amarkin Posted June 9, 2007 Share Posted June 9, 2007 Has anyone owned this lens and would like to comment? I am planning to buy the lens; I am not sure if I am making the right decision.Ideally, it'd be the 28-70mm f/2.8. There's one from Tamron is this range too.Everyone talks about it and suggests as a cheaper alternative. Thanks! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wim_hendrix Posted June 9, 2007 Share Posted June 9, 2007 Hello Alex, I have this lens but maybe it is a different model. I bought it more than 10 years ago when I studied photography. It was my favorite lens untill my father put a scratch in it. I am thinking about asking how much it will cost to repair. I did not use it with a Digital Camera yet (since it has a scratch now) so I can not really comment on the use with one of the digital camera's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rombon Posted June 9, 2007 Share Posted June 9, 2007 I have been using one for years on film SLR (F-4). For my shooting style it has not a very useful zoom range on D200. Regards Marko Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frank uhlig Posted June 9, 2007 Share Posted June 9, 2007 There have been times around here when this lens was discussd weekly. Try to use the search function on the upper right, please. Great lens is all I have ever heard and seen from my example. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hayward Posted June 9, 2007 Share Posted June 9, 2007 I have owned all three of the lenses you mention. The Tamron version wasn't even close to either of the Nikons in optical quality. The 35-70 may be better than the 28-70, but it is debatable. I bought the 28-70 for the extra reach and AF-S. The trade-off is size and cost. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeff_s Posted June 9, 2007 Share Posted June 9, 2007 I had one of those lenses back when the Nikon F4 was a current model, and recall it being a great lens, and the f/2.8 max aperture at all focal lengths was appreciated, as I was shooting Fuji Velvia at the time. But this lens was definitely designed more with film and the 24x36 format in mind. I thought about buying another one for my Nikon DSLR, but some of the newer lenses seem more optimized for the 1.5x multiplier. So I bought a 24-85/2.8-4 instead, so I've got about the same moderate wideangle coverage as before, while maintaining backwards compatibility (it has a real aperture ring and 24x36 coverage). THAT lens has been a mixed bag IMO: Good optical performance, but maybe the backwards compatibility came at the expense of too much added bulk and weight: Back in my F4 days, I was more of a weekend shooter, and weight didn't bother me. Now, I carry a camera every day, and bulk + weight matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amarkin Posted June 9, 2007 Author Share Posted June 9, 2007 Thanks for your comments, everyone! I am undecided on this lens. I cannot afford to spend another $1000+ on a lens. This lens could be an option, there are excellent reviews on it. I am not sure how it will perform on a DSLR. I can't see there should be any problems with this lens apart from the rotating element which makes the lens unsuitable to be used with the polarising filters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rjacksonphoto Posted June 9, 2007 Share Posted June 9, 2007 A lens with a rotating filter ring when zoomed or focused does not make using polarizing filters impossible. You just need to make sure to readjust the polarizer after zooming or focusing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShunCheung Posted June 9, 2007 Share Posted June 9, 2007 I have had the 35-70mm/f2.8 AF since 1990, before D was added to the AF-D version. Otherwise, there is no difference between the two. Optically, it is an excellent zoom with a limited 2x range. On a film body, I always find that 35mm is not all that wide. On a DSLR, it becomes a standard to short tele zoom. I am wondering what you are going to use this lens for? IMO, that is not a very useful zoom range. On a DSLR, I would rather have a moderate wide to short tele such as a 17-55 or 18-70, an all wide zoom like a 12-24 or a short tele to long tele like a 70-200. 35-70 seems to be a strange range. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joshua daniels Posted June 9, 2007 Share Posted June 9, 2007 This is a very sharp but also very flare prone lens. Beware of shooting it against backlit subjects. Otherwise, highly recommended. But I replaced mine with the first series Tokina 28-70/2.8, and this has become my favorite zoom. Not quite as sharp as the Nikon wide open (but the Nikon isn't really usable at 2.8 either), but the Tokina is good at 3.3, very good by 4, and great otherwise. Excellent bokeh, and very sharp throughout the range. I prefer this series to the later versions. Build quality is second to none (better than Nikon, I believe). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kohanmike Posted June 9, 2007 Share Posted June 9, 2007 I have the Nikon AF 24-85 f2.8-4 mentioned above on a D70s (making it 36-127 equivalent). I decided not to buy the kit lens and looked for one that would give me enough mid-range size to be useful and be fast enough. It is also a macro lens, and between it all I am very happy. I got it walk in at Samy's Camera in Los Angeles for about $550. Normal Examples: http://www.kohanmike.com/Concerts.htm Macro Samples: http://www.kohanmike.com/Macro_Closeups.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kohanmike Posted June 9, 2007 Share Posted June 9, 2007 Correction, I got it mail order from Adorama for $550. