alffastar Posted July 20, 2008 Share Posted July 20, 2008 Hello Everybody, I own Nikon D300 for 2 months now. I have the new Nikon 16-85 and 2 days ago I bought used Nikon 35-70 f/2.8. I like the latter lens very much although a bit heavy. What I found out when comparing pictures done with my two lenses is that with the Nikon 35-70 images are 'washed out' when there is a light source behind the object or at its side. I found out this was called veiling flare. Is there any way I can reduce it - through a specific hood, filters with coatings etc.? Any specific advice would be helpful. One more thing. Nikon 35-70 rotates when it focuses. Now the part that rotates on my lens is a little loose and it slightly clatters. Should I be concerned about this? Does this have an effect on the images? How can this be corrected? Thank you! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ellis_vener_photography Posted July 20, 2008 Share Posted July 20, 2008 sounds like you have a worn lens. Do you have a lens hood at all? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alffastar Posted July 20, 2008 Author Share Posted July 20, 2008 I use it with its original hood 'HB-1' all the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leicaglow Posted July 20, 2008 Share Posted July 20, 2008 I think you're experiencing the result of an aging mediocre lens. I had to replace a lot of older lenses with newer, better designed lenses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bgelfand Posted July 20, 2008 Share Posted July 20, 2008 There is nothing "mediocre" about the 35-70 f/2.8D. Optically, it rivals many of Nikon's prime lenses. Like all lenses, it does have its limitations - one is that it tends to produce lens flare with strongly back lighted subjects (the other is the front element rotates as it focuses which can be a problem with polarizing filers and split density filters). Vesselin, I also like the 35-70 very much; you picked a classic lens. As for the flare, be aware of it (you can see it in the view finder if you look for it) and if you can and the the sun if off to the side, use a hat or your hand to shield the lens and cut the flare. If you are shooting directly into the sun ... use a different lens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chriscourt Posted July 20, 2008 Share Posted July 20, 2008 This is a great lens, although I must confess to having it on my camera less often than I originally anticipated. On my example also, there is approximately 1mm of rotational play in the front element when using autofocus, however it doesn't cause any obvious problems with images (http://www.photo.net/photo/7578483) I haven't personally been bothered by flare with this lens, but in addition to Brooks' suggestions above, ensuring that the front element is spotless will help reduce the effect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tommyinca Posted July 20, 2008 Share Posted July 20, 2008 You can solve it by selling it to me for a $100 buck :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
penwaggener Posted July 20, 2008 Share Posted July 20, 2008 I agree with Chris and Brooks -- this lens is a classic. It can produce wonderfully sharp images, and it's built like a tank. Because of all the metal parts, it sometimes sounds like a tank, too. Mine has a little play and clatters a bit, but it hasn't affected image quality, and I've come to appreciate those sounds as very "un-plastic." A lens hood helps with flare, but it does suffer some with backlight or strong background highlights, so it's best to use a different lens in those situations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rene11664880918 Posted July 20, 2008 Share Posted July 20, 2008 Flare is a problem with many older lenses. I notice it with the 35-70, 180 and 300. I don't think there is much you can do. Look for the flare in the viewfinder as told above, cover your lens with a hat. I used a round flexible shade. Also since you are using it with a DSLR you can check the shot after you take it and you can always recompose and retake it. After you use it a little more you will know in advance when you'll have flare and you will learn to predict it and avoid it. Rene' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lex_jenkins Posted July 21, 2008 Share Posted July 21, 2008 I've never tried the pre-D version of this lens. I've never been able to induce really bad veiling flare with the D version, despite trying. It's no worse than the very good performance of the 18-70 DX and 24-120 VR, which offer excellent multicoating for lenses of this price range. Some veiling flare is unavoidable with most lenses in such difficult lighting. However the 35-70/2.8D is vulnerable to ghosting flare in very difficult lighting, altho' even then it's exceptionally good for a zoom. It will reveal one or two minor ghosts, usually in a lower edge or corner away from the central subject. I've seen this only at night when bright point light sources were in the frame. Backlighting is a challenge to any lens. It's not just zooms. Wide angle lenses are also vulnerable. A filter, even the best multicoated filter, is likely to make matters worse when the light source is in the frame. Try to shade the lens, as already suggested, or avoid shooting into the light. If you want to shoot directly into the light, you'll need to do some careful research to find the tiny handful of lenses that can perform well in such a difficult situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alffastar Posted July 21, 2008 Author Share Posted July 21, 2008 I am using the D version and I have veiling flare all the time! Compared to my 16-85 the colors are washed out when taking picture of an object against the window, for ex. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cabrabesol Posted July 21, 2008 Share Posted July 21, 2008 A very frequent issue with 35-70 is the rear lenses being fogged. If you see the same kind of fog either looking through it or in the viewfinder it is your case. Otherwise consider an oversized lens hood. Since you are in DX format consider one going from 50mm to 100mm, Not exactly the ideal lens for contra light (even if the source is lateral). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alffastar Posted July 21, 2008 Author Share Posted July 21, 2008 Mauro, when you say that very often the rear lense are being fogged, does it mean, that I should take the lens to a Nikon service center to clean them, or may be I do not understand what 'being fogged' means? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alffastar Posted July 21, 2008 Author Share Posted July 21, 2008 Still, despite the veiling flare effect, I really like the lens - both construction and image quality, plus the constant 2.8 aperture! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colda Posted July 21, 2008 Share Posted July 21, 2008 I too very much like my 35-70/2.8 mine has certainly seen better days and has that loose feeling to it, the front element looks like it's spent more time on a gravel road than on a camera and still it takes great pics. When I got the lens there was no hood, so I used the one off my 85/1.8 (HN-23) which worked great, I've since got the correct hood but it certainly doesn't perform as well as the HN-23 although I'm only using DX sensors at present. Also a good filter will help, when I finally get round to replacing my front element then it'll also get a Hoya Pro-1 So, if you're not using full frame then I'd recommend the HN-23 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jan_nielsen Posted July 21, 2008 Share Posted July 21, 2008 I have the AF-D 35-70/2,8. I don't know the difference between between "ghosting flare" and "veiling flare". But yes, it has a lot of flare in backlit compositions. I use the hood HB-15 (originally for the 70-300ED non VR), and it helps A LOT. I'm using the lens on a D300. I'm not sure the lens/hood combination would be good on a fullframe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
