Nikon 35-70mm f/2.8

<p>Any thoughts about <strong>Nikon 35-70mm f/2.8 ? - </strong>picture samples / any place outside eBay where this lens can be purchased. thanks.raf</p>

<p>This lens is a great alternative to the much more expensive f2.8 zooms. Some find that the push-pull zoom is a bit strange. I don't mind it but it is my only lens with this style of zoom and it does take some getting used to. I bought mine off of Craig's website (can't say the name here I guess) and got a great price. </p>

<p>I have had this lens since 1990. A common problem is that an internal element would fog up. That happened to mind in 2002. I never had that repaired.</p>

<p>Optically it is an excellent lens. I don't particularly like its limited zoom range. The subsequent 28-70mm/f2.8 AF-S and 24-70mm/f2.8 AF-S have far more convenient zoom ranges.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>I bought mine off of Craig's website (can't say the name here I guess)</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Why? Craig's List and eBay are not forbidden words here. We don't like links to eBay because we don't want people to promote their auctions here.</p>

<p>Craig's List is apparently not forbidden, but it spellout out as one word is, even without the .com as I just learned while posting above.</p>

<p>"A common problem is that an internal element would fog up." - if this happens , can it be fixed and how?</p>

<p>Rafal: I got one of these for an absurdly low price on The Auction Site™. It is an excellent lens. A little prone to flare (you will need a hood), but very sharp and solidly built. Mine is absolutely fog and haze free. If you do have this problem, Nikon can fix it.</p>

<p>I use the 35-70mm f/2.8D on my F100. It is a great lens, but as Les points out, a bit more prone to lens flare than say my 50mm f1.4D.</p>

<p>Here are some examples of photos taken with the lens. All these are scans of cropped 8x10 prints:</p>

<p><a href="/photo/5679060">http://www.photo.net/photo/5679060</a></p>

<p><a href="/photo/3973455&size=lg">http://www.photo.net/photo/3973455&size=lg</a></p>

<p><a href="/photo/3712100">http://www.photo.net/photo/3712100</a></p>

<p><a href="/photo/3712092">http://www.photo.net/photo/3712092</a></p>

<p>I've owned a Nikon 35-70mm f/2.8D lens since 1998. At the time of purchase this lens was Nikon's "top-drawer" 35mm mid-range zoom lens intended for pro and serious non-pro markets. The lens performance is close to the prime lens of 35-70mm range produced during that period. It's a very sharp lens.</p>

<p>The lens is a push-zoom design, which was used extensively by Nikon/Nikkor at one time, but is obviously unconventional today. It's built like a tank, and its weight obviously reflects the design (15 elements) needed to achieve the range and maximum aperture, as well as its intended usage by professional photographers.</p>

<p>My lens has never exhibited any problems with fogging, and I wasn't personally aware that this was an issue with samples of these lenses. The biggest problem usually attributed to the lens is that it is prone to flare with off-axis lighting. The use of the lens hood (HB-1) is definitely recommended.</p>

<p>Given the very reasonable prices of these lens today, especially in comparison to the later 24-70 and 28-70mm f/2.8 Nikkor lens, I think the 35-70mm lens is a bargain. Other opinions may vary, obviously.</p>

<p>Jim</p>

<p>For little more than the price of that used 35-70 AF Nikkor you could buy a new 28-75mm f/2.8 Tamron SP Di lens. Just a thought.</p>

<p>I have one, bought used, BGN from KEH. No element fogging yet (knock wood) and I like it very much. It's usually the lens on my D700. </p>

<p>I bought a 35-70/F2.8 back in the mid to late 90's for around $650 for use on an N70 and F100. Great lens. I remember one photo I took at a basketball game for young kids where the lens was at F2.8 and towards the 35mm end of the lens that was a bit soft. I don't normally shoot with the lens at 2.8 but I noticed that image was a bit soft. Still good though. That is the only bad thing I can say about the quality of the lens.</p>

<p>The only other issue I have had is that 35mm is not quite wide enough. I was just on the USS North Carolina and I was using the 35-70 lens because it was so handy for that environment. In some places, 24mm was needed and I had to switch over to my 24mm/F2.8. </p>

<p>This lens is my "traveling" lens and for many years my only zoom lens. I have thought about buying a new lens that is 24mm or 28mm on the wide end but I can't justify spending the money.</p>

<p>The lens has taken worked just fine on the N70, F100, D200, D700, and now a D800. Pretty danged good bang for the buck after almost 20 years of usage. </p>

<p>Later,<br>

Dan</p>

<p>I bought this lens used and I can follow the indications given about its quality, and mine has no fogging issues. <br /> One aspect other participants didn't refer is its closeup possibilities, using the "macro" position.<br /> This lens was Nikon's flagship professional midrange zoom for some years and the quality is still there if you can live with AF-D instead of the faster AF-S focusing speed.<br /> 35 mm in the short end may look a bit long for some people but it will depend on which lens you pair it with, if you need a shorter focal (having a 16-35 mm, it is no problem for me).</p>

<p ><a name="00bm1B"></a><a href="/photodb/user?user_id=2403817">Rodeo Joe</a> <a href="/member-status-icons"><img title="Frequent poster" src="/v3graphics/member-status-icons/1roll.gif" alt="" /></a>, Jun 25, 2013; 01:27 p.m.</p>

 

<p>For little more than the price of that used 35-70 AF Nikkor you could buy a new 28-75mm f/2.8 Tamron SP Di lens. Just a thought.</p>

<p>Better yet the Tokina 28-70 f2.8 for even less.</p>

 

<p>Then again, you could pair the 35-70 with a Tokina ATX 19-30 f2.8 AF and have an even wider low end. that's one thing I have been thinking of myself...</p>

<p>Rafal, I've no personal experience with this lens but I think I read somewhere that it was a favourite of<a href="http://www.thewareaglereader.com/2012/03/celebrated-playboy-photographer-loved-first-visit-to-auburn-in-1981/#.UcrzgNjNlqE"> Playboy Photographer David Chan. </a> Seems to have worked OK for him. :-) Best, LM.</p>

<p>Mine was good if stopped down a little, very good at 5.6. I wound up selling it since it never got used. Something like a 24-85 AF-S on the camera with a fast 50 in a pocket is a more versatile setup, IMO.</p>

<p>I had an internal element replaced on mine due to fungus, not fog. Now it is fungus free.<br>

It is an excellent lens and makes a very good portrait lens in the DX format.<br>

Only negative is the push pull design, IMO.</p>