Nikkor AF 35-70mm f2.8D Push Pull

I've been offered a 'new' Nikkor AF 35-70mm f2.8D which seems to be an earlier version

of the current model as it has a Push Pull zoom action.

 

Does anyone have any experience of this lens and are Nikon still producing this version?

 

Any input much appreciated.

All versions of this lens have a push-pull zoom.

I have the lens and have a bit of a love-hate relationship with it. It dosn't have a great

feel -- the push-pull is annoying as is the fact that it gets longer at 35mm, the focal

range is somewhat limited, and I wonder what Nikon was thinking when they included

the micro focusing at the 35mm end (?). (Anyone use this in their photography?). But

it is reasonably fast, isn't too heavy, is affordable and takes VERY VERY sharp

pictures. A number of photo.net members have commented favorably on the

sharpness of the lens. So I often find myself putting it on my F100 for slides when

I'm taking a day hike or a city walk with my camera.

 

All this said, I'd take it if the price were right.

I have had the earlier non-D version since 1990 and for years it was one of my favorite. A couple of years back, it developed mole inside and I decided not to repair.

 

Optically it is an excellent lens. IMO the main drawback is that the zoom range is pretty limited, as 35mm is not all that wide even on a film body. On a DSLR, it is not that useful.

What Bob said... I bought mine used about a year ago because it was offered to me at a great price. I didn't think I would use it much but now, I wonder how I got by so long without one. It's my favorite "walking around" lens and I often leave the house with just it and a 28mm prime for the F3. Very sturdy and compact. As wierd as it sounds, I actually kind of like the push-pull zoom in this focal length. Maybe I'm just accustomed to it but it doesn't bother me. The one nit-picky thing I don't like about it is the rotating front element. That's a minor inconveninience, though, on an otherwise fantastic lens. I have compared my slides to some taken with a 28-70 AF-S and can't tell a difference. Considering that you can get a used one for less then $400 these days, there's really no reason not to purchase it.

It's a very sharp lens and the push-pull zoom doesn't really bother me. I use it on my film and digital bodies. It's useful on the digi as a normal to short tele and makes a decent portrait lens.

Great lens and I really do use the macro.

 

Robert

"But it is reasonably fast, isn't too heavy, is affordable and takes VERY VERY sharp pictures"

 

YES!

I love this lens because it is very sharp and I like the constant f 2.8 stop across all focal lengths. The push pull does not bother me. I bought mine used (at a discounted price)and that makes it even more valuable to me. Joe Smith

I have owned this lens for about 10 years now and I love it for its surperb optical quality, which I rate as a 5 out of 5. While I don't love push-pull zoom, this is the only design that allows you to create "zooming" effects, which you cannot do with a 2-ring design. Oh yes, one more thing. There is this material on the outside of the lens called....let me think, I haven't seen it in a while.....yes, METAL! In a nutshell, its a keeper.

Optically it's beautiful, and the fixed f2.8 is a big plus of course. Everything else about it

sucks.

 

But I can't seem to part with it.

<< A couple of years back, it developed mole inside >>

 

You're darn lucky it wasn't your 600/4 lens. That one would have developed a badger inside!

 

Bruce: I don't know if NIkon really still makes the 35-70/2.8D lens but I do know you can still buy it new (imported or USA warranty) from B&H photo in New York. So I count that as either "in production" or close enough.

 

Not so long ago the dream trio for many Nikon owners was the f/2.8 zoom collection of the 20-35, this 35-70 you are considering, and the 80-200. The 35-70 has always been loved for its crisp and sharp images, but it does have some designed-in handling characteristics that not everyone loves (see other posts here). Also, the zoom range is a little stingy, which is what always kept me from grabbing one. But the truth is, there are zero hidden warts on the lens. All of its warts are right out there where you can see 'em. So get an understanding of what the lens does and how it handles, then make your informed decision.

 

Be well,

I'll echo a number of the answers here. I picked one up a few years ago very cheaply (the minimum aperture lock was broken), and found it to be extremely sharp--made some of my favorite images with it.

 

Over time, I found myself using it less and less, due to the ergonomics (push-pull, rotating front element) and the limited zoom range. I thought several times about selling it as a result.

 

And then I bought a D70. Suddenly, it once again became an extraordinarily useful lens--right now, I'd guess that it takes up about 60% of the time on the front of my camera.

 

It has its drawbacks, but if you can find one at a good price, and you are sure you can use it, I wouldn't hesitate to go for it.

I've been using mine for over ten years, along with the aforementioned 20-35mm zoom,

and it is a great lens.

Hi Bruce,

 

This is a great lens. Superb images, solid built quality, will outlast the owner's lifetime!!!

 

I had one before. But for the same reason as Shun has pointed out ie not wide enough or not telephoto enough for my type of photography so I sold it and got a 17-35mm lens and a 80-200 lens. But now I think I should have kept it (NAS!!!!) eventhough I am happy with my current combo.

 

Cheers,

Many thanks for the advice and comments.

 

Originally looked at the AFS 28-70mm f2.8 but as I already use a 17-35mm f2.8 the

35-70mm f2.8 is now the obvious choice.

