albertdarmali Posted September 7, 2006 Share Posted September 7, 2006 Hi, Just wondering, is it worth buying second hand Nikkor 35-70mm 1:3.3-4.5 AF? Someone at my uni is selling it cheap, but just wondering whether it worths itor not (no point buying cheap lens if the quality is horrible). Can someone who's got experience on the lens give some comments about it please? Maybe some photo samples if possible. Thanks a lot in advance! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
janvanlaethem Posted September 7, 2006 Share Posted September 7, 2006 Albert, I had one of these lenses, but I sold it when I got a fixed 35mm lens. It's not a bad lens, but not especially brilliant either. If you want a nice little zoom lens for holidays or street photography where changing lenses is difficult, you can check it out. But I think there are better zoom lenses around. A 35-70mm f:2.8 will be more expensive, but I've heard good reviews about it. Unfortunately, I haven't used the f:2.8, so I can't compare. And as I use several lenses during a photo shoot, I can't post you any images taken with it, as I usually don't keep notes. If it's cheap, I suggest you buy it and give it a try. If you're not convinced about it's optical quality, you can always put it up for sale again. You won't loose much in the process. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevin_nha Posted September 7, 2006 Share Posted September 7, 2006 i have it. i'm using it well. it's compact, light, and good quality prints if you're not going over 8.5x11. if you're just using it for weekend family photos.. it's good.. if it's for professional work then no good. you should look for f/2.8 ED ones.. simple!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jos__javier_vicente Posted September 7, 2006 Share Posted September 7, 2006 I had this lens and was a decent performer, even very good at f8 and usable for close-up at 70 mm, even coupled to a 4T. Very compact and lightweight, I mainly used it for mountaineering, as a versatile alternative to carrying just 1 prime. It is worthy if you like the range, unluckily 70 mm was too short for me. For additional info, check Bjorn Rorslett's page http://www.naturfotograf.com/index2.html Riccardo Polini also comments on this lens: http://xoomer.alice.it/ripolini/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
albertdarmali Posted September 7, 2006 Author Share Posted September 7, 2006 Thanks for the info. I was wondering, for digital, which one will perform better, 18-55mm DX lens (the kit from D50) or this one? I assume this one will have much better build quality than 18-55mm DX (the 18-55mm is practically like holding a plastic), but in terms of image quality, I wonder if that old 35-70mm is better? Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
janvanlaethem Posted September 7, 2006 Share Posted September 7, 2006 "I was wondering, for digital, which one will perform better, 18-55mm DX lens (the kit from D50) or this one?" That is a question you would need to ask to someone who has actually used both lenses on the D50. It's not very clear from your post (or maybe I overlooked it) if you already own the D50 or not. If you do own the D50, then you can try both lenses and find out for yourself. Go to a good camera shop, say you're interested in buying the 18-55 (if you can buy it by itself, not just in kit form) and ask if you can try a few shots on your D50. Then ask the same question to the person who is selling the 35-70. Try and get the same type of shots, that is, both indoors in low light and outdoors in sunny conditions. Don't judge the pictures on the camera screen, download your pictures on your computer and compare. Although this will not be the best way to find out the differences (you would have to shoot the same subjects, under controlled light conditions and on a tripod with both lenses, and even that would not be a technically perfect test), at least you can get a feel for the 35-70mm lens and find out if it performs well, reasonably well or not good at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
astral Posted September 7, 2006 Share Posted September 7, 2006 I have the AF & MF - the MF (AIS) lens is much better. If it's really cheap (less than 50USD) I'd say yes, but otherwise there are many better AF lenses around. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bradfarlow Posted September 7, 2006 Share Posted September 7, 2006 Here are a few examples<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bradfarlow Posted September 7, 2006 Share Posted September 7, 2006 Photo<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bradfarlow Posted September 7, 2006 Share Posted September 7, 2006 Most of these shot were at about f4 or f5.6<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tri-x1 Posted September 7, 2006 Share Posted September 7, 2006 The early models were pretty soft. But the later ai models are decent performers. The slow speed limits them but for the price they aren't a bad deal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShunCheung Posted September 7, 2006 Share Posted September 7, 2006 Albert, the real question is that a 35-70mm zoom is a standard to short tele on the D50 or any Nikon DSLR. Is that the kind of zoom range you want and does the relatively limited 2x range a problem for you. If those are ok and your budget is limited, perhaps this lens is worthwhile to you. Personally, I have the 2x zoom range too limited and something starting from 35mm not at all wide enough even for 35mm film and certainly digital. I would get a zoom that starts from 18mm, as there are good reasons that Nikon currently has four DX zooms that begin from 18mm. As Peter mentions, if you can afford it, the 18-70 DX is a very good choice as a consumer zoom. Your mileage may vary, though. If the 35-70mm is available at your university??, is it possible to try it for a few shots and check out whether its range works for you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ian_tindale Posted September 7, 2006 Share Posted September 7, 2006 <p>I've got one and I use it <a href=" 194816142/ in/set-72157594207872508/">on my D50</a> as a 'standard' lens, most often kept at the 35mm end, but with the option to zoom in if I require. I like to think of it as a cheap yet more flexible alternative to a fixed 35mm prime. I've got <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/ iantindale/tags/nikkor3570mmf3345af/">loads of examples</a> of it in use on the D50. </p><p> I rate it as one of the most surprisingly crisp lenses I have, on digital. Considering I only picked it up secondhand because it was on offer too cheaply to pass up about a decade ago, even though I already had a perfectly good 24-50mm on my F4 at the time, among other lenses that all clustered around that range, I disregarded it for a very long time. Until I got my D50, in fact - when I realised that the combination really suits my shooting (which tends to be 'standard lens' view, a habit I still carry over in shooting on my TLRs. </p><p> I think it's one lens I'd immediately replace with another like it, if I had to. It sits on the camera more often than the 18-55 kit lens. I even sent off and bought a new lens hood for the 35-70 a few months ago, such is how much I like it. I think of it as my own little secret - how can a lens this cheap be so good, so small, so effective? I shouldn't be trumpeting this, in fact - I don't want there to be a craze starting, driving prices up.</p> 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
albertdarmali Posted September 8, 2006 Author Share Posted September 8, 2006 I could get it for less than 50 bucks. So I guess just try it and see if I like it or not eh? If not, then I can just sell it again without much loss anyway. Thanks a lot for the replies guys. Albert. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig_morris2 Posted September 9, 2006 Share Posted September 9, 2006 If its less than $50 like you said, might as well go for it. If you are trying to go wide though, get a zoom that starts at 18mm. Don't for get, with Nikkon DSLR's you have to time the focal length by 1.5 times. Craig Morris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dreux_sawyer Posted March 19, 2018 Share Posted March 19, 2018 After reading all the bad hype, I simply had to have one. I was lucky to find a mint, new/old stock copy. I haven’t taken it off my D610 since I received it in December. Quite lovely images; tack sharp all over at f/8, competent wide open, and a third stop faster to boot! This lens excels at size vs. versatility, and it handles great. There are no bad lenses, only bad photographers; if you can’t get sharp images with this lens, you need to work on your technique. It’s small, faster than most, has a versatile zoom range and gets in close; all in all, a great balance. And it’s all about balance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve_g2 Posted March 20, 2018 Share Posted March 20, 2018 I like the f3.3 lenses, just joking, but my super cheap 28-80mm G 3.3-5.6 is surprisingly good. I like posting pictures made with it on my D100 on the forums full of folks with D810/850's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Seaman Posted March 20, 2018 Share Posted March 20, 2018 At risk of re-igniting an ancient thread, I'll add that I've had several copies if this lens. ALL of them had sluggish apertures which couldn't be fixed. Perhaps this has happened in the 12 years since the original posts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marcel_carey Posted March 20, 2018 Share Posted March 20, 2018 I like the f3.3 lenses, just joking, but my super cheap 28-80mm G 3.3-5.6 is surprisingly good. I like posting pictures made with it on my D100 on the forums full of folks with D810/850's. I have to agree with you on this one Steve. This lens is a sleeper. I first bought it when I got my D700 and found it extremely sharp. Although the bokeh is nothing to rave about and the front element turns when focusing, it's so light that it's often my go to lens on my Df. For 50 bucks, I still think it's a real bargain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wouter Willemse Posted March 20, 2018 Share Posted March 20, 2018 I've got a 28-80 f/3.3-5/6G, and while it's sharp enough at f/8 - just like nearly every lens - its contrast is low, colours are dull. For something like $20 it's a good lens, sure, plus it's small and light. It shouldn't cost much more, though - you get these lenses for free with a second hand F60 or F65. In practical use, each and every one of my (much older!) prime lenses perform a whole lot better than the little zoom. It doesn't quite matter what kind of camera I put behind it, the 28-80 is just a decent enough lens for the money it costs, but that's about it. Not really a lens I'd recommend unless it's nearly free, and you cannot spend more (which would be odd if you have a full frame DSLR). 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albins images Posted March 20, 2018 Share Posted March 20, 2018 I took a (say) thousand images with such a lens on slidefilm and (mainly) F801. And really appreciated it in that period (1988-1995?). But now I would never buy it and/or use it. Not wide enough, variable aperture, 3.5-4.5... There are (much) better options. Paper weight? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ian Rance Posted March 21, 2018 Share Posted March 21, 2018 I have one of these and use it when on holiday. Its small and light and growing up with 35-70mm range I feel right at home. At f/8 they perform fine, only the lack or auto distortion correction is a minor inconvenience as I do appreciate that with my D lenses. Some barrel at 35mm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rick_jack1 Posted March 21, 2018 Share Posted March 21, 2018 Nope, unless its $10. The 28-70mm AF-D is a much better lens for about the same price. I assume cost is an issue, otherwise without going to pro lens the Nikon 28-105mm AF-D and 24-85mm ED AFS (not AF-D version) are inexpensive and excellent performers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve_g2 Posted March 21, 2018 Share Posted March 21, 2018 Nikon 28-105mm AF-D the best one mentioned anywhere in this thread one of my top three Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glen_h Posted March 22, 2018 Share Posted March 22, 2018 I notice this started years ago, but anyway. The AI 35-70/3.3-4.5 was my favorite lens on an FM for years with color negative film. Most often I used an AI 35/2.0 on my FM with slide film. But I now have the AF 35-70/3.3-4.5 bought from a Goodwill auction for $48. I haven't used it so much, as I have a Tamron 28-300 on a D700. -- glen 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