Nikon 24-70/2.8 vs 35-70/2.8

Joined
Sep 27, 2007
Messages
1,144
Location
Las Vegas
I have to say I don't shoot much below 70mm.

Right now I have 35-70/2.8 that is still pretty much in brand new condition. I was wondering how much of an improvement I'd see if I upgraded to the 24-70/2.8. I'm assuming that the images would be sharper and have more contrast, but I'm wondering how great the difference is. I'd love to hear from people who have used both and how the feel about the lenses.

Thanks for your help.
 
Joined
Apr 18, 2008
Messages
1,811
Location
Fairfax, Virginia
Rob - I've got both lenses but haven't used the 35-70 in a long time. I initially bought the 24-70 for its reach advantage and for its focus speed and preciseness. The 24-70 is an exceptional lens and I haven't been disappointed with its performance; particularly once I started using it with a D800. However, it is long and somewhat heavy. To refresh my memory, I just opened up some shots that I took with the 35-70 and 24-70 lenses on a D200. In addition to reach and focus speed, I think that the 24-70 shots taken with my D200 show somewhat better contrast and detail. With that said, the detail in the 35-70 shots is very acceptable and I was able to draw the contrast out pretty well using Lightroom. I haven't tried the 35-50 on my D800 but as I mentioned earlier, the 24-70 has really given be good results.
 
P

photogramps

Guest
I found my 35-70 f2.8 to give very acceptable results from my D800, it was lighter than the 24-70 that I sold and it had the advantage of also having a macro setting - whilst I have no doubt that the 24-70 could provide sharper images I don't believe that the difference in cost represents the difference in image quality.
It was the Pro 'go-to' lens before the 28-70 :)
 
Joined
Apr 18, 2008
Messages
1,811
Location
Fairfax, Virginia
I found my 35-70 f2.8 to give very acceptable results from my D800, it was lighter than the 24-70 that I sold and it had the advantage of also having a macro setting - whilst I have no doubt that the 24-70 could provide sharper images I don't believe that the difference in cost represents the difference in image quality.
It was the Pro 'go-to' lens before the 28-70 :)
I don't disagree with you as long as you don't need the additional reach or the advantages you get with the silent wave auto-focus motor. When I looked at the old pictures I had taken with the 35-70 on my D200, I was surprised at how well they stood up; particularly when I reedited several of the NEFs with the latest version of Lightroom. I thought that the macro setting on the 35-70 was useful in a pinch but I didn't think that the results were as good as what I got from my little 60 D macro lens. Of course, the 60 D was a dedicated macro lens and it was also very well designed. The 35-70 is almost 8 ounces lighter than the 24-70 but you do loose the extra range. The 35-70 is also built like a tank.
 
Joined
Sep 6, 2006
Messages
2,476
Location
Lompoc, CA
I have the 35-70 and honestly I'm not crazy about it. For an f/2.8 zoom it is small and light, and has little distortion, but wide open it isn't that great and stopped down it isn't any better than my 24-85 non-VR AF-S. I'm pretty sure you'd see an improvement going to the 24-70, but whether it is worth the $$$ is another question.
 
Joined
Sep 27, 2007
Messages
1,144
Location
Las Vegas
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #6
Thanks everyone for your responses. I've had this 35-70 lens for a long time, but in all honesty I don't seem to shoot much below 70mm. I've been slowly improving my gear, and was thinking to replace the 35-70, just so I'd have the focal length covered and be one step closer to having the trinity. But since I don't shoot much below 70mm I was wondering if it would be worth it for me at this time. If the upgrade would give me night and day difference in image quality I think that would have made up my mind for me.

After thinking about it for a while, I might just wait on the 24-70, and get a macro lens instead. I dont really have one yet, and I think that might be the direction to go in. The 35-70 will suffice in the meantime for the odd times that I do drop below 70.

Thanks everyone for your help.
 
Joined
Jun 9, 2006
Messages
1,823
Location
Rural Virginia
I've owned the 35-70, 28-70, and 24-70. Not saying there is no IQ difference among them, but I haven'y noticed any. If you need 24mm then the 24-70 will serve you well. If not, the 35-70 is just fine IMO. I kept it and use it on my Df.
 
Joined
Jun 30, 2020
Messages
3
I found my 35-70 f2.8 to give very acceptable results from my D800, it was lighter than the 24-70 that I sold and it had the advantage of also having a macro setting - whilst I have no doubt that the 24-70 could provide sharper images I don't believe that the difference in cost represents the difference in image quality.
It was the Pro 'go-to' lens before the 28-70 :)
Hey. I am from Argentina and here is very difficult to buy new lenses because several reasons like the exchange of the our currency and the US dolar, inflation and now the lockdown.

So I had a strike of luck and bought this lens but without the original hood. Also I read the Ken Rockwell review of this lens and he recommended for integration within a larger professional Nikon system, to use a 62mm -> 77mm adapter ring, and treat this as 77mm lens.

So what happened with the hood if you plan to use it in a D-750? Can I use a different hood model for 77mm instead of the original HB-1?

Thanks in advance and sorry for my bad English. Regards.
 

NCV

Joined
Jan 31, 2019
Messages
245
Location
Italy
Real Name
Nigel
The problem with this lens is that it becomes opache over time.

This was my first zoom back in 1990 and it would be a great still lens still if it had nor devolved this problem.
 

Latest posts

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
Copyright © 2005-2019 Amin Forums, LLC
Top Bottom