28-70 F2.8 or 24-70 F2.8

Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
867
Location
Rochester, New York
Any opinions on these two lenses besides the obvious? Looking to purchase one but don't know which. Looking for opinions.

Gil
 
Joined
Oct 4, 2007
Messages
5,206
Location
Fort Leavenworth, KS
I have the 28-70 2.8, and just love it. I've never used a 24-70, but I have read numerous times that it's less flattering for portraits because of it's *super sharpness* and has less accurate skin tones. That was the reason for my decision to get the 28-70.
 
Joined
Jun 30, 2005
Messages
300
Location
Mid-Michigan
Never used the 24-70, only read rave reviews. I do have the 28-70 and it never leaves my camera. I think it's a terrific lens!
 
Joined
Jul 26, 2008
Messages
2,075
Location
San Diego, CA
I have the 28-70 and I love it so far. I only got it a few months ago.
The only thing I don't like is that its not as wide as I'd like, so the 24mm would be nice, but for the money I saved I can just throw on my wide angle lens instead.

I'd recommend 28-70.
 
Joined
Mar 27, 2007
Messages
2,344
Location
Columbia, MD
I have the 28-70 and so far am pleased with it, but I haven't used it enough to make a real good opinion of it. I did play around with a 24-70 mounted on a D700 with the vertical grip at a local camera store recently and I liked the size of the 24-70 over the 28-70. The 28-70 is a fat lens, whereas the 24-70 is a little thinner. I found the 24-70 nicer to hold due to it being a little thinner.

The lens hood on the 24-70 didn't seem to be as big as the one on the 28-70, which may also be preferable to some.
 
Joined
Dec 15, 2007
Messages
663
Location
Garland, Texas
I haven't had the pleasure of trying the 24-70, but I've been using the 28-70 for a few months now and absolutely love it! It gives great skin tones and good bokeh. I don't mind the weight at all and it has cool hood.
 
Joined
Mar 27, 2007
Messages
2,344
Location
Columbia, MD
I have the 28-70 and I love it so far. I only got it a few months ago.
The only thing I don't like is that its not as wide as I'd like, so the 24mm would be nice, but for the money I saved I can just throw on my wide angle lens instead.

I'd recommend 28-70.

I will second this as you can get a real nice used 28-70 for a fraction of the price of a new 24-70. Unless you need the additional focal length range on the wide lens, the 28-70 is a good choice.
 
Joined
Jan 17, 2006
Messages
7,892
Location
East TN
I would say everything said here is the truth. So, the answer is probably, "it depends". IT depends what you shoot, if you shoot landscapes, and outdoor things more, the 24-70 has the nano-coating and will likely be the better outdoor lens. Also sharper for detail. But less flattering skin tones than the prior 28-70. as other skin shooters said. That said, I'd someday like to have both back, I do miss the 28-70.
 
Joined
Mar 4, 2005
Messages
15,557
Location
Los Angeles, USA
I'd rather get the 28-70 if I can get it for a cheaper price. Before the 24-70, the 28-70 was the defacto short zoom in the Nikon line up. Either will do the job.
 
Joined
Oct 17, 2007
Messages
604
Location
Houston, Tx
I have the 28-70 and I love it so far. I only got it a few months ago.
The only thing I don't like is that its not as wide as I'd like, so the 24mm would be nice, but for the money I saved I can just throw on my wide angle lens instead.

I'd recommend 28-70.

Well look who decided to join us. lol

whats up sunshine?
 
Joined
Jul 1, 2006
Messages
1,185
Location
south Florida
I have owned both and I can't see much difference between them, I guess if you are a pro and use them professionally the AFS 24-70mm f/2.8 will make a difference on the wide end. Why did I buy the AFS 24-70mm f/2.8? I guess because it was there the same answer that Sir Edmon Hillary gave for the reason why he climbed MT Everest. :wink:
 
Joined
Jun 5, 2008
Messages
321
Location
Boston, MA
Thanks for all the comments. I will be getting the 24-70 because I shoot landscapes and wildlife, not people.

