FLARE

[auke bonne van der weide]

I am thinking of buying the nikon AF-D 2.8/35-70.

 

How about flare-resistance of this midzoom? You think the AF-D 3.5-

4.5/28-105 or AFS 2.8/28-70 are any better? Perhaps better to buy a

tamron or a sigma?

[john_carter_rhodes]

I can't really comment on any of the lenses you mention, other than to say that they're all generally considered to be excellent. Why do you think Tamron or Sigma would be better? Just curious. :)

 

John.

[Ed_Ingold]

I have all three lenses. The 28-70/2.8 AFS is by far the most flare-resistant of this set, due to better optical design and an effective lens shade, which I use consistently. The front element extends slightly as the focal length is shortened, which adds to the effectiveness of the lens shade.

 

The filter ring rotates on both the 35-70/2.8 and 28-105/3.5-4.5, which limits you to the use of round lens shades. Actually, I never owned a lens shade for either.

 

I'm most likely to shoot into the sun with landscapes. Any lens will tend to flare if light shines on the front element, even off-axis. The 35-70 is particularly susceptible if you allow this to occur (or perhaps I am more demanding of this lens). In lieu of a lens shade, I use my hat or hand to shield the lens, which proves to be effective.

 

The only effective lens shades (besides my western hat) are compendium shades, which I use extensively for medium and large format. That's for my more "contemplative" non-zoom side.

 

Flare is not the only consideration you should take. The 35-70 and 28-70 have extraordinary optics and build quality. Both are extremely sharp and have very low distortion, as good or better than most prime lenses.

 

The 28-105 is a consumer lens, but a good performer as well. It is very sharp and contrasty, but has significantly more distortion than the other two lenses, and the build quality is so-so. The distortion is no bother with landscapes, but troublesome with buildings.

 

Auto-focusing is fast, but the throw is so short to make manual focusing difficult (I use it on an F3 for an alternate film choice). The front element extends considerably when zooming to longer focal length, and tends to slip when shooting up or down, and when carrying the camera. The 35-70 and 28-70 are much easier to use in manual mode.

 

The 35-70 is a push-pull zoom with a separate focusing ring. That makes it a great lens for journalistic photography, IMO. The others are two-ring lenses.

 

If price is your major consideration, the Tamron or Sigma may work for you. With one or two exceptions, the optical quality is well below that of comparable Nikkor lenses, as well as the build quality.

[walterh]

A.B. - i own the 35-70mm AFD2.8 lens. For a zoom lens (i admit i prefer primes) this is optically high quality. very low distortion at any setting, fairly high speed and good sharpness and contrast+color throughout. would be the ideal only lens to buy if it would not have one drawback: "only" 35-70. i guess you can't have it all - the optical performance of this lens and a longer zoom range. the good point is that you know the weak point before you buy it. its sold very cheap used for this very reason. i thought of selling it but at the low prices on ebay i rather keep it, but i end up almost only to use it when shooting people - on all other occasions i got a lineup of primes with me anyway. flare resistance: almost as good as the primes, the front lens is not much recessed - i always use a hood.

cheers

walter

[frank uhlig]

Took some pics last week with the 35-70/2.8: bride in front of a bright window; a little bit of fill flash. As I went on, I cursed myself for not having taken off the UV filter for these shots. I was mad at myself for probably ruining the shots. But so is life, I told myself, cringing ... "Can't think of everything all the time ..." I told myself ...

 

The pics turned out first rate; no flare, no hint of flare, even with the B+W multicoat UV left on. My worries came to naught. Truely aprofessional quality lens, I think. So: do not worry; you could do much worse, lenswise.

[john_riedel]

I've used the 2.8/35-70 for some time. Flare has never been a problem. The lens has always done the job. I had a Sigma 28-80 3.5-5.6 and that thing had tons of flare, just stand next to a white wall and use flash, watch it flare from the flash bouncing off the wall.