philippartridge Posted July 21, 2008 Share Posted July 21, 2008 From what I understand most of these are loose from new, a tolerance issue that matters not one whit to lens performance - so they clatter a bit when you AF them - the screw drive seems to bring out the worst in them! They can also collect material between the elements - some speculate that the sucking action of the zoom is to blame - I doubt it. My shop told me this was the lens bought by wealthy lawyers rather than pros, when they were released ;-) One thing I discovered which, besides peering though the lens into a bright light to check for fungus, dust etc., will help - get hold of a larger, more protective hood than Nikon specifies. Remember you are shooting DX on a D300 so you can get a lot more front element protection with no risk of vignetting. I got a retractable rubber hood which plain works, for $10. I have noticed a certain flatness to the 35-70/2.8 images pre-post processing, older coatings and old lens technology is my guess. The mid-range zooms are very, very good nowadays - that is where the R&D is going, for obvious market reasons. And it is paying off, as these lenses are much better matched to DSLR requirements, coatings are much better, you are seeing ED and Asph elements as commonplace now, for example. As a result, you can see increases in colour fidelity and contrast (not to mention resolution) to levels unthinkable in zooms from the 1980s. I think the 16-85 and similar lenses are real bargains compared to the overcooked pro lenses for most uses, and the weight savings can't be bad either...and they handle well too, no creep and pretty solid, thinking here of the 16-85 and 70-300. They will finally get there with these types of lenses, which are almost certainly much more important for them to get right as a company than the big ticket 2.8 lenses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alffastar Posted July 21, 2008 Author Share Posted July 21, 2008 Just to clarify - my lens slightly clatters not only when AF them, but just when carrying it around. Just the front element is slightly loose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dennis_oconnor4 Posted July 21, 2008 Share Posted July 21, 2008 Hmmm.. I have this lens in the D version, originally used on my F5... I also use a 50 F1.8 prime - great lens... When I switch between them, which I do often, I usually have to look at the EXIF data to tell which lens took which picture... I do not notice significant flare and contrast loss with this zoom - other than what is expected for having more glass elements in the light path... denny Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chriscourt Posted July 21, 2008 Share Posted July 21, 2008 Hi Vesselin, I just picked up my lens and gave it a good shake. No significant clattering to be heard, and aside from the previously mentioned minor rotational play in the front element under AF, it all seems extremely solid. What condition is your lens in? Does it appear to have been dropped or otherwise abused? Perhaps it would be worth having it serviced? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alffastar Posted July 22, 2008 Author Share Posted July 22, 2008 Hi Chris, I do not think it was dropped, but who knows. It is used, but by a professional photographer who cares about his equipment, so it is in good condition. I have never had a lens with rotating element so I am not sure whether this clattering is an indication of some problem. Still, my greater concern is the veiling flare. I will buy hood HB-15 and will see whether the flare will diminish significantly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joe_a2 Posted July 22, 2008 Share Posted July 22, 2008 I have seen and used several 35-70 2.8 lenses, and most are incredibly sharp and contrasty. But a few have done exactly what you are describing. I'm afraid it sounds like you have a worn out lens, Vesselin, and you should return it immediately. Buying another hood is not going to change the wear inside and the resulting slight misalignment of the lens elements. You'll just be throwing good money after bad (as the saying goes). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dill_h Posted July 23, 2008 Share Posted July 23, 2008 It could be a rear lens group fogging up. Shine a flashlight through the lens from the rear to your eye will tell. Although everybody seems to avoid talking about this, 35-70/2.8 is one of those self-destructive lens like the early Leica glass. One cemented lens group is very sensitive to enviroment conditions, and will eventually to become hazy. Hot, arid climates seems to acclerate the process and I have seen brand new samples with noticable fogging in the same place so there isnt much we can do about it. The remedy involves removing the affected lens group, use heat to seperate the group, polish and re-glue, possibly recoat the elements if needed. I have heard of this being done however the service is rather hard to access Nonetheless, software can restore a lot of suppressed details by simply boosting contrast and adjusted photos are still better than a non-veiling photo from a so-so lens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alffastar Posted July 25, 2008 Author Share Posted July 25, 2008 Judging whether a lens group is fogging up is too complicated for me as I cannot tell the difference. Anyway, I bought a rubber hood - the situation is better. I ordered hood HB-15, as recommended by Jan Nielsen. I will see how the lens will behave with it. Thanks everyone for your comments and suggestions :)) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alffastar Posted July 28, 2008 Author Share Posted July 28, 2008 Dill, I have checked the lens as you suggested and the lens is indeed fogged up!!! What a pity! I guess I will not be able to return it. I will check how much it will cost to have it serviced. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now