Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8 or 28-70mm f/2.8?

anonymouscuban

OK... so I've narrowed down my lens purchase to either one of these two.

I found a 28-70mm f/2.8 used, near mint for $1049. I can only find the 24-70mm new and B&H has it cheapest for $1729.

I understand the 24-70 is a little lighter and is better in optical quality but is the difference worth the extra $720?

ziggy53

Have you looked at the Nikkor 35-70mm, f2.8D Macro? Pretty good quality and you can find them for a very reasonable cost. Should work great on a D300.

PhotoGuy40

anonymouscuban wrote:

OK... so I've narrowed down my lens purchase to either one of these two.

I found a 28-70mm f/2.8 used, near mint for $1049. I can only find the 24-70mm new and B&H has it cheapest for $1729.

I understand the 24-70 is a little lighter and is better in optical quality but is the difference worth the extra $720?

I just traded in my 17-35 f/2.8 for the 28-70mm and LOVE it!!!

T. Bombadil

anonymouscuban wrote:

I found a 28-70mm f/2.8 used, near mint for $1049. I can only find the 24-70mm new and B&H has it cheapest for $1729.

I understand the 24-70 is a little lighter and is better in optical quality but is the difference worth the extra $720?

i bought the 28-70 after the 24-70 was announced, but before it was available. at that time i didn't want to wait to spend an extra ~$300-$400.

i have no regrets. if you have found a mint condition 28-70, i say grab it.

the 28-70 gives you an aperture ring that might even be useful/fun somewhere along the way. it doesnt go as wide as the 24-70, but the 24-70 is less great at the wide end (or so i have read. i haven't used one).

Mitchell

I've owned three different Nikkor 28-70mm lenses (don't ask) and have shot with two different Nikkor 24-70mm lenses.

Save yourself some money and get a lightly used 28-70mm. The lens is awesome. Expect to pay about $1,000. The weight and optical quality issues are marginal. Personally, I prefer the skin tone rendition from the 28-70mm.

T. Bombadil

Mitchell wrote:

I've owned three different Nikkor 28-70mm lenses (don't ask)

i won't. but i'm dying to. :-)

anonymouscuban

I think I am sold on the 28-70mm. I looked through a lot of my pictures on LR2 and it appears that most are taken within the focal length of this lens so I will be good. The rest of my photos are taken really wide with my Tokina 11-16 and I am keeping that lens so I should be gold. I also don't mind the weight issue of this lens. I can always put my camera strap around my head and perform neck crunches with my D300 and The Beast. Now it's just a matter of finding a good deal on a clean copy.

They had a copy on B&H last night, rated at a 9, for $1049 but when I checked this morning it was gone. Snooze you lose I guess. From my research, it looks like about $1000, give or take, is a good deal. I will continue to look.

BTW, there is a new development... If I can sell my Sigma 17-70mm and Sigma 30mm after I get the 28-70mm, the wife gave the nod to me buying the 70-200 f/2.8 VR so I am pretty excited. Once I get that lens, I will be pretty set. Eventually I would buy a full frame WA lens to replace the Tokina but that will be later down the line when I am closer to getting a FF body since I really love my Tokina.

Mitchell

T. Bombadil wrote:

i won't. but i'm dying to. :-)

Lens #1 was bought used in near mint condition but was stolen along with my D2X and 300mmVR:cry

Lens#2 was purchased along with a mint F100, several high end filters, and a great backpack filter from a retiring photographer for a total of $800. I sold the beast for $1000 one week before I had my first lens stolen.

Lens #3 was bought new from B&H shortly after my theft.