twig said:
Look,
no offense to Uncle Frank, but just because he has gotten sloppy with love over the 28-70 doesn't make it the ideal lens for everyone....
No offense taken, Twig, and if you check my posts both here and on DPR, you'll see I usually make the same comment. The 28-70 range just happens to fit my personal needs, based on my style of photography.
Yes, he gave it a great nickname, yes lots of people bought one this past month and are posting good pictures now, but still if everbody at Nikon Cafe was jumping off a bridge...
Just like they're jumping off the bridge about the 17-55 and the 70-200VR. But I think people do that because of the examples they see, not because of a nickname. And even that's not a good way to make a decision, because they're seeing results not only from the lens, but also due to the photographer's capture technique, compositional ability, and photoofinishing skills.
Aside from the slower AF, you are looking at a lens of comparable quality at 1/3rd the price and half the size
.
Don't skim over the AF speed, Twig. AF-S is invaluable for event photography. And to put a price on it, check the used market differential between an 80-200/2.8 AFS and an 80-200/2.8 non-AFS, or a 300/4 AFS versus a 300/4 non-AFS.
Plus the 28-70/2.8 is like owning the 35-70/2.8
and a 28/2.8... with the added advantage that you can't buy a 28/2.8 with AFS at any price.
... you are looking at a lens of comparable quality at 1/3rd the price and half the size.
I agree on the price, but not the size.
The 35-70 is 3.7 inches long and weighs 23.8 oz.
The 28-70 is 4.9 inches long and weighs 31.3 oz.