Firstly, 28x isn't the magnification of a telescope, it's more a magnification of a pair of binoculars. Mid and high end telescopes have a magnification ratio of 200x - 500x.
I have been researching telescopes quite a bit lately, and the only telescopes that will advertise a 200-500X magnification (without added eyepieces) are incredibly poor quality department store type telescopes which use a high magnification to imply quality. High magnification without optical quality and light gathering ability to support it will not get you anything.
I was looking in the $500-$1500 range (certainly at least qualifies as mid, though high end telescopes can cost many thousands). Many had only 20X-80X with the included eyepiece/s. Also, many are rated at the highest useful magnification. In other words, the point at which the image is getting so poor, that further magnification will result in diminishing returns. Even some scopes well upwards of $2000 listed 300X-450X as the highest useful magnification. And even in that case this would require expensive additional eyepieces, barlow lens magnification multipliers, etc. I'm not saying a mid-high end telescope couldn't do 200X-500X, but to imply that simply because the magnification used was 28X this wasn't a telescope is ridiculous.
Just as you can get eyepieces for higher magnification, you can get them for lower magnification as well. Lower magnifications are good for wider fields of view, as well as for situations where a higher magnification would just be impractical, such as viewing boats in the above picture.
I have several sets of binoculars, 8X, 10X, and one that is 16X. I don't use the 16X much because the field of view is poor, the view is shakier, and that level of magnification just isn't really helpful very often vs. 8X or 10X. 28X sounds much more like spotting scope territory.
Poll