Nikon 35-70 AFD 2.8 on d200 or d300

[hugh_sakols]

Having mostly used a medium format camera with 3 prime lenses over the last

several years, I'm now considering a Nikon d300. I am looking for a solid good

performing lens in the normal range. Being mostly a landscape and nature

photographer, I have a hard time justifying the 24-70 and 28-70 zooms because of

their weight and cost. I imagine the 35-70mm zoom would be a stellar performer

along with the 12-24. Now for my question: For the times I want to use it for

candids how is the auto focus on the d200 or d300? It will be no afs lens but

will it still work as an AF lens when people are moving about?

 

www.yosemitecollection.com

[dan_k6]

I just bought that lens a few days ago. The AF is faster than I expected. I'd imagine this lens would be a little slower than the 24/28-70 but not by that much. I don't even know if you would really notice a major difference...the only thing you'll hear is the noise. AF is, like I said better, than expected on my D200.

 

At under $500 it's an amazing deal on a 2.8 zoom and the picture quality is excellent. This lens indeed does produce vibrant colors.

 

Be sure that 35 is good enough for you. I plan on using it more in the 50-70 range because I already have a 17-55.

 

Great Lens.

[kfoster70]

Ive had the 35-70mm for several years. I use to use it to shoot my son skateboarding mainly because it was the fastest zoom I had in terms of being a f/2.8. Its sharp and the AF seemed quick enough. However, its a push-pull zoom which takes some getting use too, and the front lens turns during focusing which makes polarizers a pain. And since its not a wide angle on digital (angle of view same as 52-105mm on 35mm film) its not very good for landscape. I like it for portraits more than anything these days.

 

Since I bought a 17-55mm f/2.8 I really never use the 35-70mm anymore. When I originally bought the lens there really werent any wideangle zooms for digital that were fast that were inexpensive. Then Tamron and Sigma came out with 12,18-50mm f/2.8 zooms. I would get one of these to use with a 12-24mm if I did have the 17-55mm.

[bruce_margolis]

Hugh, I used to have the 35-70. I prefer the 12-24 generally for landscape shots but I have other lenses that overlap the 35-70. The 35-70 is a great film/FX lens but the range just wasn't working for me when I switched to digital. Maybe your experience would be different.

[tonybeach]

Very good optically once it's stopped down a bit; but a a bit clunky for AF and the front rotates during focusing, which makes GND and Polarizer filters impractical.

[eric_arnold]

IMO starting at 35 on a DX body will be pretty limiting. i know you have the 12-24 but you might want to also consider a 28mm or 30mm prime since the 25-34 range is fairly important. or "the beast": nikkor 28-70. if that's too rich for your blood, the tamron 28-75 is fast, sharp, and light.

[reiley_mckerracher]

i find its a really good lens on my d80, just not wide enough for indoor pictures (ie parties and family gatherings) focusing speed isnt an issue ever, and its very sharp.

[juanjo_viagran]

I had the 35-70mm 2.8D and is SUPER SHARP at 35mm, VERY SHARP at 50mm and getting a little soft at 70mm, all this at 2.8 in a D200.

 

still, great built quality and awesome performer, if you don't mind the push/pull zoom.

 

AF is fast, but not AF-S fast.

[Peter_in_PA]

35 - 70 is NOT a "normal" range on a DSLR. It's a portrait range, but not normal. For shooting

people at parties, the candid shots you mention, it can't be beat. For "normal" photography,

it is next to useless.

 

GREAT lens, though.

[andrea-de-bonis]

when i bought the D200 i hade to stop using the 35-70/2,8. this camera, and the d300 too,

is very exigent for the lenses. i had big problems of incisivity and flare. i did some test taking

the same pic with the D50, the D70 and the D200, and i have seen that, at all the apertures,

and the performance on the D50 and D70 was really better than the D200.

[mark_kolanowski]

Hugh, This was the first auto-focus lens I bought to go with a then new N90s film body. It then saw use on my F100. On the film bodies it was a great general purpose candid,wedding and party, lens. Now on my DSLRs, D70s and D200's. It has become a great performer for shooting portraits. Its very sharp and has reasonably fast AF on these bodies. Fast enough that as of late its seen use on the basketball court with good results. For general candids it is not wide enough on a digital DX body for my needs. I end up using either a 12-24 or 18-70 for this kind of work. Enclosed is a recent portrait using the 35-70. Good Luck, Mark<div></div>

[lou korell]

I am interested to hear more. I have the 35-70 f2.8 but I have been using the 28-70 f2.8AF-S on my D300. I have been wanting to try the 35-70 too just to see the difference. I guess I will now.

 

Lou

[g._v.]

My basic kit these days is a D80 with a Tokina 12-24 and the 35-70. The 17-55mm and 28-

70mm Nikkors are too big and expensive for my taste... Weight means a lot to me when

traveling or just carrying gear around, and the two-lens combo covers just about everything

for me. Like Mark I started using the 35-70 on my N90s bodies and my copy has seen a lot

of use over the years. I have never had reason to blame a missed or unusable shot on the

lens.

