24-70 2.8L or 28-702.8L

[hodad66]

I keep reading about lens shade attachment, dust cover & other broken parts of the 24-70. Would I be better off going for the older 28-70L instead? Is it more robust? Does it focus more consistantly? Thanx :roll:

[scottbergerphoto]

I keep reading about lens shade attachment, dust cover & other broken parts of the 24-70. Would I be better off going for the older 28-70L instead? Is it more robust? Does it focus more consistantly? Thanx :roll:
www.luminous-landscape.com did a comparison of the two lenses, and chose the 24-70 f/2.8 as a superior lens. I use it as my main walking around lens. It's built like a tank. I really like it. Here are some shots using it: http://www.pbase.com/scottbergerphoto/brooklyn_nyc
Scott

[CyberDyneSystems]

I am sure the merits of the 24-70mm are well worth it, but personally this is my lesat used focal range... so when I found a good deal on a used 28-70mm for under $600.00 i jumped on it. :)

Still a damn fine lens though!

[Belmondo]

I am really aware of only one reoccurring complaint on the 24-70, and that's the ease with which some ham-fisted people have been able to twist the zoom ring off its pins. In my mind, this is more an operator error problem and not a design problem.

Performance-wise, the two lenses are pretty darned close, so if you can get a really good deal on mint copy of the older lens, you're in good shape. I see that CDS says it's his least used focal range, but it's just the opposite with me, so I even store my camera with this lens on it. He takes a lot of bird pictures, and I take a lot of train pictures, so chances are he wouldn't have much need for a lens this wide.