Nikon 28-70mm f/2.8 vs. Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8

I know I will be purchasing the D3 when its release so my question, is it

worth spending the extra $500 for the new Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8 or I am good

with the 28-70mm.

 

I currently own a D80 with a 17-55 f2.8 and I really like that zoom range so I

figured 28-70mm would be the same in full frame.

 

What are your suggestions?

 

Should I even consider the 35-70mm f2.8?

Get the 24-70mm f/2.8.

 

Really, it is a terrific lens. I got a chance to shoot with one back in August inwhile in Japan forthe D3 /D300 launch.

Michael, you are spending $5000 on a camera. Why skim on the lenses? Get the one that is desinged during the digital era for the D3 and FX DSLRs.

It would be nice if they had made a 24-105mm f4.0 vr/afs. Pair a lens like this with your favorite F1.8 or F2.0 prime 35-50or 85mm for oof blurring and you are not carrying huge lenses. The D3 sensitivity changes lens choices to a new paradigm.

To Shun Cheung.

 

I just wasn't sure if spending an extra $650 was worth it for 2mm. And I don't understand what you mean by getting the lens designed for the digital era? Is the quality of glass really different between the 2 lenses?

 

I am just trying to save money where I can, didn't want to make a mistake and buy something brand new where there is already a similar cheaper product out.

Depending whether the extra 4mm is relly important to you or not. For me, i still prefer the 28~70mm f/2.8. I still believe there won't be much different.

I am a few who will agree with Snoopyleong. Its all about Price that you are paying and value you will get. I doubt that 24-70mm will be 1/3 Better. Sure 28-70mm is 1/3 less expansive.

 

Why not wait until 24-70mm come out then decide. What is your hurry? The more you wait, the better the review 24-70mm might be, cheaper the 28-70mm will be. For me, I still shoot heavily with old cameras. No matter how good the lens will be, I am just not going to change my gear until Nikon figuer out a way to put back aperture ring with weather seal...is it possible?

I asked to the Nikon staff about the performance of "older" non-FX pro-lenses on the D3. The answer was conclusive: some lenses could give an acceptable performance, others don`t, it must be checked to avoid surprises. Even some cheap lenses could give better performance than some very expensive ones. FX lenses are tested to to ensure top performance on the D3.

 

I haven`t any kind of doubt: the 24-70G is the lens to use with the D3; $500 is less than 10% of the total cost, do you need to save a 10%?. If so, I would keep the 17-55 to be used on a D300.

 

If you want to buy a 35-70 or 28-70 for whatever the reason, I would wait to read the experts opinions about their performance on a D3.

During the film days, my fellow moderator Todd Peach and I typically point out that there is a significant difference between a zoom that starts from 24mm vs. 28mm. It is nice that you have the option to go to 24mm because IMO the extra coverage is important.

 

Digital sensors have different requirements on the optics than film. That is why not every old lens designed in the previous era will continue to perform well on the FX sensor. If you would like to know the specifics, wait a bit until the D3 is available and folks such as Bjorn Rorslett will test the old 28-70 on it. I have the 28-70 too and most likely will eventually add the 24-70.

 

If one wants to save money, I would wait 6 months to a year before getting these new stuffs. The D3 will likely be a $4000 camera in a year and the 24-70 will also get a bit cheaper after the initial demand subsides.

Shun, with limited production of the D3 and demand likely to be very high, why would you expect the price to drop so much next year? The D200 is still selling close to its introduction price two years ago even with the pending release of its replacement.

 

Is is issue with older lens designs limited to the wider zooms, for example, do you believe with the 70-200 2.8 work correctly with the FX?

Elliot, I bought my D2X in July 2005 from B&H; that was about 4 to 5 months since it first became available in late February that year. The D2X was very hard to get in the first 2, 3 months, but by the time I bought it, it was in stock everywhere and I managed to get B&H to reduce the price by a few hundred dollars. And of course the price continued to drop in the months after. If I remember correctly, it was down to around $4000 by late 2005/early 2006.

