AF NIKKOR 2.8D 35-70

[dpurdy]

Anybody use one of those lenses? Is it any good? When you get a zoom lens like that going from 35 to 70, does it tend to be a better or sharper or less flare prone lens at the middle or one end of the range?

I have a 2.8D 28-105 Tamron that is a great lens except that it is so large and heavy and it seems to flare some, and it cost a lot of money... which the 35-70 NIKKOR doesn't. Should the NIKKOR be just as sharp as the Tamron?

Dennis

 

[keithwms]

Have a look at photodo.

http://www.photodo.com/products.html?manuid=2&name=Nikon

 

[chriscrawfordphoto]

The Nikkor is likely sharper than the Tamron. A lot of people think it is even sharper than Nikon's 35mm f2 prime lens and on par with Nikon's 50mm and 85mm 1.8 lenses.

 

[Pinholemaster]

The Nikkor is much better made than the Tamron.

I prefer the Nikkor 20-70 f/2.8 over the 35-70 f/2.8.

 

[Kevin Kehler]

If you can afford it, use a 24-70 f/2.8 Nikkor. It will only work on AF bodies (so F5, F6, etc.) but I have never heard a bad thing about one except the price.

 

[dpurdy]

I got the 35-70 off ebay with an F100 body. It is metal and sturdy but seems rather low tech compared to the other D series lenses I have and the push pull zoom seems backward and counter intuitive. Still I like the range being just a bit on either side of normal. Just curious if this is a popular lens and if people find it high quality over all or if there is a particular focal distance and fstop that it is best at.

thanks for the replys
Dennis

 

[chriscrawfordphoto]

Dennis,

It is one of the older lenses in the line, so the ergonomics are crappy but the image quality is great.

 

[narsuitus]

Since I have never used the 28-105 Tamron, I cannot comment on it.

However, I have used the 35-70mm Nikon for some time. It is a well built lens with very good image quality. Some do not like the push/pull zoom feature but I prefer it to a rotating collar.

One of its short comings is its auto focus speed which is fast enough for wedding events but too slow for fast action sporting events.

Another short coming is that attached filters rotate as the lens focuses. This is a major problem if you plan on using graduated neutral density filters on the lens.

 

[Craig]

I tried one side by side with the Nikkor 24-85 f2.8-4, and I found the 24-85 noticably sharper. I also tried the 24-70 f2.8 and the 24-85 was sharper as well. I think the 35-70 and 24-70 were pretty close to each other, there wasn't much to chose from there, optically.

 

[Chaplain Jeff]

Hello,

The 35-70mm (non-D) was the first AF lens I owned - bought it with my Nikon F4. GREAT lens.

The "D" is a non issue. In Nikon "D" means flash distance metering. I have owned and shot multiple lenses of both generations and there is little to no variation in quality or exposure when using them (flash or no flash). In my observation, it was primarly a marketing tool rather than a technological advance from Nikon. Otherwise, your lens and the one I refer to are identical.


"narsuitus" are you referring to the great little AFS lens? I agree that it is one of Nikon's best zooms in that range. Too bad they discontinued it. I bought one new when they first came out to shoot on my D2H and absolutely loved it - especially at a fraction of the price of it's big brother the 24-70mm, f/2.8 which it constantly was outperforming in tests.

The 35-70mm is an older design and the newer zooms probably are sharper and definately faster . That's not to say the older zoom isn't good. It is. Very good. Remember, it's a Nikkor. I doubt the Tamron is up to the same specs.

Good luck.

 

[dpurdy]

It is all anecdotal as they say but when I got my first new F100, I got the Nikkor 28-105 and the lens was disappointingly crap. I sold it on Craig's list and bought a new 2.8 D 28-105 Tamron which was way better. Unfortunately also way bigger. I can't say that the Tamron is any better in build quality but it is amazingly sharp. Just on sharpness alone I would say it is on par or better than all my older Nikkor prime lenses.

I was preparing yesterday to take the 35-70 out for an environmental portrait of a couple and looking through it thinking about my subject to camera distance I noticed distortion. Or it sure looked like the straight lines on the edges were curving unless I was absolutely square to them. I decided to use the 85 instead. I am going to do some side by side tests and get some "anecdotal" info.
Thanks for all the replies
Dennis