Why was the Nikon 35-70 f/2.8 so popular?

<p>I have the opportunity to trade my AF 50 f/1.4D for this lens and I'm wondering why it was so popular before making the trade. </p>

<p>Why not just hang on to the 50mm f/1.4 as well as getting the zoom Mark? I can't believe you've been offered a significant amount of money for the 50mm, and a wide aperture lens serves a completely different purpose from a mid-range zoom.</p>

<p>It's hard to generalise about lens quality, since condition is everything in a used lens. There's also a fair amount of sample variation between new lenses. "Try before you buy" should be the guiding rule with lenses.</p>

The 35-70/2.8 was Nikon's first standard zoom with f/2.8 maximum aperture, making it the first practical alternative

for primes for many types of work. The quality is also high but not quite the level of 50mm primes when both are set

to f/2.8. It was much smaller and perhaps a little less expensive than the current 24-70/2.8. I guess many 35-70's are

old and quite worn so do pay attention to condition. I would keep the 50mm.

<p>Small, compact, cheap (if compared to its successors), a reasonable good performer and recommended by KR.<br /> The short side is too long for current standards, so I think there is a lot of trade with them.</p>

<p>Nikon was one of the first camera makers (if not the first) to really dive into zoom lenses and be successful with them. (Yes, I know about Voigtlander.) The 35-70mm is historically significant and when it first came out it was THE dream lens for anyone with a Nikon. It offered speed and versatility. Since then, Nikon has put a lot of their effort into making quality zoom lenses. BTW, what was the first zoom lens for 35mm named? Answer: the Zoomar.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

<p>I bought my 35-70mm/f2.8 AF back in 1990. It has a predecessor in the form of a 35-70mm/f3.5 AI, but those lenses were from an era when zoom lenses were mainly 80-200mm type, even the 20-35mm/f2.8 AF-D had not been introduced. As pointed out above, the 35-70mm/f2.8 AF/AF-D is not that expensive, around $600 or so for a new one back then.</p>

<p>At least to me, the 35-70 was never a favorite zoom range. 35mm is barely a wide angle so that you must change lenses if you need to go wider to 28mm or 24mm. That was why Nikon subsequently replaced it by the 28-70mm/f2.8 AF-S and finally by the currently 24-70mm/f2.8 AF-S. The latter two lenses are far more convenient to use, but the size and especially price have also gone way up to well over $1000.</p>

<p>One common problem for the 35-70mm/f2.8 AF is that an internal element can fog up due to some glue outgas problem. I bought my in 1990 and it suddenly fogged up in 2002 over a short period, like a few weeks. I never got that lens fixed and upgraded to the 28-70 instead.</p>

<p>I use my 35-70 on my D700. I think it works well for a walk around lens. Though I bought a 50/1.4, I don't think I have ever used it, except to test it out. I got the 35-70 from KEH as a BGN grade for ~$350. No element fogging yet [knock wood]</p>

<p>The 35-70 was immediately adopted by photojournalists for its image quality, standard zoom range and ruggedness. It was an instant legend.</p>

<p>Mark;<br>

I have used the 35-70 and have found it to be a good lens. In terms of sharpness it is nowhere near the quality of my copy of the 50 1.4D. I would hang on to your copy and buy the 35-70 if there is a way you can afford to do it.<br>

-Owen</p>

<p>The 35-70 is one of Nikon's true gems IMHO. Super sharp, excellent color rendition, good bokeh, built like a tank, relatively compact, and reasonably priced. I picked up one in mint condition for $250 used, and it remains one of my favorite lenses. More proof-positive that you don't need to spend $1,000-$2,000+ dollars to get a top quality lens. I've never had any problem with fogging and don't know anyone personally who owns this lens who has had that problem. I also own the 50 f/1.4 AF-D, and I like the images from the 35-70 better.</p>

<p><em>For years I backpacked with an F3 and the 35-70 f2.8 lens. Shooting chromes. It was light and a great lens that mostly covered my landscape desires. Sigh, now I look at the weight of a D800 and 24-70 f2.8. With another lens or two. Simple times.</em></p>

