Monday, April 30, 2012

Best Alternative to Nikon 24-70 2.8G: the Nikon 28-70 2.8D

Every Nikon shooter knows that the Nikkor 24-70 2.8G is the best standard zoom for Nikon's full frame cameras.  However, at around $1900, it's not easily affordable.  There are of course third-party standard zooms that cost far less, such as from Sigma, Tamron and Tokina, but their performance is not quite as good as that of the Nikkor 24-70.

One alternative that some newer Nikon shooters might not know about is the predecessor to the 24-70, the Nikkor 28-70 2.8D.  It is no longer being sold new, but used prices are about half the price of the 24-70.

But is the 28-70 as good as the 24-70?  In this post, I compare the 28-70 to the 24-70 and let you judge for yourself.


ABOUT THE 28-70
The 28-70 is the first high-end Nikon lens I've owned.  It is an all-metal lens and feels substantial.  I don't own an 85 1.4D, but that's what it reminded me of.  It feels like you're holding an expensive watch.

The 28-70 usually comes in black like the one pictured above but there is also a white version:
image courtesy of Nikon

The 28-70 is sometimes called 'the Beast' because of its size and weight, a name that I don't think it truly deserves, because it's only slightly wider, a little shorter, and just 35 grams heavier than the 24-70.  There are some people who talk about it being too heavy.  I think they're whining like a bunch of little kittens.

The 28-70 on a D3 beside a Tamron 17-50 VC on a D70
Quick rundown of the 28-70's features:

  • Full frame FX lens - can be used on both full frame FX and APS-C DX bodies.  On a full frame, it's a standard fast zoom.  On a DX body, it covers 42-105, which is like having both a normal lens and a portrait lens with you, but no wide angle coverage.
  • Constant f/2.8 aperture
  • ED glass:  Extra-low dispersion glass minimizes chromatic aberrations.
  • SWM (silent wave motor): as an AF-S lens, the 28-70 has a silent wave motor, which allows it to focus quickly and accurately, even on smaller Nikon bodies without a built-in AF motor
  • SIC super integrated coating - reduces ghosting and flare
  • M/A switch - allows quick switching from autofocus to manual focus
  • aperture ring - as a D lens, the 28-70 has an aperture ring, which can be used to change aperture on the fly for video, adjusting aperture on older cameras, or for macro (for example, if used with a reversing ring).

Both the 28-70 and 24-70 have 15 elements in 11 groups, except that the 24-70 has 3 aspherical elements whereas the 28-70 has one.  Both have a 9 bladed diaphragm for rounder bokeh.

There are some differences in features, however.  The 24-70 has Nikon's nano crystal coating to minimize ghosting and flare.  The 24-70 also has dust/weather-sealing.  Finally, the 24-70 has a much closer minimum focus distance (15 inches vs. 27.6 inches).

Included accessories:
The 28-70 comes with a petal-shaped lens hood (HB-19) and a leatherette hard case (Nikon CL-74).



On with the shootout...

28-70 vs. 24-70: TEST PROTOCOL
I took the two lenses, mounted them alternately on a D3 on a tripod aimed at a brick wall.  I took shots at 70mm, 35mm, 28mm (and in the case of the 24-70, at 24mm as well).  Each focal length was taken at f/2.8, f/4.0 and f/5.6.

To compare the results, I took 100% crops from the center and from the upper left corner area (not literally the corner though).  This is what the uncropped shot at 28mm looks like:



Disclaimer: the 28-70 had the benefit of a microfocus adjustment.  The 24-70 here did not.

100% CROP FROM CENTER
In the slideshow below, you'll see the 28-70 shot first, then the equivalent shot from the 24-70.  If you prefer, you can click on the link to launch the album where you can view the pictures larger.


100% CROP FROM CORNER
The slideshow below is similar to the one above, except these crops are taken from top left corners of the same shots.  Web album here.