But I am thinking about to use the 24-70 f/2.8 is good for wedding too, right?wide angle, mid range len.

Currently I still use 35-70 f/2.8, but once a while need to use 24 or 28, so I guess that 24-70 should be fit that situation.
 
C

cobrakai

Guest
I was pretty sure I was going to get the 24-70mm because of how sharp it was wide open at all focal lengths and just gets ridiculously sharp at f4. But then I found a 28-70mm at an amazing price and jumped on it. The images are not as sharp at f2.8 as the 24-70mm but the image have a very nice portrait quality to them and the best out of focus area I've seen from any standard f2.8 zoom even compared to the Minolta 28-70mm G lens which is less sharp than the Nikon.

So basically what everyone here has said. 28-70mm for people and 24-70mm for landscape.
 
Joined
Nov 27, 2006
Messages
82
Location
West Palm Beach, FL
Having owned both the "Beast" and the newer 24-70, I can't find anything to argue with here. Yes, I also think the skin tones are a little more pleasing on the beast, and the 24-70 is sharper, and does better outdoors. Both were acceptable to hold, even with the beast being a little thicker.
SOOOO, heres another vote for what has become somewhat of a consensus... Beast for peeps, 24-70 for outdoors.
 
Joined
Oct 9, 2007
Messages
113
Location
Colorado
I owned both for a while and just sold my 28-70. Both are great for portraits and just ok for landscape. The 24-70 has sharper edges and more contrast. Both are fairly sharp wide open (samples will vary). The main reasons to get the 24-70 are it is a little easier to carry around and is 4mm wider.

Rich H
 
Joined
Jun 11, 2005
Messages
676
Location
Southern Maine
I have the 28-70 2.8, and just love it. I've never used a 24-70, but I have read numerous times that it's less flattering for portraits because of it's *super sharpness* and has less accurate skin tones. That was the reason for my decision to get the 28-70.
__________________
*Sonya*

I've owned and used both, and kept the 28-70 for the very reasons Sonya mentions above.

To me it's an easy decision because the 28-70 will save you lots of money right now, and the 24-70 was not(imho) nearly as nice with skin tones.

The one thing I really loved on the 24-70 was the surprising difference that extras 4mm made. If I shot more landscapes than portraits, I would have kept the 24-70.
 
Joined
Jul 28, 2008
Messages
124
Location
Ottawa, ON
I want to rent one of these mid-range zooms..
I can have the 24-70mm for the weekend for $36 + taxes and 28-70 for $28 + taxes.
I'll be using it for a wedding so it'll mostly be portraits.

I was thinking the 24-70mm would be the choice since its a bit thinner? and apparently sharper.
However, I like hearing that the 28-70 is better for potraits. Is it just nearly as sharp?
I'm not getting paid that much for this wedding so trying to cut unnecessary spending a little bit :)
 
Joined
Mar 4, 2005
Messages
15,557
Location
Los Angeles, USA
If you're renting just get the 24-70. It's not like you're spending money to buy one!

I want to rent one of these mid-range zooms..
I can have the 24-70mm for the weekend for $36 + taxes and 28-70 for $28 + taxes.
I'll be using it for a wedding so it'll mostly be portraits.

I was thinking the 24-70mm would be the choice since its a bit thinner? and apparently sharper.
However, I like hearing that the 28-70 is better for potraits. Is it just nearly as sharp?
I'm not getting paid that much for this wedding so trying to cut unnecessary spending a little bit :)
 

Latest threads

Links on this page may be to our affiliates. Sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.
Nikon Cafe is a fan site and not associated with Nikon Corporation.
Forum post reactions by Twemoji: https://github.com/twitter/twemoji
Forum GIFs powered by GIPHY: https://giphy.com/
Copyright © Amin Forums, LLC
Top Bottom