an additrional UD element) , but the new versio...

has 4mm more coverage (not very relevant, IMO)
is sealed (very relevant, IMO)
lens does not move when zoomed (very relevant, IMO)
better minimum focusing distance (0.38 instead of 0.5m, relevant IMO)
better bokeh (IMO so-so relevant, makes a better "portrait lens" at 70mm, which is still too short for portraits).
is 100g heavier (so-so relevant as both version are very heavy anyway)

I don't have any practical experience with these lenses and I also know that I won't buy one anytime soon. But if I would have to choose, I would go fot the new 24-70 without much thinking.

Andi

--
http://www.andreassteiner.net/photography

Fred Schaaf · Dec 21, 2002

mak said:
Should I get the 24-70L or 28-70L ?The difference in price is about
US$370.

Here is wha I have now
50 1.4
70-200IS
17-35L
100 .8 Macro
24 TSE

Thaks

Hi Mark,

I had the 28-70 and changed it for the 24-70. Of course there is not that much fifference. But I was allways a bit unhappy with the performance of my 28-70 at the long end, this is absolutely better with the 24-70.
And the extra 4mm are really nice.

Regards

Fred

http://www.pbase.com/fredschaaf

Adam-T · Dec 21, 2002

Member said:
it should be better because it has one more aspherical and an
additrional UD element)

I think they're just there for the benefit of getting the same quality as the 28-70L in a lens starting at 24mm - as for Aspeherical and UD elements, that means nothing some of the worst lenses have BOTH (Sigma DLs) and some of the best have NONE (Canon primes)..

Member said:
lens does not move when zoomed (very relevant, IMO)

yes it does, exactly the same as the 28-70 does.

Member said:
better bokeh (IMO so-so relevant, makes a better "portrait lens"

at 70mm, which is still too short for portraits).

Eh? it still has an 8-blade iris and the curved blades only make a difference when fairly wide open

as for choosing between them, really it can only be based on 1:- 4mm 2:- Price difference and 3:- the sealing, the fact that the thing moves while zooming means that it'll NEVER be as sealed as one which doesn't..

--
Olympus C2100UZI +B300 +A28, Canon D60, EOS7

My Ugly mug and submitted Photos at -------->
http://www.photosig.com/viewuser.php?id=27855

Edward Rauschkolb · Dec 21, 2002

but the new versio...

Member said:
has 4mm more coverage (not very relevant, IMO)

disagree 4mm is very relevant at the wide side (IMO)

Member said:
is sealed (very relevant, IMO)

Member said:
lens does not move when zoomed (very relevant, IMO)

No it acts just as the 28-70 does and extends (on the wiide side)but not noted under the hood. In fact it has to extend or the hood would produce vignetting!

Member said:
better minimum focusing distance (0.38 instead of 0.5m, relevant

IMO)

Agreed extremely relevant. One of the other reasons to use primes is therir close focusing distance. In corder to get wide angle effect near and far need to be in focus. Both the 16-35 and 24-70 focus MUCH closer than their predecessors.

better bokeh (IMO so-so relevant, makes a better "portrait lens"

Member said:
at 70mm, which is still too short for portraits).

Not on D60 (70=112) or on 1D(70=91) and in a pinch 79 wukk wirj ion FF

Member said:
is 100g heavier (so-so relevant as both version are very heavy

anyway)

feels heavier though as it now feels more front loaded.

Ed

FUCK DPREVIEW!! · Dec 21, 2002

Adam-T said:
Adam-T said:

lens does not move when zoomed (very relevant, IMO)

Click to expand...

yes it does, exactly the same as the 28-70 does.

As I said, I never used any of these lenses; if you're right, then that's very bad news, exactly because...

Adam-T said:
the fact that the
thing moves while zooming means that it'll NEVER be as sealed as
one which doesn't..

:-(

I stay with my 16-35mm, 50mm and 70-200mm and use my feet to close the gaps betweent35-50mm and 50-70mm. The awesome performance of the 50mm/1.4 or well worth the exercise...

Andi

--
http://www.andreassteiner.net/photography

DavidP #28649 · Dec 21, 2002

I'm not gonna swear that the alignment was perfect. Though I did just swap lenses while the camera was still mounted on the tripod, so any mis-alighment should've been constant between lenses.

