Nikon 35-70mm f3.3-4.5 manual zoom

[Alex Muir]

I am looking for a light manual focus zoom for my Nikon bodies. Does anyone use, or have experience of this one in Ai/AiS mount? It seems to be very light and compact, but is it any good?

Alex.

 

[bdial]

They don't have a stellar reputation, especially if your favorite subject is a lens resolution chart.

But, in the real world, they will produce reasonable results. I have a 35-105 which was my go-to lens anytime I wanted to travel light, and it works very well for that. I have a pile of negatives and slides from that lens and my primes and I'm am pretty sure I wouldn't be able to tell what was from what from just looking at the negatives.

 

[chip j]

I've had one for yrs, but hardly used it, esp. since I got my 28-105AF. Can't recall if I ever made any prints w/it, though.

 

[jimjm]

Alex -

I had the 35-70/3.3-4.5 zoom for a while and it was nice and compact, but image quality wasn't too great. Close-up (sorta macro) capability at 1:4.4 was handy, but the build quality had more plastic than most other AI/AIS lenses.

For such a limited zoom range, you'll get much better images with a 50/1.8, or a 55/3.5 if you want macro. Just use your legs as your zoom.

If you really want a mid-range zoom and can handle a bit larger lens, the 28-85/3.5-4.5 is pretty good overall, both in the MF and AF versions. If you want more reach, the 35-105/3.5-4.5 is good at the longer end, but not great at the wide end. The one lens I'd be leery of is the 43-86/3.5. The early versions were bad (mine was) but they supposedly improved when the AI version came out.

Keep in mind that the Nikon mid-range zooms can have a lot of sample variation from lens to lens. Some are great at the wide end and others at the longer focal length, and vice-versa. Some lenses will also perform better or worse if they are stopped-down or wide-open. My copy of the 35-70/3.5 lens is great, except at 70mm wide open (ick!). Stop down to f8 and it's great again.

But if light and small is your main goal, IMHO you'll probably be happier with a fixed 50 or 55mm lens.

 

[mmerig]

The one I had many years ago had noticeable barrel (or maybe pin-cushion, I cannot remember) distortion when in the wider range.

 

[dynachrome]

I have one. If you close it down a little and don't use it for architectural photography it's quite good. I prefer the 43-86 AI.

 

[Alex Muir]

Thanks for the replies! I had guessed it would not give the utmost quality, but it sounds acceptable. I'm only doing 5x7 or 8x10 max so it should be ok. The weight is important, and it seems to be pretty light. I had the same bad 43-86mm experience, so didn't want to repeat that. Given the fairly low price, I think I'll try one. Thanks again.

Alex

 

[dynachrome]

Alex, I think you misunderstood my post. The original 43-86 is not very good. The later AI version is much better. People sometimes confuse the older lens converted to AI with the actual AI model and think they are both bad. That's not the case. There are plenty of other good zoom lenses which cover this range and which don't cost very much. These include the Soligor/Access/PMC 35-70/2.5-3.5, the 35-70/3.5 Vivitar, the 35-70/2.8-3.8 Vivitar, te 28-85/3.5-4.5 Tokina AT-X, the Vivitar 28-85/2.8-3.8, the Tamron 35-70/3.5, the Tamron 28-70/3.5-4.5 (both models) etc.

 

[Alex Muir]

Alex, I think you misunderstood my post. The original 43-86 is not very good. The later AI version is much better. People sometimes confuse the older lens converted to AI with the actual AI model and think they are both bad. That's not the case. There are plenty of other good zoom lenses which cover this range and which don't cost very much. These include the Soligor/Access/PMC 35-70/2.5-3.5, the 35-70/3.5 Vivitar, the 35-70/2.8-3.8 Vivitar, te 28-85/3.5-4.5 Tokina AT-X, the Vivitar 28-85/2.8-3.8, the Tamron 35-70/3.5, the Tamron 28-70/3.5-4.5 (both models) etc.

