Thanks for the review - some very useful comparisons there. I would point out that corner sharpness is very important to a landscape photographer, which is why I might just go for the 28-70 over the 24-70 if I can find one at a good price - added bonus is if the af-s is failing I am happy to work in manual so all good!
In terms of UTILS (an economic measure of utilities of pleasure/satisfaction), you’re paying a lot of money for the marginal utils you get for the 24-70 over the 28-70. Based on ur tests that you showed the viewers, the 28-70 does 95% of what the 24-70 does (and I’d say that at normal viewing distances it does 98-99%). I’d like to see the a video showing NORMAL viewing distances (because no one views images in an art gallery with their nose pressed against the artwork) of images taken by each side by side. Then ask yourself if you’d pay double the price for a lens that shot an image that is virtually the same as the other. These unrealistic benchmarks we place on sharpness is just asinine to the customers we serve as photographers. Neither lens was perfect, I don’t know of any lens that is, and yet we subjectively deem one better than the other based on some absurdly minor difference in sharpness that no one else is going to be able to differentiate at normal distances and nor would they care even if they could discern the difference. There is also the issue of variations between samples of the same lens which no one seems to mention when narrating these lens tests. If you factor in this potential variation you’re really splitting hairs trying to determine which lens has enough sharpness advantage to justify the significant cost difference. Sure, if you value sitting with a magnifying glass pouring over virtually identical images in order to justify the purchase of the ever-present-and-more-expensive latest lens, then the 24-70 is the lens for you. For the other 99.8% of shooters just get the 28-70 and save the money for things that really matter.
Excellent review. I have the 28-70mm f2.8 and I was thinking about upgrading to the 24-70mm f2.8. Most of my questions were answered by this video. Good job Ahmed !
Most of the ones I've seen on ebay recently have AF motor squeak (28-70mm). I know this comment is a little late. But even so, it seems to be a trend recently on the 28-70mm. I don't own a midrange zoom. I'm currently carrying the 16-35mm, the 50mm and a 70-200mm sometimes. Mainly just the first 2 lenses. Still on the fence about any mid range zoom. I can use my legs most of the time to get closer. But anyways thanks for the great video 👊 I think I'm gonna hold off for now on buying a midrange zoom.
The 1999 lens has a super 8mm look to it on the microscope bench, but another hypothesis : You played basketball with it. Plus the 2.8 of the 24-70 looks like a T 4.0 in real life. T 4.0 with brown sunglasses.
I’m shooting film with primes lens, I can buy G lens but how about my film body and I’m eyeing 28 to 70 than can use both digital and film.....any thoughts?
Are you shooting film professionally for weddings or the like? If so which body? With something like the F5 and F6 I think the 28-70mm would be great! If it's a manual focus only body, I'd skip the 28-70 and get a lens designed for manual focus.
Thanks for replay.....I’m just normal that like photography that want to save memory, my film camera is FE2 and my digital just bought 3months ago with 34k actuation D3 and 2 more DX body. I already bought the lens which is fairly useful in film, digital and DX.
@@Fake_Sailor The 28-70 isn't an amazing manual focus lens, so if you primarily want to shoot it on film I would not buy it. But if you need a good zoom lens for your D3 and you'll sometimes use it, I would go ahead and get it! Hope this helps.
How long have you had the 28 to 70? And have you experienced anything bad w/ the AF motor? Thinking of grabbing one but I am reading the reviews and I am seeing is that a number of people have had to repair them.
I had mine for upwards of two/three years ago. If you can get one, make sure the motor is quiet and it's going smoothly throughout the zoom range. Nikon may stop servicing this lens soon! Aside from that they're built like a tank. Love mine.
for someone getting into weddings... ive done 3, have another in april... who cant afford to buy the 24, is the 28 still a great lens for it? thinking of selling my 50mm 1.4d because i have been caught out a number of times with a place being too tight. id want a lens that could do the 50 and then wider for that situation. And i also have the 80-200 2.8 ED (two touch) so im used to heavy weapons :P
Thanks for the review - some very useful comparisons there. I would point out that corner sharpness is very important to a landscape photographer, which is why I might just go for the 28-70 over the 24-70 if I can find one at a good price - added bonus is if the af-s is failing I am happy to work in manual so all good!
In terms of UTILS (an economic measure of utilities of pleasure/satisfaction), you’re paying a lot of money for the marginal utils you get for the 24-70 over the 28-70.
