Zoom-Nikkor AF 35-70mm F 2.8 (not D)

Discussion in 'Nikon' started by jovan, Feb 23, 2005.

  1. I have chance to take one used, but good AF Zoom-Nikkor 35-70mm f 2.8
    (not D).<br>
    I already have Sigma 28-105mm f2.8-4 AF-D, AF Zoom-Nikkor 35-70mm
    3.3-4.5 (not - D) <br>
    and I'm considernig to by some realy GOOD zoom lense.<br>
    Becouse thouse two are at least 2 class behind primes that I have.<br>
    (MF 50/2-AI/H, MF 50/1.2-AIS, AF 50/1.8, MF 24/2.8-AIS...) <br>
    Your advice,considerations and feedback are greatly appreciated :) <br>
  2. It's a great lens. I would keep the 50mm 1.8 AF, the 24mm and
    buy the 35-70mm 2.8 and get rid of the rest. Are you shoot dslr
    or film? Add a wide for dslr or a tele for film later.
  3. I second Leslie's advice. I use a 35-70mm/2.8 on my D70's and it really performs and balances well. This is one really sharp lens. Distortion and flare (if you keep it away from the sun) are virtually non existent. Instead of using the flimsy bayonet mount hood, I keep the 62mm screw in hood for the 60mm/2.8 micro on it all the time to protect the front element, which is real close to the end of the lens. I use the screw in shade for the 85mm/1.8 (which is a lot deeper) for sunny landscape shooting. I had a chance to buy a friend's 28-70mm/2.8 recently and I put this one for sale. The purchase of the 28-70 fell through and I withdrew the 'for sale' ads. And as an after thought I was glad it did.
  4. Hi There

    Yes, get the lens, I have the 'D' version, this beauty just oozes Nikon quality, my main reason for getting this lens was it's speed f2.8 throughout the zoom range.

    Good luck
  5. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

    For zoom lens, you frequently need to compromise between optical quality and zoom range. The 35-70mm/f2.8 AF has a pretty limited zoom range, 2x but its quality is very good. The main question for yourself is whether this range is suitable for your photography.
  6. The only 'maybe' down-side of the lens is it goes into 'macro' mode at 35mm, which of course, is not the generally idea of a (i.e., 50mm, 60mm, 105mm) micro-Nikkor line of close-up lenses.
  7. Thank's Leslie for responding.<br>
    When I bought Tokina AF 19-35 f3.5-4.5 a year before I was open-eyed. <br>
    That was for the firs time that I see realy good zoom lense. <br>
    Full metal, real glass,robust, exelent contrast and sharpnes almoust as some prome lense. <br>
    Since then I force my self to use it all the time. <br>
    BUT it is TO WIDE for every day use and some times unconveninet. <br>
    And now I wish to take zoom lence witch must be at least beter. <br>
    I still shot film with F90x/F70 and scane them latere. <br>
  8. Thank's to ALL of you :) :) <br>
    I'm on my way to bargain and pay for it ... :) <br>
  9. EricM

    EricM Planet Eric

    look for the 80-200 f2.8 next, you'll be just as happy...
  10. "The only 'maybe' down-side of the lens is it goes into 'macro' mode at 35mm"

    Gerald, what do you mean by this? You have to physically put into 'macro mode' by pushing a lock button and turning the focal length ring to the "M" position. Otherwise it just performs as a "standard" zoom at the 35mm end.

  11. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

    Well, the 35-70mm/f2.8 AF is supposed to be a macro zoom also. Unfortunately, the macro mode is only available at 35mm while the common macro lenses are much longer. Therefore, this macro mode is not all that useful. If the macro mode were available at 70mm for example, it would have been better. Of course, if you don't even use this macro mode, this is a moot point.
  12. Most "macro" zooms with the closeup biased toward the wide angle focal length suffer from more field curvature and barrel distortion than most of us want to see.

    "Macro" zooms with close focusing biased toward the longer end tend not to suffer from so much optical distortion, tho' some may show pincushioning.

    The best I've owned offer true close focusing starting at the middle focal length and extending to the longest focal length. They usually perform best between the two extremes.

    BTW, the reason I put "macro" in skeptical quotes is because most zooms claiming to have macro capabilities offer magnification no better than 1:3, sometimes worse. Most photographers consider 1:2 to be the outside limit for qualification as a macro lens.

    Also, zooms that require twisting a special ring or pushing a magic button to enable them to focus in "macro" mode are virtually uniformly awful overall. Continuous close focusing is preferable. If the focus ring turns from infinity to maximum magnification without magic rings or buttons, it's a true continuous close focusing type. However they don't all offer continuous close focusing at all focal ranges.

    Clear as mud?

    All I'd be concerned with is how a midrange zoom performs at distances from head-and-shoulders portrait framing on out. If you have the 50mm f/2 AI Nikkor you already have the makings of a good macro lens. It's a very flat field lens that produces results indistinguishable from my 55mm f/3.5 Micro-Nikkor at the same magnifications, including with the M2 extension tube.
  13. Yes, I do have some work on fild of macro-photograpy, but thet was done <br> with Rusian Zenith 12x(full manual) and Helios 58mm f2 M42-mount lense <br> with macro rings for M42 Practika. <br>
    But since then problem was lack of simular extension-macro rings/tubes for F-mount. <br> I try to use Tamron SP 500mm f8 1:3 or Sigma 70-300mm f4-5.6 DL 1:2 <br> in macro mode with 1.7 teleconverter but it is to shaky... <br>

Share This Page