I think the one I had must have been the original version. I used it on a Nikon F. It was the first Nikon lens I bought, other than the 50 f2 that came with the camera. The 50 was excellent, and the 43-86 came as something of a disappointment. To be fair, it was inexpensive, and looked like it had seen a lot of action. There was a thread here before about the 43-86 and I seem to recall that opinions varied widely.
I have the 28-105 AF-D which works ok on the F3, but it's quite heavy, the filter size is 62mm rather than 52mm and it seems to be quite prone to flare. I bought the hood for it which helps, but it is massive, like a big plastic lamp shade.
The other lenses you mention are of interest, and I will certainly check them out. I have found that you can get really good quality lenses from independent manufacturers for a fraction of the price of a Nikon equivalent. At the moment it's a lightweight carry around zoom I'm looking for and you've given me some options I hadn't thought about.
Alex

 

[MartinCrabtree]

I have a 50-135 f3.5 constant aperture Ais. Wonderful lens. The range and weight are a bit out of your scope however pick one up if you get the chance.

 

[Ap507b]

I have had a couple of them over the years. Gave one to a mate with a F301 when he lost his film kit & a year later decided to replace it. It doesn't see a lot of use as I prefer a bag of primes but when I do want to go light, for a general purpose walkaround lens I have found the image quality quite acceptable.

You can also pick them up for under £30 over here so it is quite good value.

 

[Dan Fromm]

Bjørn Rørslett (see http://www.naturfotograf.com/index2.html) rates it 3.5.

His rating scheme:

3= Good, but not overwhelming quality. Will do for non-exacting or amateur use.
4= Very good, quality results can be expected. Such lenses can safely be applied to professional photography.

MP reviewed the AF version in the 8/86 issue, rated resolution excellent (> 50 lp/mm) at all apertures at 35 mm, 50 mm, and 70 mm and contrast @ 30 lp/mm high (> 40%) except at f/22 at 35 and 55 mm.

http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/nikon/nikkoresources/AFNikkor/AF3570mm/index.htm says that the first AF version ('86-'89) is optically identical to the MF version.

I have an MF one that is no longer (if it ever was) parfocal. Focus at 70 mm and shoot at 35 mm isn't a good idea, it is best focused at the shooting focal length.

 

[John_A]

The cheap alternative is the series e 36-72/f3.5. Light, small and affordable. Better image quality than the 43-86 in my view.

 

[Chris G]

Another vote for the 35-105 3.5-4.5. AIS. 52mm filters, small, light, metal body, and very inexpensive. It can also do macros in a pinch.

For fun I tried this on my DSLR and cant say I was not pleased with the results.

 

[flavio81]

the 28-85/3.5-4.5 is pretty good overall, both in the MF and AF versions.

+1

I had that lens in AF version. At f8 it had perfect optical performance at 28 and 35mm, excellent down to the extreme corners. 50mm and 85mm were decent too. It was really a very good performing lens, sometimes I miss it.

However, i did not use it too much because it was sort of big and bulky, and used 62 or 67mm filters-- can't recall. Instead my Canon EF 28-70 f3.5-4.5 was lighter, very good even wide open at 28mm, and perfect at all zoom settings at f8, plus it uses 52mm filters. Thus, i sold the Nikon lens.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

I am looking for a light manual focus zoom for my Nikon bodies. Does anyone use, or have experience of this one in Ai/AiS mount? It seems to be very light and compact, but is it any good?

Alex.

I have this lens and it is very light but the optical quality leaves much to be desired.It's decent at f/8-11 but no match to AI primesOK for holiday snaps if you don't mind the color fringing.You get what you pay for.

 

[M Carter]

With the 35-70 2.8 AF being findable for under $300... man, I'd rethink my weight specs!

It's metal and 62mm (I believe, don't own one anymore since I got a deal on the beastly 28-70) but a good example is one heck of a lens. Some are prone to ghosting flare, but nice focus feel for an AF lens, too and (as I recall) 1:1 macro capability built-in.

But yeah, it's heavy compared to a plastic non-constant zoom...

 

[Alex Muir]

With the 35-70 2.8 AF being findable for under $300... man, I'd rethink my weight specs!

It's metal and 62mm (I believe, don't own one anymore since I got a deal on the beastly 28-70) but a good example is one heck of a lens. Some are prone to ghosting flare, but nice focus feel for an AF lens, too and (as I recall) 1:1 macro capability built-in.

But yeah, it's heavy compared to a plastic non-constant zoom...

I know of this lens and its reputation. Used examples, however, tend to be pretty beaten up due to regular professional use. Good ones don't tend to get under 300 USD in the UK. The main consideration though is weight, and whether or not the cheap version gives acceptable results. From the posts above, I conclude that image quality may not be great, but it varies from one example to another. I may get one if the price is low enough. Images of it tend to suggest that it has a largely metal construction, but reality may be different.
If a 35-70 f2.8 AF appeared at a bargain price,however, I would certainly be tempted to forget my weight problem!

