Nikon AF 35-70mm f/2.8 and f/2.8d

[BelaMolnar]

<p>Simple question. What is a different between a Nikon AF 35-70mm f/2.8 and the F/2.8D lens? In quality, like sharpness, contrast etc.</p>

<p>Thank you.</p>

[niccoury]

<p>On IQ, etc., there is little difference. Sharpness, contrast and overall image is about the same. The "D" version gives distances stuff to the camera.</p>

[Matthew Brennan]

<p>Bela,</p>

<p>The D and non D versions are optically identicle. As Nic, states, the D stands for distance' ; the D version relays distance information to the camera body particularly for flash metering information purposes. </p>

<p>If you don't intend using a flash with this lens then the non D version might represent a small saving in cost.</p>

[BelaMolnar]

<p>Yesss! Why am I so stupid. Last night I bough (2) two 35-70/2.8 ( I will keep the best and going to sell the second) and noticed non of them a "D" version, panicked, and on the reviews I find only "D" version, forgetting the "D" is for distance information for the camera and the flash . Getting older, hehh. It is no mater D or not D, because I will never us it with flash-light. Thank you very much for both of you.<br /> Have a good day; Bela</p>

[todd peach seattle, washi]

<p>I remember there were some anecdotes running around that the non-D version was more prone to delamination between the elements.</p>

<p>Don't know if they changed the lamination material / construction methods on the D, or if maybe the observation could be chalked up to simply, "older lenses are more likely to be de-laminated".</p>

[arnulfo_rosas1]

<p>Too much bla, bla, bla about the "D" vs the "non D" but in 6 years being a reader and a poster in this forum...and I have not seen any single actual comparison between those two versions. Is anybody out there who can show us pictures side by side?. Thanks!</p>

[BelaMolnar]

<p>Hi Arnulfo. Don't expect any side by side comparison of images of the D and not D version, because they are the exactly same lenses. The only different is, nikon added an extra feature for the CPU, for the "D" distant information, to the camera processor, incase somebody want a precise flash photography. And the CPU available, all ready has this feature build in to it for the newest 35-70/2.8 as the other "D" lenses. The "D" designation only shown to us, it is a second batch of the same lens.</p>

[heartyfisher]

<p>Also the TTL flashes probably wont need to know the distance anyway ... as the system reads the exposure needed in the pre flashes..</p>

[todd peach seattle, washi]

<p><i>Also the TTL flashes probably wont need to know the distance anyway ... as the system reads the exposure needed in the pre flashes..</i></p>

<p>Tze -</p>

<p>I think you've missed the point of what "D" brought to the party. TTL flash was a great advance. D-TTL added the "distance" to the equation, and this helped to dial out "white wedding dresses / black tuxes" and how their non-standard reflectances threw off TTL flashes. By knowing "distance" from the subject, the system could insert a bias if the subject was something substantially different from 18% gray.</p>

<p>I'm not at all certain I can explain the latest E-TTL, but I thought I'd throw out my understanding of "D".</p>