In my opinion, the 28-70 holds its own against the significantly more expensive 24-70, at least at the D3's 12 megapixel resolution.  [EDIT: But see the comments below for the performance on a D800.]  The 24-70 has a warmer color rendition, but otherwise it's hard to tell them apart unless they're side-by-side, and I'm pixel peeping really closely.

CONCLUSION
If you are looking for a more affordable alternative to the Nikon 24-70 2.8G, this is it. Together with the 24-70, this is Nikon's best standard zoom with virtually the same sharpness, yet it costs almost half as much as the 24-70.  Personally, I sold mine, but only because I found a good deal on the 24-70 and I wanted the peace of mind of having the absolute best lens for a focal range that I use very often, in case I ever upgrade to a higher resolution body.

Coming up: A review of the Tamron 28-105 f/2.8, the only lens that covers 28-105 at a constant 2.8 aperture.  I will also be reviewing the Nikon 24-70 briefly, followed by the Sigma 50 1.4.  We'll switch to wide angles again with the Tokina 11-16 2.8 and the Tokina 10-17 fisheye.  Then we'll go to the opposite end with a review of the Nikon 70-200 VR I.

OTHER COMPARISONS BETWEEN 28-70 AND 24-70



28-70 SAMPLE SHOTS
28mm at 2.8
48mm at 2.8
28mm at 4.0
Scissor sweep.  70mm at f/4.5
My professor, teaching the s-mount armbar.  50mm at 4.0
28mm at 4.0
38mm at 2.8

27 comments:

  1. I am trying to decide what standard zoom lens to get. I am shooting D800. Savings of $500 on used 28-70 vs 24-70 are significant for me. My question has to do with AF. Both 24-70 and 28-70 feature AF-S SWF, but we all know Nikon's AF-S SWF is vastly different on different lenses. It is not like Canon's USM which is super fast on everything. Take for example Nikon's 50mm 1.4G which is slooow. In fact many AF-D lenses with AF-S arguably focus faster. But my question is, in your comparison, was 24-70 faster to AF (especially in low light) or about the same as 28-70?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Congratulations on the D800! Must be awesome. I did not notice any difference in the autofocus speed between the 28-70 and 24-70 on the D3 even in low light.

      In my opinion a more significant concern may be the resolution of the D800, which is merciless on lenses. Have you seen this article? http://blog.mingthein.com/2012/04/05/and-the-nikon-d800-autofocus-saga-continues-with-some-comments-on-specific-lens-performance/ It was because I was thinking of possibly getting a D800 that I got the 24-70. Unfortunately, I'm not aware of anyone who has tested the 28-70 on a D800 yet.

      Best regards,
      Mic

      Delete
    2. I just bought a Nikon 28-70 2.8 for the D800 and it's disappointingly soft wide open at 50-70mm.

      Delete
    3. Argh... sorry to hear that! The D800 is so amazing yet so demanding! Makes me nervous about my 70-200 VR I. In any case, I truly appreciate you sharing your candid assessment. I hope it at least looks ok at prints and viewing sizes more typical for 12mp.

      Best regards,
      Mic

      Delete
    4. Here is a 100 % crop from the center at 2.8 with default settings in Lightroom 4

      (click on image to view full size)

      http://postimage.org/image/49w5e6a8x/

      Delete
    5. Thanks!!! Is that at 50mm or 70mm?

      I could be getting old, but if this is 100% it looks better than I expected, at least without seeing a shot from the 24-70 side by side.

      Thanks again!

      Best regards,
      Mic

      Delete
    6. It's at 70mm... maybe I am expecting too much, but it doesn't have the same sharpness level that the 24 70 had at 2.8 when I used it on d700.

      Delete
    7. OK if this is as 'bad' as it gets, now you've made me WANT the D800! :))

      Best regards,
      Mic

      Delete
    8. Haha sorry maybe I sound a bit spoiled but I genuinely expected better performance at 2.8... I could certainly rent the 24–70 and compare the 2

      Delete
    9. My understanding from the other comparisons I linked to is that 70mm at 2.8 is the weakest point of the 28-70, so I'm sure if you test a 24-70, the results will be sharper. Nonetheless, imo, I think that your result at 70mm 2.8 looks fine, except maybe if you typically make very large prints or crop very aggressively. (Then again I haven't been to an optometrist in years.) Just my $0.02.

