Nikon 35-70mm 2.8 vs. Tokina AT-X 270 28-70mm 2.8

I realize that comparing these two lenses may seem a little rediculous

due to the reputation of this Nikon lense, but I wanted to see what

peoples reactions (pro/cons) were to both lenses, and whether cost,

quality, etc. may justify one over the other. I am looking for a

mid-range zoom to put on my F100 as my primary 'walking' lense and

these two were continually mentioned. Thanks for any advice. And feel

free to mention others (mid-range) but I really want to know why you

justify buying that lense.

My main problem with the 35-70mm/f2.8 is that its wide end (35mm) is not all that wide on a film SLR.

Yes, Nikon's 35-70 has a very good reputation, but the 28-70 will of course give you a bit

longer range of focals so, if optically similar, I would opt for the Tokina. I don't know

about the Tokina (though I am looking into getting the 12-24) but don't overlook the

Tamron 28-75/2.8. A very, very good mid-range zoom.

My standard 35mm travel kit has been an F100, Nikon 35-70 f/2.8 and a Nikon 20mm f/2.8. I can't say enough good things about the 35-70, but you've probably heard them all--compact, pro build, and superb optical quality. I'm no big fan of the 28mm focal length, so I don't mind swapping it off for the 20 when I go wide, but a lot of photogs like the one-lens thing. I haven't used that particular Tokina, but I have some other Tokina lenses and I think they deliver 80% of the quality for 50% of the price, so it's not a bad tradeoff.

I have used the Tokina 28-70 for quite some time. It's a marvalous lens. It's very sharp even wide open in the corners. It is a bit heavy but very well made. I hope you have looked at the 50mm f1.8.

I have a Nikon 35-70mm/2.8, and if I can limit myself to that focal range, then it is superb. However, that FL range is obviously limited for a walkabout lens.

 

Have a look at the Nikon 24-85mm AFS; not in the same class as the 35-70mm and not a 2.8, but good enough, plus a more useful FL range.

The tokina 28-80/2.8 has been given better reviews than the 28-70, I have the 28-80 and like it except below f4 where I consider it very soft. For soft portraits this is actually a feature(!), but when you need sharpness, it must be at f4 or preferably f5.6. The 28-80 is more expensive than Tokina 28-70, and half the price of the Nikon 28-70, which is sharper at f2.8 (but even this Nikon is much better at f4 or f5.6).

For 35mm film format, I use the Tokina AT-X 28-70 f2.8 since it shares 77mm filter with my other travel lenses, the Nikkor 20-35 f2.8 and 80-200 f2.8 AF-D. However, I often just make do with the latter two.

if you frequently use a polarizer, the filter ring of the 35-70 nikon rotates with focusing, and the focusing action is completely undamped. It's a minor annoyance, but a constant one for me.

 

takes marvelous pictures though.

Ben, you might want to go to eBay and look at the used lens being sold there. Notice the

price the Nikon's get compared to the others. This knowledge might help you make up your

mind.

 

I have a Nikon 35-70 AF 2.8. My wife will only let me photograph her with this one lens;

because I do my best work with it. And,, I ain't no good at taking pictures. It's the lens.

Shun, while we're on lens, can I ask if the Nikon 80-200AF F2.8 (not a D) will meter with my D70? tks..bob

Of course it will meter. The only difference would be the D(istance) data and its application to 3D Matrix flash exposure.

Yaron, tks..now that you said that, I seem to remember reading a previous post about that very issue. So I couldn't realize the full potential of my SB800 d/70 if I use that non D lens, right. Ok tks..bob

Any Nikon lens with a (working) build-in CPU will meter with the D70, and all AF lenses (except for the very rare FM3A lenses), Pre-D or D, have a built-in CPU.

 

Your 80-200mm/f2.8 AF pre-D will definitely meter with your D70. I used to have that lens. Optically it is great. You'll find its AF very slow, especially on a body such as the D70 that has a weak AF motor inside.

<i>So I couldn't realize the full potential of my SB800 d/70 if I use that non D lens, right. </i>

<p>

I wouldn't worry about it. I've never had complaints about flash exposure made with non-D lenses that weren't also true with D lenses. It doesn't seem to make much difference in the real world. Certainly not enough to deter you from using the very fine 80-200 2.8.

Ben, some years ago I had the same situation to select between Nikon and Tokina zoom. I

made extensive Googling and found that all reviewers said Tokina to be sharper than

Nikon. I bought it and I've been satisfied, I'm using it extensively in F5, F100 and in F3,

where the change to manual focusing is fast and logic. Actually the version I have, is

f2.6.

The 35-70 2.8 Nikkor is a lens that I use extensively. It is a FANTASTIC lens! Extremely sharp and excellent contrast.

 

I've only handled the Tokina and the size of it turned me off. The difference between 35mm and 28mm is so close that I don't think you will notice a difference (24mm to 35mm yes, definetly). I realize the range of the Nikkor can be limiting, but if you realize this then you either take along another, wider lens or work within the range of the lens. I had (and sold) a 28-105 Nikkor because it just wasn't wide enough for a TRAVEL lens. But I wouldn't consider the 35-70 as my only travel lens either. For that, I would look at the 24-85 lenses (and maybe the 24-120...though it's really slow).

 

For a "walk around lens", I think the Nikkor would be a good choice. My usual walk around lens is a 35mm Leica prime, with maybe a collapsible 50 in my pocket. You've got it all covered with the Nikkor...and then some!