steve_johnston4 Posted October 24, 2019 Share Posted October 24, 2019 I have used an AF-S Nikkor 28-70 2.8 ED since it was introduced about 20 years ago. It has performed well on F100, D100, D200, D800E, and D850. Is the current 24-70 version sharper, have better contrast, longer dynamic range, less aberrations, etc., or cuter looking on the camera? Have I left something out? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShunCheung Posted October 24, 2019 Share Posted October 24, 2019 That 28-70mm/f2.8 AF-S is still a fine lens today. However, having the extra 4mm on the wide end makes a significant difference. Just keep in mind that both versions of the 24-70mm/f2.8 AF-S, with and without VR, are huge, especially the newer E VR version. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roland_vink Posted October 24, 2019 Share Posted October 24, 2019 The AF-S 28-70/2.8 ED is also huge, especially compared with the older AF-D 35-70/2.8. In it's day it was often referred to as "the beast". The weight is marginally heavier than the AF-S 24-70/2.8 (non VR) and fatter, but is shorter. I never used it but it had a good reputation and was said to give pleasing rendition for portraits. The newer 24-70/2.8 zooms focus much closer and the extra width makes them more versatile, but if you don't need those features I am sure the 28-70 is still a fine lens. Note that it is an older lens now and the AF-S motors do eventually wear out, I'm not sure if Nikon still has spare parts. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShunCheung Posted October 25, 2019 Share Posted October 25, 2019 Here is a size comparison among several mid-range Nikkor zooms. The one I don't have is the 24-70mm/f2.8 G AF-S, without VR. It is similar to the AF-S VR version, just a bit smaller. Since the 28-70mm/f2.8 AF-S is shorter, it feels smaller and easier to hold than the 24-70mm/f2.8 AF-S VR. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve_johnston4 Posted October 25, 2019 Author Share Posted October 25, 2019 Here is a size comparison among several mid-range Nikkor zooms. The one I don't have is the 24-70mm/f2.8 G AF-S, without VR. It is similar to the AF-S VR version, just a bit smaller. Since the 28-70mm/f2.8 AF-S is shorter, it feels smaller and easier to hold than the 24-70mm/f2.8 AF-S VR. [ATTACH=full]1315426[/ATTACH] Thank you very much. Based upon all the feedback, I'll plan on getting a current 24-40 2.8 VR in the future, assuming Nikon does not suddenly come out with pocket sized hi-res gear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
katedaisy Posted November 8, 2019 Share Posted November 8, 2019 I looked into the same problem, it's hard for beginners, there are many answers, it's very good. shell shockers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike_halliwell Posted November 8, 2019 Share Posted November 8, 2019 I wonder just how big the 24-70mm 2.8 in Z-mount is gonna be? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dieter Schaefer Posted November 8, 2019 Share Posted November 8, 2019 I wonder just how big the 24-70mm 2.8 in Z-mount is gonna be? Not "gonna be" but "is" - have a look: https://www.cinema5d.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/NikonZ2470f28_03.jpg Currently in stock at B&H (and others) for just under $2k (with a $300 discount). 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike_halliwell Posted November 15, 2019 Share Posted November 15, 2019 Doh, forgot they'd released the f2.8... shows how much attention I'm paying the Z mount lenses...:confused: Guess it's a bit shorter the the F-Mount as it doesn't have the VR prism unit in? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now