Tale of two lenses

How much difference is there really?

Here I compare the Nikon 24-70 a universally beloved lens with Nikon 28-80 which is in a completely different price category. My point: there is not that much difference.

Is this even a contest?

On paper, these two lenses are worlds apart, and it should not even be a contest.

Let's start with the obvious. If you want to grab a Nikon 24-70 even the older non VR model shown here, you will end up paying about 700 used. The Nikon 28-80 sells for about 50 (also used, there is no new version). That is not a little difference. Is the Nikon 24-70 fourteen times better than the Nikon 28-80? Is it even twice as good? Not if you ask me, but I have these pictures to show you, fell free to form your own opinion.

Then there is the weight for me one of the more important aspects when looking for equipment. With 250 grams, the Nikon 28-80 is about 3.5 times lighter than the Nikon 24-70. Which again is not little. More importantly, this moves a mid range zoom into the weight class of a prime lens. It is obvious that Nikon does not pack weight into a lens for nothing. So there is a price to pay for the lighter weight. This is durability, quality in handling, and also ergonomics.

The maximum aperture or speed of the lens is across the range about twice as much, which makes the Nikon 24-70 about four times faster. For some people this maybe a critical point. For me, moving from ISO 100 to 400 is not that much a deal. Or in other words, I do not want to pay 10x more so that I can drop ISO from 1600 to 400.

The focal length is ever so slightly different. To be honest the difference in 24 to 28 on the lower end is for me more significant than the increase in the longer end from 70 to 80. So the nikon 24-70 has advantages here, no question, but not by much.

I have an entire page on quality of photographic equipment and the most important aspect is how easy it is too get my shots with the equipment. Nikon 24-70 is great, no question about that. Problem is Nikon 28-80 is also very good. If you are examining pixels you will find things (well even I can spot some) but then again, 14x price 3.5x weight.

The competitors

On the left, the Nikon 28-80 and on the right, the Nikon 24-70.

The Nikon 28-80 very clearly wins over for the compactness.
When it comes to build quality and how sturdy the lens feels in your hand, this is a no contest Nikon 24-70 wins easily.

How much can we see

I have used the Nikon D610 on a tripod and made shots at f/5.6 with both lenses using a timer at either end of their focal lengths. While I paid a bit of attention in making this a nice comparison, this is by no means a studio or lab quality comparison that you will find on the www. But it is representative of what will happen when you use these lenses.

Focal length

I have this discussion often, there is not so much difference between 24-28 or 70-80mm focal length. Here the pictures make it also seen. In both cases one step back and one step forward is the difference (not even that). Of course there will be cases where you can not take a step back that you had the 24mm or similarly a point where you can not approach anymore and the 80mm will fill the frame a bit more. It is also a bit of a preference.

If everything were equal, I would go for the 24-70. I think 24 is as wide as anybody would need, while for the long end, I prefer longer lenses. So whether or not this lens goes to 70 or 80 does not matter so much.

Nikon 24-70

Nikon 28-80

Sharpness

There are 5 shots for each lens here.

from the middle, the wide end (24/28). This image is upsampled three times
from the middle, the long end (70/80)
from the corner, the wide end (24/28). This image is upsampled three times
from the corner, the long end (70/80)
from the wider corner, the wide end (24/28). This image is upsampled three times

If you check the middle shot on the long end you will definitely say Nikon 24-70 is clearly better (it is actually). But take a look at the last shots, far corner on the wide end. There the situation is reversed (notice that this is more to the corner for Nikon 28-80 so it would be expected to be even worse).

Nikon 24-70

Nikon 28-80

In conclusion

There is not much to discuss that the Nikon 24-70 is the better lens in terms of performance.
But it is not 14x better as the price suggests, or worth carrying 3.5x more weight.
I actually love the Nikon 24-70 and at work I use it a lot. I did not buy that lens (it is at work), and I would never buy it at that price. I also do not like carrying it around. It is something else when you grab it at work and go somewhere quickly and make a few shots, it is something else if you carry it in your backpack the whole time. Although I am not a fan of mid-range zooms I might take the Nikon 28-80 on a trip much before I would consider taking the Nikon 24-70.
While it looks like a toy, the Nikon 28-80 is actually ridiculously good. It passes the most important quality test, it is easy to make very good looking pictures with it and even in close scrutiny the pictures look good. There are better lenses out there, but for this price and weight I think the Nikon 28-80 is a winner.

These pages are for Amateur Photographers and not really for seasoned photographers and professionals. I have no affiliation or commercial interest with any brand/make. I write from my own experience. I ended up using mainly Nikon, so I am more familiar with this brand than others. See price for notes on pricing as well as photography related links.