 

The lens is new and boxed etc and selling for ?435 ($795) so I'm going for it.

 

Thanks again.

It makes little sense to complain about the zoom range of the

AF 35~70/2.8D. The 2x range is the reason why the lens has

excellent optical qualities. To get a longer 2.5x range, again

with excellent image qualities, the AF-S 28~70/2.8D ED-IF is

larger, heavier, has a larger filter size and cost a lot more.

These are the penalties you pay for image quality. <br>

<br>

Why didnt Nikon hold the filter size on the 28~70/2.8 to 62mm?

Because youd pay a penalty in the form of less even

illumination center to edge. There are a number of current Nikkor

zooms with longer zoom ranges, lighter weight and some with lower

prices than the 35~70/2.8 and 28~70/2.8 but you pay a penalty in

linear distortion, maximum aperture, variable aperture, and

various other optical and quality faults. <br>

<br>

Every lens is a compromise, especially a zoom. I own the AF 35~70/2.8D

and love the lens. Id like to have a AF-S 28~70/2.8D ED-IF.

Due to size and weight Id very likely keep the 35~70/2.8

even if I owned the 28~70/2.8. This is the same question as the F5

v. F100. I prefer the F5 but Im not always willing to carry

the extra weight.<br>

<br>

Because I mix and match Ill carry a prime at each end for

use with the 35~70/2.8 such as a 24/2.8 AI and a 105/2.5 AIS or

105/4.0 AI Micro with a 50/1.8 AI or 50/1.4 AIS in reserve for

low light. This all depends on where Im going and with whom:

day hikes, picnics, parties, etc. <br>

<br>

My advice is if the price is right go for it, the AF 35~70/2.8D

is a great lens.<br>

<br>

Regards,<br>

<br>

Dave Hartman.

Clearly it is an individual decision, but the lens I replaced my 35-70mm/f2.8 with is precisely the 28-70mm/f2.8 AF-S, which is a lot more expensive, heavier, and larger. However, for my type of photography, the additional 28-35mm range makes it a lot more useful on film bodies and I don't need to switch to my 17-35 as often. For example, when I shoot events, frequently there is simply no time to change lenses and the 28-70 is far more versatile. However, your mileage may vary; especially on DSLRs, the whole game changes.

Having said all this: the thing not only rocks... it also rattles.

 

Shaking this lens produces a distinct rattling of the front element which one wouldn't

expect of a brand new unit.

 

It would be comforting to know that this is normal?

Yes, if you shake it the front of the 35-70mm/f2.8 rattles a bit. I don't know whether that should be considered "normal" or not, but mine does that since day 1 (I bought it new) and that doesn't bother me.

Can anyone tell me if there's an optical difference between the D and non-D versions? I've been searching on the web and can't find the answer. Thanks.

There is no optical difference between the earlier non-D and the current D versions.

 

In fact, the two versions are pretty much identical except for the extra electronics/firmware for the D (distance) feature, the D marking on the lens barrel and perhaps the little lock on the aperture ring (old turn lock and the new slide lock) for locking the ring to the minimum aperture.

My AF 35~70/2.8D has slight play fore to aft and radially at

the front. If its shaken well it has a slight but distinct

rattle. It also has a slight gearie sound when focused manually.

It all seems quite normal to me. The manual focus feel is quite good though a bit fast.

Phew... becoming just a tiny bit paranoid there.

 

Obvious question is: WHY does it rattle? My other Nikkors (17-35mm f2.8D, 70-210mm

f4-5.6D and 85mm f1.4D) are all fine. Granted there is some play in the older lenses but

nowhere near as audible as this.

 

Very strange...

<em>"Obvious question is: WHY does it rattle?" --Bruce

Garrett<br>

</em><br>

Because you shake it! OK, that was a dumb.<br>

<br>

All mechanical devices must have some tolerance of one form or

another if they are going to move. If you check your cameras and

lenses you will find there is play or tolerance between the

bayonets. You can twist the lenses in a radial motion slightly or

move it up and down or side to side. Most folks find this play

when they have their first experience with a telephoto lens that

has a tripod collar or perhaps use a stack of extension tubes.

Some become alarmed unnecessarily.<br>

<br>

Temperature can play its part. All Nikkor ED lenses that Ive

seen focus past infinity. This is another kind of tolerance. A

long aluminum barrel may grow in length just enough to prohibit

infinity focus if this tolerance was not present. There may be

other reasons.<br>

<br>

Those mechanical devices that have no tolerance do not move. An

example might be the cast iron sleeve in an aluminum engine block.

To install and remove the sleeve from some motorcycle and model

airplane engines you heat the aluminum block on a gas stove in an

empty, dry cast iron frying pan. The aluminum block expands more

than the cast iron sleeve so the cast iron sleeve drops free. <br>

<br>

Sometimes grease or oil fills the gap to make the action smooth

and avoid ware. Examples might be the helicoid in a manual focus

lens or oil between the cylinder and piston & rings in your

car or trucks engine. <br>

<br>

Anyway you do not need to worry. This is typical of the lens and

necessary for its correct function.<br>

<br>

Best,<br>

<br>

Dave Hartman.