 

The D3 is designed to be a sports DSLR and its market is somewhat limited. Most of those who must have the full FX frame or shoot sports have switched to Canon years ago with plenty of investment in Canon lenses. Recall that Canon has just updated the 1D sports DSLR line to the 1D Mark III in February this year and a lot of those users have just upgraded. It'll be an up-hill battle for Nikon to get those people to switch/switch back. It is always best not to lose your customers in the first place.

Elliot, althought your question is not for me, perhaps my experience could help: a lot of the demonstration samples of images taken with the D3 at the spanish presentation were done using the 70-200/2.8. Images were astounding. If they use this lens to show F3`s capacity, it must work pretty good. Also, it calls my attention that the Nikon rep also have on his Mac images taken with a 24-120, which I always considered a "difficult" lens. But I don`t recall about them. Another photog asked about the performance of his 80-200 on the D3; the answer was "you must check it"...

Excuse me, I want to mean "D3", not "F3".

From the sound of it the 24-70mm will be more than worth it and I will get one to substitute my 28-70mm as soon as I can catch my breath from buying the D3.

 

Even though the D3 is primarily designed for sports it's image quality will still be the best to date of any Nikon DSLR and that's why landscapers like me are queuing up.

"Even though the D3 is primarily designed for sports it's image quality will still be the best to date of any Nikon DSLR and that's why landscapers like me are queuing up."

 

It sounds like the D3 will be an amazingly versatile tool, but for pure landscape photography there are far better options already out there - large format film cameras for example: available now, cheaper to buy, more control over the image, much better quality and amazingly satisfying to use.

 

Sorry for going off topic, and for voicing a somewhat heretical view, but I'd never think of using my D2x for landscapes while I've got the chance to use my Ebony 4x5.

 

But to return to the original point, the additional wide option of the 24-70 would certainly tip the balance for me and justify the extra expense.

"It sounds like the D3 will be an amazingly versatile tool, but for pure landscape photography there are far better options already out there"

 

Hi Malcolm,

 

It's not heretical at all - it's obvious. But that wasn't really what I was saying.

 

I am an avid medium format shooter but I have been on enough trips where even something as user friendly as medium format would have been a serious impediment if not an impossibility either because of the difficulty in changing the film in bad conditions or, usually more seriously, the logistics of carrying sufficient film to last you two or three weeks.

 

The D3 should be significantly better than the D2Xs as a 'landscape' camera even though of course, in ideal circumstances, you would use something altogether different. That is the spirit of what I was trying to say.

 

All the best,

 

James

If I already owned the 28-70mm lens I would consider getting or using a 24mm f 2.8 prime lens to add to it. I know it is a second lens, but it costs a lot less. This assumes it will work well on the D 3. Joe Smith

William,

 

Neither will I.

 

It should technically possible to have an aperture ring on current lenses.i.e. those with VR. The 80-400VR is proof of that.It is a marketing reason why Nikon doesn't want to include them.

 

And you cannot weatherseal a lens entirely as evidence by users reporting dust contamination issues with their Micro 105VR (a G lens which is supposed to be better sealed than Ais/AF-D lenses).

Apologies James, you're quite right, it was an obvious point. And the speed issue isn't something to underestimate - I missed a potentially good shot today because the light was too fleeting. On the other hand, having to work a bit slower can be a good thing too sometimes.

 

I guess my point is that with all the hulabaloo about all this exciting new equipment, it's easy to forget that there are some good older alternatives worth considering - something you're clearly well aware of.

Thank you guys for the feed back, I really appreciate it. And thank you Shun Cheung.

The 24-70 has no aperture ring and no VR, and while it's optical quality may be slightly ahead of the 28-70, is it worth the extra bucks? How many would actually see the difference in IQ over the 28-70? If you're shooting handheld, you certainly won't.

 

Personally, 24mm vs 28mm at the short end okay I guess, but can't say it's real exciting. I find below 28mm, distortion is getting kinda strange for people photos and if shooting landscapes, I'd rather have a 24mm prime over a heavy 2.8 zoom anyday. Again, IMO, a 28-85mm or 28-105mm zoom with VR would be worth an upgrade, but 24-70mm sans VR? No deal.