[cmulcahy]

I just got my 35-70 in the mail today. I purchased it used for $275 and it's awesome. I was headed out to the Madison, Wi wedding show and while leaving the house the mailman pulled up w/ my new lens. So I grabbed it and took off to the wedding show. I used it all day. The lighting was OK, as it was in an indoor convention center. The lens performance was excellent. I just got done going over my photo's and very few were not up to par...and the bad one's were my fault.

 

As a landscape lense - no. As a portrait / walk around lens = AWESOME. I bought this lens for indoor parties, shots of the kids, and portraits. And after one day I can tell you I love it. I was using a kit lens to go w/ my 50mm 1.4 and Sigma 10-20. The 35-70 is IMO nothing more but a portrait lens and a darn good one for $275.

 

For landscapes if you don't want to spend the $ on the Nikon wide angle's - get a Sigma 10-20, you'll love it.

[cmulcahy]

If you already have a 28-70 2.8 I see no reason to buy the 35-70. The length of the 35-70 is not what I'd like, but for $275 what can I say? I got an awesome lens for very little money. If you have the cash to spend on the new big guns from Nikon then do it. If not buy the 35-70 you won't regret it.

[hugh_sakols]

Actually the 35-70 AFD despite its limitations sounds very enticing. Thanks for sharing. In understand that from a full frame perspective this lens would be about 50-105. I find it interesting that throughout this forum people think that a landscape lens should be in the wide angle range. I find that the majority of my best landscape images are in fact shot between 50-100mm (full frame). Yes I do appreciate using wide lenses but only when nothing else will work. John Shaw once said that if he could only have one lens for his 35mm camera he would choose a 105mm. Michael Fry from the Ansel Adams Gallery told me that his most used lens for landscapes / nature is his 70-200 zoom that he uses on his full frame digital SLR. Just by the nature of an open thread I'm not surprised to different types of comments and ideas - I appreciate them all.

[bahrammonshat]

Hugh,

 

I got the 35-70 brand new from B&H a few weeks ago. On DX Formt it is a excellent portrait lens, I believe. On FX an excellent Normal Zoom.

 

PC Please note that on DX, it's range is 52.5-105.

[cmulcahy]

Hugh, what you are saying is really a "style" preference. The few landscape photographers I've talked to use a wide angle 12-24 2.8 as well as the 70-200mm 2.8. From the sounds of it, you would prefer that 70-200 range. If you don't like the wide angle then maybe the 35-70mm along w/ a 70-200mm will suit you perfectly? I would take serious look at the 80-200mm 2.8D if you don't want to spend $1600-1800 on a lens.

 

My self I would never think of using my 35-70mm as a landscape lens. It just seems to me like the perfect portrait / walk around lens for the guy who can't afford the 24-70mm 2.8. I personally wish I had a 35-85mm 2.8 for portraits, but that's just me. So I'm still left longing for the 85mm 1.8 or the often talked about 80-200mm 2.8. The 70-200mm 2.8 VR will not be in my cards for a very long time if ever due to the high cost.

[bahrammonshat]

Hope I am not digressing here. More positives about the 35-70, 2.8: Its handling and balance as well as the feel is just perfect. I prefer its feel more than that of the 70-200VR maybe because it reminds me very much of the old fashioned super tough Nikkors.

[wayne_ruddock]

I just brought these lens on a steal deal on ebay in excellent condition for $130.00. The seller had excellent feedback back from well over 1000 sales and I can almost bet that the lens should come in excellent condition as stated on the Ad.

 

Thanks for all the good feedback and reviews about this lens.. I am somewhat new to photography and have been juggling around lenses for a while. I started off with the D50 w/ the 18-55mm lens.. from there, I have owned a 70-300mm G lens and also a Nikkor 60mm 2.8 Macro lens. Eventually I sold everything and ended up with nothing until Mid-december when I found someone selling the Nikon 18-200mm lens for $600.00 firm on CL and then I upgraded my camera body to the D70 which only costed me $200.00. I am on a very strict budget because I have young children so pricing and timing means everything to me. Right now I have a D70 w/ 18-200mm + SB-600 flash. I enjoy reading articles and mainly most of my photos have been at Birthday parties, and simple get togethers. I enjoy it very much and really hope to get into more serious photography this year. I am anxious to see how this 35-70mm lens will work for me. I loved the Nikkor 60mm 2.8 lens, it was exteremly sharp, but the fact that it was only 60mm killed me sometimes I wanted to have something a little more versatile. today is 1-29-08 and I just got the shipment notifation from the seller that the lens was shipped yesterday so let's see how this turns out.

 

Also, I was thinking about getting a Nikon D200 in february and maybe a point and shoot camera... Orginally, I had a Sony DSC--- it was a 7.2 and I rememer losing it and it made me so upset because at the time, that camera costed me $500.00 because it was the highest MP camera I think back in 2004 or 2005. Well.. we will see what happens from here.