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wj_lee Posted June 9, 2007 Share Posted June 9, 2007 If you are happy with the range then it is one of the best lenses you can get. Supreme optics and build quality, a little heavier than your usual plastic lenses but you expect that with a lens made out of metal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amarkin Posted June 9, 2007 Author Share Posted June 9, 2007 Few people asked the question above on as to what I am going to use this lens for. I own 20-35mm f/2.8; I find it a little short for taking pictures on the streets and taking pictures of various occasions where people gather. 50mm-105mm or thereabouts in 35mm equiv? I cannot see any problems with the range. Many people use 50mm on DSLR, not many people comment on its range when fitted on a DSLR. Anyway, the range the lens covers looks good to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amarkin Posted June 9, 2007 Author Share Posted June 9, 2007 Looking at sample pictures captured on Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di LD (IF) -- what a beauty!. I wonder if this lens can be used with my Nikon film camera? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gv Posted June 9, 2007 Share Posted June 9, 2007 Having recently switched to a D80 and having a bunch of Nikon lenses going back to '82, I opted for a 12-24mm Tokina and the 35-70mm Nikkor, which I have had since the mid 90s. The two lenses are my basic event/travel kit. I rarely have a need for anything longer than 105mm; if I do, I can bring along my 135 f2, 80-200 f2.8 or 300mm f4. I can appreciate the allure of the 28-70 Nikkor, but not the 3x the price of the 35-70, not to mention the considerable difference in size. The missing range between 24 and 35mm is inconsequential to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lex_jenkins Posted June 9, 2007 Share Posted June 9, 2007 The 35-70/2.8 AF Nikkors (D and non-D) are, IMO, the best price:performance values in any Nikkor zoom. If you're on a budget and value overall image quality above focal range, this is the lens to get. Some folks find the 35mm short end too confining with a dSLR. I don't. I've used it often in tight quarters and usually found it adequate. Here's a photo from my nephew's birth. Typical small hospital room jam packed with family. I didn't have much room to maneuver but managed to get some context to these photos at 35mm on my D2H. 35-70/2.8 at 35mm, which is roughly equivalent to a 50mm lens on a 35mm camera. Someone mentioned flare - this lens is flare prone when light sources are directly in the frame. The only time I've had a problem was photographing a fire at night in the rain. The emergency vehicle lights caused some ghosting and veiling flare. Otherwise, no problems. It's acceptably sharp wide open throughout the focal range, perhaps sharper than the 50/1.8D AF Nikkor wide open. So I haven't found it necessary to stop down from f/2.8 for available light shooting when acceptable sharpness (not critical sharpness) is good enough, such as indoor school sports. The push-pull focus mechanism can make it tricky to precisely set a focal length quickly. It's always been irrelevant to me with my shooting habits. I tend to use it as a trifocal: 35mm, 50mm and 70mm. The zoom doesn't slide around once set so it is possible to set it to a particular focal length. Being an AF rather than AF-S type, it has a reasonably good manual focus feel. Not as good as a real manual focus Nikkor, but a helluva lot better than that AF-S manual focus feel that defies quick precise focus. The only other potential drawback I can think of is that the front element rotates as the lens focuses, including the lens hood. This makes it tricky to use a polarizer. I very rarely use polarizers so it's no big deal to me. If I did use a polarizer I'd swap out the original Nikon bayonet mount hood for a generic threaded hood to fit inside the polarizer. This would enable adjusting the polarizer using the lens hood.<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nolan_ross Posted June 10, 2007 Share Posted June 10, 2007 It's an easy choice. If you have money to burn then get the 28-70 f2.8. If you do not then buy the 35-70mm f2.8. Neither of these lenses appeal to me particularly but I think they are both very nice high quality lenses and I am sure you would like either one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
work-page Posted June 11, 2007 Share Posted June 11, 2007 The 35-70/2.8 (D version) is the lens that lives on my D50. For some inexplicable reason, it's way sharper at f2.8 than my 50/1.8 AFD at f5.6. It's entirely constructed of metal/glass, which means that it's not a light lens. In fact it's about as heavy a lens as I'd feel comfortable with walking around. The one thing that it could be faulted for, is the already mentioned ghosting. It does however depend strongly on the lighting conditions, and I've only ever noticed it in shots where it doesn't really matter, like the one below..<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lex_jenkins Posted June 11, 2007 Share Posted June 11, 2007 Yeh, but it's kinda pretty ghosting. ;> It's always very colorful. None of that half-assed, faded out ghosting you get with some lenses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
george_kladouhas Posted June 12, 2007 Share Posted June 12, 2007 As others have already pointed out, the zoom range is not that useful with dSLRs. However, if you are happy with its zoom range, then this is one of the best lenses you can think of. Supreme optics and build quality, sharp even at f2.8regards,George Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now