24-70mm replaced the 28-70mm f2.8

[INSOMNIAC269]

It's a long story, but my D300 and 28-70mm 2.8 are both in for repairs. My D300 should be out in a week or two, but my lens is going to be 4-6 weeks, which to me is insane. I have a D200 I use as a back up, but the lens was my go to lens, I have a few primes in that range, but most of my work is shot with the 28-70mm. I've gotten use to it's large size since I've had it for a couple years now.

My issue now is that I need a lens quickly, and was thinking about the 17-55 f2.8, 24-70 f2.8, or just getting another 28-70 f2.8 and selling mine when I get it back. I like the fact that the new 24-70 is lighter and not as wide, even though it is longer then my 28-70mm. I've ruled out the 17-55 just because I like a little more reach. So, I began researching and find a review by Ken rockwell, here's a quote:

"As a big, heavy, expensive full-frame lens, it's silly to use this 24-70mm f/2.8 on the smaller DX cameras, and sort of defeats the purpose of the lightweight and inexpensive D40, although it works flawlessly on any of these cameras. For DX cameras, I'd get something else, since 24-70mm is a silly zoom range on DX. You are paying a big premium for FX coverage if you don't intend to use it on an FX camera.
The ideal use of this big 24-70mm is on a big camera, which means the D3 or film."

I didn't even realize it was a full frame lens, why is it not labeled FX? and what actually replaced the 28-70mm? Is this a fair statement by Ken, with the DX crop factor is it a "silly zoom range". Other then that, it got great reviews, when used on DX and FX cameras.

I would just say whatever and stick with another 28-70, but they are hard to find new, B&H, Adorama, ritz all out.

So, any suggestions, opinions would be appriciated. I use Tokina and Sigma glass also, but really wanted to stick with Nikon as my main lens.

[moizes]

Don't take me wrong, but if I were in your shoes, I'd've been using new 18-55 VR - stunningly sharp, BTW - till 28-70 be back. Affordable, top color/sharpness. A bit of CA, but D300 takes care of it. Good luck! Dimitri.

[INSOMNIAC269]

Originally Posted by moizes

Don't take me wrong, but if I were in your shoes, I'd've been using new 18-55 VR - stunningly sharp, BTW - till 28-70 be back. Affordable, top color/sharpness. A bit of CA, but D300 takes care of it. Good luck! Dimitri.

Thanks Dimitri, that is a great lens at a great price, I've heard good things about it, but it's a little slow for some indoor low light shooting. I want at least a 2.8, and another issue is I have a 12-24, and a 70-200 which use a 77mm filter, keeping them the same size makes life that much easier.

[moizes]

Hmm... Your case is really special... 17-55... Very expensive, overlaping a lot with 12-24... 35/2D - if you are lucky, there is a HUGE sample variation with this lens, 77 mm is a factor, too! 17-55 and get rid of 12-24 and 28-70? That's working for me, little gap 55-70 is really nothing.

[INSOMNIAC269]

Originally Posted by moizes

Hmm... Your case is really special... 17-55... Very expensive, overlaping a lot with 12-24... 35/2D - if you are lucky, there is a HUGE sample variation with this lens, 77 mm is a factor, too! 17-55 and get rid of 12-24 and 28-70? That's working for me, little gap 55-70 is really nothing.

Thanks Moizes, but I really like that 55-70 gap, runs right up to my 70-200mm.

[moizes]

Sorry, then I've nothing more to say, today, at least. Tomorrow there will be nice new primes, but today... Dimitri.

[Nikonfreak]

Originally Posted by INSOMNIAC269

It's a long story, but my D300 and 28-70mm 2.8 are both in for repairs. My D300 should be out in a week or two, but my lens is going to be 4-6 weeks, which to me is insane. I have a D200 I use as a back up, but the lens was my go to lens, I have a few primes in that range, but most of my work is shot with the 28-70mm. I've gotten use to it's large size since I've had it for a couple years now.