      Best regards,
      Mic

      Delete
    10. To me the 28-70 seems about as sharp as the Tamron 28-75 2.8 at the same settings when I owned it, so I am going to sell it since the extra cost doesn't justify itself. I don't know if I should try another copy of the 28-70 though....

      Delete
    11. Hi! A couple of comments:
      First, did you calibrate the focus on both lenses? My copy of the 28-70 required a significant microfocus adjustment (-20 on my camera) and was much sharper after I adjusted it.

      Second, this is just my opinion, but it seems to me that 3rd party lenses, especially when used with full frame cameras, are usually quite good at the very center of the image (like the middle 10-15% or so of the frame) but less so outside of the center, so if that outer area is relevant for your kind of photography, you may want to compare their performance that way as well if you haven't yet.

      The Tamron 28-75 in particular seems to follow this pattern. On DX it's great (I can attest to this personally because I used to have one) but on FX they say it's less impressive. You can see this on the photozone.de reviews for the Tamron 28-75 on APS-C and full frame:
      - APS-C http://www.photozone.de/nikon--nikkor-aps-c-lens-tests/291-tamron-af-28-75mm-f28-sp-xr-di-ld-aspherical-if-nikon-lab-test-report--review?start=1
      - full frame (Canon) http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/418-tamron_2875_28_5d?start=1

      I suspect that the 28-70's mtf scores are closer to those of the 24-70 (especially at shorter focal lengths) instead of the Tamron 28-75.
      24-70: http://www.photozone.de/nikon_ff/456-nikkor_afs_2470_28_ff?start=1

      Best regards,
      Mic

      Delete
    12. i think The 28-70 focuses accurately on my camera.. I will recheck, but I don't think it's a focus issue.

      With the Tamron, it seems to depend on what copy of that lens you get. I went through 3 horrible copies in Nikon mount... That said, there are some samples taken with the Tamron 28-75 on D800e, and the corners do no seem bad - see here: http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fpcfoto.biz%2Fna-prvi-pogled-nikon-d800e

      Anyways, the 28-70 2.8 might be better in the corners than the Tamron (I don't know), but for the price increase it should be much better. I haven't noticed too much of a difference from a good copy of the Tamron 28-75 so far.

      Delete
    13. If the Tamron would perform close to the much more expensive 28-70 i think that would be great! It also gives me hope for the upcoming 24-70 vc.

      Delete
  2. Maybe I don't have the best sample, but I am probably going to get primes for the D800. The 24-70 is too huge, expensive and heavy and not perfect either). I was hoping the 28-70 2.8 would have good sharpness wide open, otherwise why buy it over primes or consumer grade lenses if I have to stop down.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Good point (if I may say so) though primes aren't immune from the D800's withering punishment either. In the article I linked above, Ming Thein found the performance of even the vaunted 85 1.4G to fall short of the D800's exacting standards.

      Best regards,
      Mic

      Delete
  3. To a certain point, modern lens quality will always be insufficient for modern sensors and more and more so in the future. The lenses progression in the last 30 years was minimum. Has a answer one should focus the attention on the combination with the software and the type of file (raw at this point) that he/she will be using. Miracles have already been done after a good software modulation. The secret is more and more on the software progression and less and less on the hardware, given the quality level already achieved and the physical limitations of lenses in particular.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I've certainly benefited from advances in software, such as from lens correction in lightroom, and automatic removal of chromatic aberration. I hope we see more of the developments that you noted. Thanks!

      Best regards,
      Mic

      Delete
  4. I will buy one soon a 2nd hand unit

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Awesome! Please feel free to post links to your shots.

      BTW, FYI I am also working on a review of the 24-70.