Based on ur tests that you showed the viewers, the 28-70 does 95% of what the 24-70 does (and I’d say that at normal viewing distances it does 98-99%).
I’d like to see the a video showing NORMAL viewing distances (because no one views images in an art gallery with their nose pressed against the artwork) of images taken by each side by side. Then ask yourself if you’d pay double the price for a lens that shot an image that is virtually the same as the other.
These unrealistic benchmarks we place on sharpness is just asinine to the customers we serve as photographers. Neither lens was perfect, I don’t know of any lens that is, and yet we subjectively deem one better than the other based on some absurdly minor difference in sharpness that no one else is going to be able to differentiate at normal distances and nor would they care even if they could discern the difference.
There is also the issue of variations between samples of the same lens which no one seems to mention when narrating these lens tests. If you factor in this potential variation you’re really splitting hairs trying to determine which lens has enough sharpness advantage to justify the significant cost difference.
Sure, if you value sitting with a magnifying glass pouring over virtually identical images in order to justify the purchase of the ever-present-and-more-expensive latest lens, then the 24-70 is the lens for you. For the other 99.8% of shooters just get the 28-70 and save the money for things that really matter.
Excellent review. I have the 28-70mm f2.8 and I was thinking about upgrading to the 24-70mm f2.8. Most of my questions were answered by this video. Good job Ahmed !
Most of the ones I've seen on ebay recently have AF motor squeak (28-70mm). I know this comment is a little late. But even so, it seems to be a trend recently on the 28-70mm. I don't own a midrange zoom. I'm currently carrying the 16-35mm, the 50mm and a 70-200mm sometimes. Mainly just the first 2 lenses. Still on the fence about any mid range zoom. I can use my legs most of the time to get closer. But anyways thanks for the great video 👊 I think I'm gonna hold off for now on buying a midrange zoom.
The 1999 lens has a super 8mm look to it on the microscope bench, but another hypothesis :
You played basketball with it. Plus the 2.8 of the 24-70 looks like a T 4.0 in real life. T 4.0 with brown sunglasses.
That was very helpful. I learned much. The comparison shots you set up were awesome. Thank you.
Thank you for that. That i really need 👍
I’m shooting film with primes lens, I can buy G lens but how about my film body and I’m eyeing 28 to 70 than can use both digital and film.....any thoughts?
Are you shooting film professionally for weddings or the like? If so which body? With something like the F5 and F6 I think the 28-70mm would be great! If it's a manual focus only body, I'd skip the 28-70 and get a lens designed for manual focus.
Thanks for replay.....I’m just normal that like photography that want to save memory, my film camera is FE2 and my digital just bought 3months ago with 34k actuation D3 and 2 more DX body. I already bought the lens which is fairly useful in film, digital and DX.
@@Fake_Sailor The 28-70 isn't an amazing manual focus lens, so if you primarily want to shoot it on film I would not buy it. But if you need a good zoom lens for your D3 and you'll sometimes use it, I would go ahead and get it! Hope this helps.
Great review and helpful.
How long have you had the 28 to 70? And have you experienced anything bad w/ the AF motor? Thinking of grabbing one but I am reading the reviews and I am seeing is that a number of people have had to repair them.
I had mine for upwards of two/three years ago. If you can get one, make sure the motor is quiet and it's going smoothly throughout the zoom range. Nikon may stop servicing this lens soon! Aside from that they're built like a tank. Love mine.
i use this lens for 1 1/2 year now, the AF still ok, and almost all my shoot i using this lens
for someone getting into weddings... ive done 3, have another in april... who cant afford to buy the 24, is the 28 still a great lens for it? thinking of selling my 50mm 1.4d because i have been caught out a number of times with a place being too tight. id want a lens that could do the 50 and then wider for that situation. And i also have the 80-200 2.8 ED (two touch) so im used to heavy weapons :P
Honestly the 28-70 is still a fantastic lens, I shot weddings with it before without any issues! If you can find one cheap I'd go ahead and grab it!
Thank you
perhaps a long run copy of your 28-70/2.8, mine is tack-sharp, still being excellent.
I mean the review is good, but whose really going to stop and pay attention to the corners and detail other than pros.
Wrong - pros don't do that because they know it doesn't matter 😉😉😉
Pixel peep.....i will get 28-70mm