Do the newer 2.8 AFS zooms have any optical advantages over the older AFDs?

[nick_bryans3]

Hi all,

 

Just wondering if anyone has any comparisons with the AFD 20-35 vs AFS

17-35, AFD 30-70 vs AFS 28-70, in particular for use with Digital bodies.

 

I'm considering getting a 30-70, as the 28-70 AFS is just too much

money. I've read that the 30-70 is a fine lens, but in the digital age

is there any reason, on optical quality alone, to prefer the 28-70 AFS?

[ShunCheung]

IMO the more important issue is whether those zoom ranges still make sense on a DSLR. For example, the 28-70mm is arguably an ideal lens for event photography using 35mm film. On a DSLR, it is somewhat too long for that purpose and you may be better off with the 17-55mm DX for the same purpose (event photography).

 

Nikon's constant f2.8 push-pull zoom is a 35-70mm, not 30-70. Its optical quality is fine but the zoom range is somewhat limited. Those are frequently the trade offs you need to make. You need to decide whether a 35-70mm works for you on a DSLR.

[eric friedemann]

The 20-35mm AFD lens and 35-70mm AFD lenses are excellent lenses. But optically, the they are not ED lenses and are not quite as sharp at maximum aperture as the 17-35mm AFS and 28-70mm AFS lenses. Also, the 17-35mm and 28-70mm lenses are a leeeetle bit contrastier than the older AFD lenses.

 

 

I would agree with Thom Hogan, who writes of the 20-35mm v. 17-35mm: "Nikon introduced the 17-35mm f/2.8 AF-S lens, which improves upon the 20-35mm in three primary ways without adding any new drawbacks other than a bit more size and weight: (1) focus can be tweaked manually, even in AF mode; (2) it goes significantly wider; and (3) it focuses almost twice as close. Optically, it's a very impressive lens, better than the 20-35mm it surplants."

 

 

As to the 35-70mm v. 28-70mm, I've owned both and sold the 35-70mm to buy the 28-70mm AFS lens: 1. the 35-70mm AFD lens has a push-pull design that I find annoying (at 35mm, most of the lens' weight is out at the front); 2. my 28-70mm AFS lens was a bit contrastier than my 35-70mm AFD and a bit sharper at maximum aperture; 3. The 28-70mm comes with an excellent cut-away lens hood, where the 35-70mm uses a mediocre round hood that is not partiicularly effective; and 4. the fast, silent motor on the AFS lens, with the ability to tweak focus, is wonderful.

 

 

This having been said, I like the 35-70mm in two respects: 1. while the 35-70mm is quite close to being as good optically as the 28-70mm, the 35-70mm is $580 after rebate compared to $1,330 after rebate for the 28-70mm AFS lens; and 2. while the 28-70mm f/2.8 AFS lens is the greatest 35mm-format, all-in-one, event-shooters' lens ever made, it is big and weighs over two pounds compared to the noticeably-smaller, under 1.5 lb. 35-70mm.

 

 

Bottom line- if you don't NEED to shoot at 28mm, get the 35-70mm. Similarly, if you do shoot at 28mm, but are going to duplicate that focal length by purchasing a 20-35mm, save $$$ by getting the 35-70mm.

[nick_bryans3]

Thanks for the replies so far. Shun, I did know it's 35 not sure how I ended up typing 30 all those times, pity it's not though!

 

Jus to explain a bit more I already have the 20-35 & the 80-200 AFDs, I'm doing a lot of people shooting these days, from full body to portrait, with a Fuji S2. I mostly use the 20-35 & a 60, which leaves a big hole that I want to fill. I also find the 20-35 a bit unsuitable for some shots because of the perpective 'distortion', model's feet/legs looking too prominent for example. I am sure the 28-70 is a wonderful lens but I just can't justify that kind of expense. I have the chance to buy a used 35-70 & I guess I'm just looking for a bit of reassurance that I won't be disappointed with it optically.

[eric friedemann]

Let's put it this way- if you are happy with the optical quality of the 20-35mm, you'll be happy with the optical quality of the 35-70mm. Bjørn Rørslett gives the 35-70mm a rather high 4.5 rating and notes: "(t)his bulky and impressively sharp 'normal' lens was released in the late 80's to attract the attention of photojournalists. It is a nice handling lens on an F4 or F5, although the rotating front end is a little annoying when a polariser is used. Barrel distortion and corner fall-off are kept at negligible levels. At f/5.6 to f/11 it delivers excellent images at all focal settings."