      Best regards,
      Mic

      Delete
  5. I have been using the Nikon 28-70 2.8 with my D800 since early May and find it excellent very sharp and contrasty and completely clear from CA,edge to edge sharp from f4.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks friend! And thank you on behalf of readers who are looking into this lens.

      Best regards,
      Mic

      Delete
  6. I've had my 28/70 for many years and it has paid for itself so many times I can't count. Weddings, concerts, dance, events sports and anything else you can think of. When the 24/70 just came out a friend bought one but was out of country for a month and asked me to pick it up and use it. I shot and compared both lenses back to back for that month. My findings were that there was no measurable difference in print between the two and this covers many different scenarios or usage. I also believe that the 28/70 is a much tougher lens made for hard professional usage. My recommendation would be if you are looking for a top lens in this focal length the 28/70 really can't be beat. I'm taking mine to the grave.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you for sharing your experience comparing the two! I agree, the 28-70 is an awesome lens and is arguably a better value than the 24-70. For me the most significant advantage of the 24-70 is the closer focusing distance, which for some people will not really matter.

      Best regards,
      Mic

      Delete
    2. Just purchased on used on Ebay. Looking forward to trying it out on my D800. The comments and reviews here helped me a lot with my decision. Thank you all!

      Delete
    3. Congratulations Albert! I sold my lens (to upgrade to the 24-70) but recently repurchased the 28-70. I haven't tried it on a D800, but I have tried it on a D600 and am very happy with it (after AF fine-tuning). I will be posting a more detailed post about this. However, assuming you got it at a good price, I think it is a better value than the 24-70.

      Best regards,
      Mic

      Delete
  7. heihei. i personnally own a d800 for a while now, i have a 50 1.8G and the 24-70. i had for a moment the 85 1.4G.
    my personnal impressions are those: D800 is yes very demanding in term of lens quality but also in term of post processing. out of camera files are kinda soft-ish with any lenses. this is the opposite on canon gear with aggressive internal processing. but in reality it is still usable with most of the lenses including the 85 1.4G. i tested a lot the new 1.8 version and there is no way it is "better". here is a crop after post processing of the 85 1.4G i posted on another review since i couldn't drink the stupidity of people comparing 2 different class of lenses:

    http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/50598750?image=0

    I have to say that the fancy nano crystal coat on nikon lenses is not only marketing and not only against flare, it works damn good to pull out micro contrast. i could notice that on any "pro" lens i tested. my 24-70 is always on the nose of my body now. so I doubt the 28-70 is that bad with a good work on computer.

    concerning the fact that the lenses formulas are not evolving for 30 years like i've read above.. true and false. if there was no marging of improvement then the new canon 24-70II wouldn't be that sharp. also the medium format lenses wouldn't be so crazy perfect. there is still a big edge before technically talking the sensors are going to outresolve the lenses. they are just going slow, as the sensor technologies (which are outdated for a long time already..). this is simply the rule of market, brands need us to buy new gear often enough for the cost of research. D4 can handle 400.000 clics, why they don't do the same with all the nikon line? you certainly know the answer. I guess the same rule is appliable with lenses. the margin of benefit on high end 35mm are not that big anyway. they don't go to fast that once we buy a new lens, we don't change for the next 20 years.

    when you look how things are going .. 35mm become a threat to medium format, expert compacts become a threat to 35mm also, (cf: sony RX1, fuji products..) this is going to make high end products even more expensive since the market is evolving mostly from the bottom becoming in a way more suitable for most application concerning seize and weigh. and this with the technologie created for high end, paradoxal isn't it? maybe the aps-c sensors will tend to disappear into traditionnal DSLR to end up as a norme into comapct bodies. In any case i don't think we can expect huge changes in a near future, unless some small brands throw the brik through the window to wake big brands up. lets salute sigma, sony, tamron and fuji for that, they are the ones still offering some advanced stuffed while all together they just eat the rests of canikon. sorry, what was it about already? ^^

    ReplyDelete

Thanks for your comment. It will be published as soon as we get a chance to review it, sorry for that, but we get lots of spam with malicious links.