My issue now is that I need a lens quickly, and was thinking about the 17-55 f2.8, 24-70 f2.8, or just getting another 28-70 f2.8 and selling mine when I get it back. I like the fact that the new 24-70 is lighter and not as wide, even though it is longer then my 28-70mm. I've ruled out the 17-55 just because I like a little more reach. So, I began researching and find a review by Ken rockwell, here's a quote:

"As a big, heavy, expensive full-frame lens, it's silly to use this 24-70mm f/2.8 on the smaller DX cameras, and sort of defeats the purpose of the lightweight and inexpensive D40, although it works flawlessly on any of these cameras. For DX cameras, I'd get something else, since 24-70mm is a silly zoom range on DX. You are paying a big premium for FX coverage if you don't intend to use it on an FX camera.
The ideal use of this big 24-70mm is on a big camera, which means the D3 or film."

I didn't even realize it was a full frame lens, why is it not labeled FX? and what actually replaced the 28-70mm? Is this a fair statement by Ken, with the DX crop factor is it a "silly zoom range". Other then that, it got great reviews, when used on DX and FX cameras.

I would just say whatever and stick with another 28-70, but they are hard to find new, B&H, Adorama, ritz all out.

So, any suggestions, opinions would be appriciated. I use Tokina and Sigma glass also, but really wanted to stick with Nikon as my main lens.

I've owned both the Nikon 24-70 and 28-70 ... If you've been reading the threads I've posted on both and you probably know I've sold the 24-70 to a buddy who wanted one for a trip to Alaska. I'll purchase that lens again at some point but I've kept the 28-70 for now. Take a look at my blog here for comments on those as well as a Tamron 28-75 that I owned for a while.

Several things... The 28-70 has been, hands down, the best mid range zoom I've ever used prior to the purchase of the 24-70 f/2.8. The 24-70 exhibits some signs that it's better in some ways than the 28-70 and then I had some "concerns" at one or two points on the lens. If you read into my comments on AF fine tune adjustment you'll note I had some difficulty in getting the lens adjusted on the D3 to where I was happy with it vs. the D300. On the D300, I had no issues whatsoever, obviously it's an APS sized sensor and uses the more central points on the lens. The D3 uses pretty much all of it.

I got the lens sharp with a +11 or so adjustment on the D3 but there were points at 24mm and at around 50-55mm where I wasn't sure the adjustment was where I needed it to be. Again...problem not evident on my D300 bodies (neither one of them (2)). The lens seemed fine all the way through 70mm.

Next... my 28-70 needs no adjustment on the D3 or the D300 bodies. AF fine tune is still on because of a slight adjustment on the 70-200 needed and a very slight one needed on the 85 f/1.4 for my taste.

Then there's the short screw problems on the back casing of the lens (24-70) so not sure if nikon is replacing them for those that want a little more security in the lens in that over time it's not going to fall of the front of your camera. (exaggeration but that's the roumor)

So I'm waiting and perfectly content with the 28-70 f/2.8 lens. Note, I was using the 28-70 when I was using APS sized sensors exclusively and I didn't feel I was missing out on anything because I still had a 12-24 f/4 at the time.

You really do need to keep an eye on the future with respect to lens purchases. I've been flamed pretty hard because of that mindset but I continue to view lenses as investments and camera bodies as throwaways. Recover the cost on bodies as quickly as possible because the time is coming where more affordable FX bodies are going to be available. If you have an arsenal of completely DX lenses, where will that leave you when you want to go with an FX body?

It hurts even more when you have the expensive glass (17-55). Why buy $1,000+ lenses twice and then take a hit on the sale of the first?

If you had only DX lenses and wanted a D3, are you going to be stuck to DX mode at 5 megapixels? Is that what you bought a D3 for?

If you can live with the crop factor (and I sure did... there were few instances where I said..."Crap... should have had a wider lens..") then it makes sense from a financial standpoint to opt to go with the 28-70 or 24-70 option and plan for the future FX body that you will eventually want to have in your bag.

There was quite a bit of peer pressure, and there continues to be, to change lens options based on popular opinion. The only opinion that matters are yours, and the people's who are paying to obtain your images.

The big question is "Will that lens get the job done?". The next one is, "Will this lens have a long and useful life in your bag?" I want my lens purchases to serve me through 2-3 camera upgrades at least...especially the big glass. I don't want to have to purchase $5,000 lenses more than once unless absolutely necessary.

Julio

Home

[lanthier]

I use the 24-70 on my d300 and do not find it a waste in any way. It is not a silly zoom range, and if you liked you 28-70, you'll appreciate the extra 4mm on the DX body.

[verdesardog]

I love the 28-70 /f2.8 on my D40