nikon zoom opinions/warnings?

I'm going to buy a mid-range nikon zoom to use on an N80.

Right now it looks like the 35-70mm f2.8 AF zoom is the one I'll

get. At about $600 with the Nikon rebate it's the price range I'm

looking for and roughly the focal length I'm looking for. Any

thoughts on better zooms in that range or warnings against this

particular lens?

I do a quite a bit of low-light shooting, so the 2.8 is definitely

important.

Thanks!

It's a killer lens, and it does all the things it does very well. It gets slagged now and again for being 'not versatile enough'. A lot of people seem to try it and then sell it off for something with a broader range; consequently they are readily available used for a substantial discount.

 

I've had one and sold it, I regret it. I still have one at work, and I've shot with three or four others. Great lens.

It's a lens with great value even now that the 28-70/2.8 exists since the price and weight gap is so big. I briefly used one and wish that I had one.

I own and use a Nikkor AF 35-70mm f/2.8. It is a terrific lens. I have been extremely

pleased with the results. It is a reasonably fast, versatile "normal" lens.

Add me to the list. I had a 28-70 AF-S and sold it to buy the 35-70. The size and weight of the AF-S lens was just ridiculous, and the only advantage (for me) was the extra angle at the short end. But I've learned to live with that limitation, and the 17-35, another killer zoom, more than compensates. But the 35-70 2.8 is excellent by any measure.

I have one and do not feel limited by its range. It doesn't go as wide as the 28-70 AFS but cost a fraction of the price. It is very sharp and contrasty. I use it as a polyvalent 50. Tamron offers a 28-105 2.8 albeit at a slightly higher price and Sigma also has a 24-70 and a 28-70 2.8 that are cheaper. I believe these three lenses exhibit more distorsion than the Nikon. Well you can't go wrong with the Nikon anyway! And it is solidly built.

I've been using this for a few months and really like it.

The focus is spot on, quiet, quick, and doesn't hunt.

The picture quality seem excellent edge to edge at all apitures and distance/zoom points (at slight caveat on 24 @ 3.5 but that could be me).

 

Solid without any zoom rattle or play. Did I say I love the AF-S focus...yeah repeating myself.. I'll go way now ;{)

 

GJM

The 35-70 2.8D is my standard "everyday" lens. I have found the results to be

fantastic. tack sharp, and with excellent contrast. While some comlain of the limited

zoom range, I have found myself hardly craving a wider "everyday" focal length. $600

seems a little steep, as these lenses are available in mint condition for $350-$450. I

bought mine in mint condition for $350, and after two years have had no problems. I

would not reccomend the tamron 28-105 2.8. I used it for a couple of weeks and

sold it. The sigma lenses are very good, but tend to not hold there value very well,

and seem to vary in quality from sample to sample. Also, the tokina 28-80 2.8 ATX

has mixed reviews, and seems to vary in quality from sample to sample.

 

You cant go wrong with the 35-70 2.8.

It's a great lens optically. It's still a bit heavy, but not severely. The biggest problem is that it is not an internal focus lens. If you use circ. polarizers and/or ND grads you may find yourself frustrated with the rotating front element--I do.

 

I'd probably upgrade to a 28-70/2.8 for the IF and AFS if I just had the cash burning a hole in my pocket...fortunately I don't have that terrible problem right now and I have the wider range covered with another lens.

 

The 24-85 AFS-G suggestion is interesting...that lens has gotten some good reports and would save some $$.

Evan, lots of us would get the 28-70 if cash were burning our pockets... :-)

 

I wish I had gotten the 35-70 instead of the 28-105 when I searched for a zoom for use at weddings. The 28-105 is too slow and soft wide open for indoor fill flash shots. I assume the same is true of the 24-85 G. You can get nice shots with one if there's enough light but ... there often isn't when the light is "good". I say: run for the 35-70 while they still make it.

Have had mine since 93, it's a keeper.You wont regret it.

one more ditto for the 35-70/2.8. A great lens and as others mentioned, you ought to search around the "for sale" lists for a used one.

I started with a non-D version of this lens, and have owned my current 35-70 f2.8D since March 1996. It's simply an outstanding lens in terms of sharpness, color rendition, and contrast. I owned a second D-version sample of it for a while, too, when I was doing a lot of PR/event photography several years ago. The ones I've owned have been consistently excellent from sample to sample.

 

As others have mentioned, the 35-70 f2.8 is often criticized for "not having enough range." Fine - no, it obviously doesn't cover as much range as most other mid-range zooms today. But if you need a killer lens and can live with the 35-70 range (I sure can, I just cover the rest with something else!), it can't be beat by anything near it's price level. And somewhere I saw a side-by-side test that showed it to beat the 28-70 AFS in terms of sharpness at 70mm. The only negative of the 35-70 is that the filter ring turns during focus, which is a minor annoyance when using a grad ND or CP filter.

 

All that said, I did also buy a 24-85G last spring to use as a lightweight, take-anywhere, "I'm only taking one lens" lens. It's a decent lens, too, but the image quality in the 35-70mm range is no rival to that of the 35-70 f2.8. The 24-85G is the more contrasty of the two, but actually too much so for my use in critical situations. My opinion overall is that the 24-85G is a very capable consumer zoom, and for the most part I do like it for what it is. But the 35-70 is a superior professional workhorse that rivals/beats my older primes in the same range.

 

If I had to choose just one of these two, there'd be neither a question nor a minute of hesitation: I'd keep my 35-70.

 

Cheers,

Mark

In general you will find that the zooms with the best optical qualities have less "Zoom Appeal" than others in that they usually have a modest 2x to 3x zoom range. They also usually have a fixed maximum aperture and an aperture of at least 1:4.0. The fixed maximum aperture is generally found in more expensive designs. To get the most out of modern high resolution films like Velvia and Provia 100F a sweet spot that occurs by f/5.6 is desired. By f/8.0 diffraction is beginning to take the bite out of the best lenses. If a lens has a maximum aperture of f/5.6 and needs to be stopped down a stop or two for edge performance it just won�t have the bite of faster lenses. Zooms with long zoom ranges usually have pronounced distortion, often barrel at the short end and pincushion at the long end.

 

The AF 35~70/2.8D can be covered at the short end with a AF 24/2.8D and for speed with an AF 50/1.8D or AF 50/1.4D. I�d rather give up some zoom range for image quality which is why when I found a super clean 35~70/2.8 it didn�t leave my hand until I said, "I�ll take it."

I've never owned the 35-70 2.8, but I wouldn't be inclined to buy it for $600. The 50mm 1.8 is $100 and I don't see enough difference between 35mm and 50mm or 50mm and 70mm to really support a zoom in that range. Personally, I'd consider a longer zoom, like 28-105, or buy a 24 2.8 or 28 2.8, a 50 1.8, and a 85 1.8, although that would be a bit beyond the $600. Jut my $.02.

thanks everybody! i appreciate all of the help!

If you do a lot of low light shooting I'd get lenses faster than f2.8, for your budget look at the AF 35mm f2 and AF 85mm f1.8 Each is one stop faster than an f2.8 zoom, that could mean the difference between getting a shot or not in low light.

 

My advice is to get a new AFD 35mm f2 ($300) and a used AF 85mm f1.8 either D or non-D (figure $300 or less in exc cond). I suggest a new 35/2 as older ones sometimes had problems with oil on the aperture blades, Nikon fixed the problem on new ones a few years ago.