John Kim said:
Try looking at the upper-right corner of the 70mm 2.8 shot. I think
the optics on the 28-70 are a bit off-kilter at that f.l. It's
upper-right corner is substantially sharper, while it's lower-left
corner looks slightly worse than the 24-70's.

--
The Unofficial Photographer of The Wilkinsons
http://thewilkinsons.crosswinds.net
Photography -- just another word for compromise

Tom C11968 · Dec 21, 2002

I wouldn't put up with that David, I would box up that 24-70 and send it stright to my house for a full refund. ;o)

I have one on order, in the mean time I just got the 16-35 so I could shoot f2.8.

Tom

DavidP said:
John Kim said:

Try looking at the upper-right corner of the 70mm 2.8 shot. I think
the optics on the 28-70 are a bit off-kilter at that f.l. It's
upper-right corner is substantially sharper, while it's lower-left
corner looks slightly worse than the 24-70's.

Click to expand...

--
The Unofficial Photographer of The Wilkinsons
http://thewilkinsons.crosswinds.net
Photography -- just another word for compromise

--
Tom

DavidP #28649 · Dec 21, 2002

Actually, I thought that the 24-70 was about the same as the 28-70 from my tests.

Some here think the 24-70 is better, others think the 28-70 is better (judging from my test results).

That says to me that the two lenses are both about the same, and both were plenty sharp.

Tom C said:
I wouldn't put up with that David, I would box up that 24-70 and
send it stright to my house for a full refund. ;o)
I have one on order, in the mean time I just got the 16-35 so I
could shoot f2.8.

--
The Unofficial Photographer of The Wilkinsons
http://thewilkinsons.crosswinds.net
Photography -- just another word for compromise

Forrest41926 · Dec 21, 2002

Member said:
I stay with my 16-35mm, 50mm and 70-200mm and use my feet to close
the gaps betweent35-50mm and 50-70mm. The awesome performance of
the 50mm/1.4 or well worth the exercise...

That's what I'm doing, but with a 100/2.8 Macro instead of the 70-200. The 50 is really nice, and the f/1.4 helps a lot.

mike kobal · Dec 22, 2002

df photo said:
(2.8) At 28mm, they seem pretty close.

(2.8) At 70mm, it seems to me (I'm using my laptop right now so
this could be off) that the 24-70 is a bit sharper.

Any thoughts/comments?
Would you find this to be true?

DavidP said:

As I recall, I thought most people preferred the 24-70/2.8 images.

I thought they were both fairly similar, actually.

John Kim said:

Did I miss a thread discussing these test pics? The 24-70L shots
at f/2.8 are pathetic compared to the 28-70L, whose f/2.8 pics look
almost as good as the f/8 pics.

Click to expand...

--
The Unofficial Photographer of The Wilkinsons
http://thewilkinsons.crosswinds.net
Photography -- just another word for compromise

Click to expand...

--
mike kobal

Peter1776 · Dec 22, 2002

The two lenses I use the most, 24-70L 70-200L IS

mak said:
Should I get the 24-70L or 28-70L ?The difference in price is about
US$370.

Here is wha I have now
50 1.4
70-200IS
17-35L
100 .8 Macro
24 TSE

Thaks

Lee Rothman · Dec 22, 2002

in case you missed my post from last night

davidroy · Dec 23, 2002

Whenever I have a vexing problem like which lens to choose over the other I end up just buying both of them. It sure is a lot less frustrating than never knowing if I bought the right one.

mak said:
Should I get the 24-70L or 28-70L ?The difference in price is about
US$370.

Here is wha I have now
50 1.4
70-200IS
17-35L
100 .8 Macro
24 TSE

Thaks

--
DavidRoy

Search

24-70 or 28-70

FUCK DPREVIEW!!

Guest

Fred Schaaf

Guest

Adam-T

Forum Pro

Edward Rauschkolb

Senior Member

FUCK DPREVIEW!!

Guest

DavidP #28649

Forum Pro

Tom C11968

Veteran Member

DavidP #28649

Forum Pro

Forrest41926

Forum Pro

mike kobal

Senior Member

Peter1776

Well-known member

Lee Rothman

Guest

davidroy

Senior Member

Keyboard shortcuts