<p>I owned both versions of the lens and never had any problems with either. The 35mm and 50mm have always been two of my favorite lenses, so the 35-70mm was a very convenient zoom, and the f/2.8 speed was fast enough for most of my film work. Both the original and D versions of the lens were as sharp as my primes. The only things I didn't like about the 35-70mm was of course the push-pull zoom and that the close-up function could only be used at 35mm. When I bought a D700 I switched to the 28-70mm f/3.5-4.5 for its more compact size and added versatility. It's slower speed didn't matter for digital.</p>

<p>The 35-70 range brngs up another angle of lens development. Historically, normal and tele lenses have been fairly easy to design and build. It's wide angles that are much more difficult. Consider the first lens designed for photography in 1840 (the Petzval,) was a portrait length lens. It wasn't until the 1890s and the advent of newer optical glass that moderate wide angles started to become possible. I believe the original Leica Hector 28mm lens was f6.8, IIRC. It was the Zeiss Biogon f2.8 (for Contax) that seemed to really kick off modern wide angles, in the 1930s. A fast wide angle zoom was quite an accomplishment for Nikon. Not only was it wide, not only was it fast, not only was it a 2x zoom, it also had great image quality!</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

 

<p>I am still using one on my D700 where it performs superbly. This generation of Nikon lenses were bult to last and have managed to do so now for over 20 years. I recently saw a comparison between this and the 24-70mm f2.8, Nikon's current top end standard zoom. Apart from the wider range of the new lens and better coating on the lements there was not much in it in terms of results . In fact it was hard to pick between the images even when pixel peeping. The older lens was right up there in terms of its resolution. It is a good alternative to the 24 -70mm and costs what, a quarter of the price?</p>

<p>I have the lens and use it on all types of cameras. IT handles great on an F, FA or FE2, albeit using it as a manual focus lens is not its strong suit. works wonderfully on my modern film cameras like an F4, F5, N90 and N80 and flawlessly on my D700. really really sharp and built like a tank. the only thing I can really fault it for is that the modern lenses tend to have a little more contrast. But that can be handled in post processing. but for the price you really can't go wrong. Yes the zoom range is minimal, but when this was built, as was mentioned earlier, most photographers were switching between 35mm, 50mm and 85mm so this covered almost that entire focal length with a fast 2.8. </p>

<p>I use the Nikon 35-70mm AF f 2.8 on my D 700 and D 600 with excellent results. I also own the much more expensive and heavier Nikon 24-70mm f 2.8 AFS lens. I cannot discern any quality improvements from using the 24-70mm over the 35-70mm. The biggest drawback (for some) of the 35-70mm is its focal length range as it is limited at the short end. For street photographers they might not need the 24-35mm and might prefer the smaller lighter 35-70mm lens. When I travel, adding a 20mm or 24mm prime with the 35-70mm is a smaller lighter package than lugging the 24-70mm f 2.8. I have thought of selling it, but it is an excellent value lens so I just have kept it.<br>

Joe Smith</p>

 

<p>Thanks for your responses. Now that I've tried it out I think I'm going to spend $300 and get the zoom and keep the 50 for those times that I need smaller, lighter and faster. The lens is in great shape btw, it's being sold by the camera store owner who recently purchased a 5D MKIII. </p>

<p>I have owned, and subsequently sold, both lenses. I never took to the 50 D at all, so if I had to choose between these two it would be the 35-70 any day. If you haven't used a push/pull zoom before, it might seem clumsy at first. Also beware of flare - use the hood. Lastly, although many will belittle the macro mode on this lens, I found it surprisingly useful was more than happy with the <a href="../photo/8354585&size=lg">results it gave</a> in casual use. </p>

<p>C</p>

<p>If Nikon reintroduced this lens to the market today at a price point below $700.00 USD it would sell very well. Back in the 1990's it was my primary go-to lens, and I used mine until it ultimately self-destructed after many use of hard, daily use.<br>

When this lens first came on the market, fixed aperture high quality f/2.8 zoom lenses were very few and very far between.</p>

<p>As much as I liked the 35-70, I moved to the 24-70 because in landscapes I use the 24-50 range a lot. Having to change lenses at 35 mm led to frequent lens changes.</p>