Alex.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

I have one. If you close it down a little and don't use it for architectural photography it's quite good. I prefer the 43-86 AI.

are you kidding.that lens is so bad,it gave zooms a bad reputation

 

[flavio81]

are you kidding.that lens is so bad,it gave zooms a bad reputation

The AI version has a totally different optical design to the "infamous" version.

 

[M Carter]

I know of this lens and its reputation. Used examples, however, tend to be pretty beaten up due to regular professional use. Good ones don't tend to get under 300 USD in the UK. The main consideration though is weight, and whether or not the cheap version gives acceptable results. From the posts above, I conclude that image quality may not be great, but it varies from one example to another. I may get one if the price is low enough. Images of it tend to suggest that it has a largely metal construction, but reality may be different.
If a 35-70 f2.8 AF appeared at a bargain price,however, I would certainly be tempted to forget my weight problem!

Alex.

KEH shows a "Bargain" grade for $228. My experience with KEH and "BGN" items: if I were selling them, I'd rate "like new" or "near mint". The last item I got from them was a "bargain" newer-style RB prism that looked nearly brand new - just some slight loss of paint texture here and there. That said, I haven't purchased from KEH in years, but the 8 or 9 items I did buy from them made me think they're very hard-assed about their ratings, though not sure if quality has slipped up. But you can call or email with an item # and they'll give you specifics.

Main thing with the 35-70 - some examples can get downright "milky" in high key settings or with strong light sources in the lens - veiling flare that kills contrast. I've owned two - my latest one I used pretty much for digital video (it had a gorgeous "cinematic" look) but I had to constantly watch the top shade of my matte box to control flare for things like music videos with lots of glaring lights.

Here's a video that was shot 90% with that lens (with some fairly heavy diffusion though). The behind-the-crowd camera crane stuff was shot with a Panasonic broadcast-style camera, the rest was the 35-70. You can see I really was going for lens flares and there's still good contrast in most cases.

I do miss its size now that I use the 28-70 - that thing makes my D7100 look like a coolpix!

[video=youtube;IHvyXMNQ6VU]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IHvyXMNQ6VU[/video]

 

[Eric Rose]

I must have lucked out with my 43-86 non AI. I got it in 1974 and used it for years shooting for a local newspaper. Made a ton of 11x14's with it and they looked wonderful. Did a lot of Kodachrome's with it as well and it was really sharp. Now distortion was another matter. Might try and use it on my GX1 for video work and see what happens. I also have the "famous" 35-70 and it sure is nice. Steve McCurry recommended it to me and it proved a real winner.

 

[Eric Rose]

Here's a video that was shot 90% with that lens (with some fairly heavy diffusion though). The behind-the-crowd camera crane stuff was shot with a Panasonic broadcast-style camera, the rest was the 35-70. You can see I really was going for lens flares and there's still good contrast in most cases.

What camera did you use for the video?

 

[M Carter]

What camera did you use for the video?

The lowly Canon T2i - had a D7000 then but too much jello-wobble in the footage. Sold the T2i when I got the 7100, that footage is just lovely.

But Nikon glass works fine on the EOS mount with a $20 adapter. (No metering or AF of course, but you can get some pretty looks with old AI & AIS era glass, or use your badass modern stuff - whether stills or video, digital or film, it can be a good combo if you have nikkor glass and EOS bodies around). Can't go the other way 'round though, flange-focal distance for Canon EOS mount is a couple mm shorter than Nikon F which allows for a slim adapter. (See how I mentioned "film" there so as not to get tossed out of the room??!)

In fact, there's quite a lot of mounts that can be adapted to EOS, really opens up a world of old glass.

 

[Ap507b]

I was going to offer to take some sample shots with my AIS version but it dawned on me that with a DX sensor, you wouldn't see so much of the corners which is probably where the lens performs at its worst. Sometimes Flickr has a pool of images taken with a particular lens. Not so for this one & only the F2.8 & F3.5 versions.

Best I could find is http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/50411129 which has some sample images from the AF version. They look OK to me. Earlier post says the lenses are optically the same.

I also have the AF version of the lens. Paid £20 for if off of ebay a few months ago to use instead of a body cap on my F4. Haven't finished the first film shot with it yet.