[ShunCheung]

If you already have the 20-35 and 80-200, the 35-70mm/f2.8 clearly bridges the gap and you'll have 20-300mm at f2.8 almost continuously, except for a little gap from 70-80mm. Personally, I prefer to have some overlap among zoom lenses so that you don't need to change lenses as often, but given that the 28-70mm/f2.8 AF-S is a lot more expensive, the 35-70mm/f2.8 is the way to go.

 

Actually I still own a 35-70mm/f2.8 AF non-D, but unfortunately mold has developed inside so that it is not usable any more and getting it fixed is too costly, easily exceeding the value of the lens.

[larry n.]

Whenever someone tells you that such and such lens is sharper than such and such lens, you should take it with a grain of salt, especially when both are top lenses from the same manufacturer.

 

If someone has evidence that the 28-70 is noticeably sharper than the 35-70, I would like to see it. The 28-70 is bigger, more expensive and has a wider zoom range and an AFS motor. Inexplicably, Canon makes a much more useful 24-70 for practically the same price.

 

According to Tom Hogan, the 17-35 has many improvements over the 20-35. More importantly, the 17-35 is infinitely more useful on a digital body than a 20-35, and therefore should fetch a higher price in the used market.

[lex_jenkins]

I've been looking at a look of AF gear for the past couple of years, both 35mm and dSLRs. For me it would depend as much on focus tweaking as much as any other factor.

 

If I'm understanding the D lenses correctly, their main advantage is in implementation of 3D matrix metering and TTL flash. The AF-S lenses all have the silent wave motor, which by all accounts is the shiznit. Being a speed freak (don't ask), faster is better.

 

The S2 doesn't have the sophisticated AF capabilities of Nikon's top shelf dSLRs (I don't know whether the S3 is any faster and more positive). Exactly how much real world difference this makes, I don't know. The S3, D100, D70 and 20D all seemed to track about equally on a moving target in a dimly lit camera shop I routinely visit.

 

What trips me up is quick use of the various AF patterns. Comes with practice, I suppose.

 

So I'd want to be sure that if manual focus tweaking wasn't feasible, the lens and camera were as compatible, quick and accurate as possible without having to fiddle with trying to adjust AF zones.

[chris_leck]

One nice thing about AF-S lenses is that you can focus them manually while the lens and camera are in AF mode. It's as simple as turning the focusing ring (which I've largely forgotten how to do).

 

AF-S lenses seem to be much faster focusing than non-AF-S. They seem to hunt less. When they do hunt, they're quick and quiet.

 

My favorite and most-used lens is the 28-70mm AF-S. I use it on my D100 for reportage, performances, events, and portraits (I know...it's the "wrong" body for much of this). I thought I'd sell the 28-70mm when I got the 17-55mm, but I can't bear to. I end up lugging them both around quite a bit.

[loreneidahl]

Based on my experince - None/Depends for the type of shooting that I do.

 

I used to have the 35-70 Nikon - hated it - sold it. Never again.

 

I now have the 28-70 2.8 - perfect - love it 90% of my shots on one D2h are with this lens for the event photography that I do.

 

Shun made a comment earlier about how the 28-70 on digital may not be a good choice. Valid point - however it depends on what events you shoot and how close you can get.

 

 

The optical quality of the 35-70 wasnt that good. The range was limiting and handling was impercise. Slow to lock on target.

 

 

Tokina makes an excellant 28-70 2.8 (ATX-PRO) that I use on my other body (D2h). The lens s 2.8 D and metal body it has a clutch on it that makes for easy AF or MF selection. A very worhtwhile lens that menas I will probably sell my Nikon and keep the Tokina to buy another lens.

 

Optical quality of the ATX lens that I have is SUPERB.

 

 

I also have the 17-50 2.8 - however the range is usually too short and I really dont need to go that wide very often. Optics are OK.

 

I mainly use primes for shots that require a knife edge sharpness. ( 50 1.8 , 85 1.8, 135 2.0 , 180 2.8)