Looking for opinion on older pro zooms

[patric_parker1]

<p>Like most of us, I started shooting digital a few years ago, after being a film guy for years. I now use a D200, and I’m on a lens hunt.

<p>I have several primes (50 1.8, 35 1.4, 24 2.8), and several zooms (80-200 2.8D, 18-200 DX, Sigma 10 - 20). From my film experience up until now, my 80-200 has always been my big dog. The shots are just snappier, sharper, and I love the 2.8 for background blur. As soon as I bought this lens, I became a believer that good glass trumps good camera.<br>

I am looking at used pro zooms, specifically the 20-35 2.8D and the 35-70 2.8. My thought is that the Nikon pro lenses are where the pop is, and these were the trio with my 80-200 a few years back. And someday I expect to go FX, though it will be a while, so it seems like if I am looking for more "pro" glass, I should go full frame glass.<br>

But I see postings saying that the "old" Nikons are not optimized for digital, and perform badly. Not my experience with the 80-200, but I am looking for more expert opinions.</p>

</p>

[Matthew Brennan]

<p>Patric,</p>

<p>I'm no pro, but I love the aesthetics of the photos I take. My experience is with digital only and all of my answer here is purely subjective. I've shot extensively with D70, D200 and later D300 and now D700. I have to agree with you to an extent that good glass trumps good cameras. I think I know where you're coming from here.</p>

<p>I trialed the AF 80-200mm f/2.8D lens and I also have used the 35-70mm f2.8 zoom for 18 months now. I opted out of the 80-200mm lens but do recall what it's bokeh was like on some of the wide open shots I took with it. The AF 35-70mm f/2.8 D lens in comparison lacks the same ability to isolate the subject but the OOF elements are rendered in a similar aesthetic, cosmetically pleasing fashion to the 80-200mm lens. My second hand copy of the 35-70mm lens is in very good order and is surprisingly sharp across the frame wide open. Colour rendition is as per a lot of other Nikkor glass, well saturated and similar tone.</p>

<p>The 35-70mm zoom is built very well but features a push / pull zoom mechanism which puts some people off (not me) It also is very sharp but is a shocker for catching lens flare when fitted with a filter - I find it picks up flare easily unless the light source is in a tight selective radius behind the camera. When filters are removed this problem mostly disappears but you can't shoot directly into the sun or a large intense light source without picking up a heavy green lens flare. Another potential draw back of the 35-70mm zoom is that it's not very wide (esp. for DX) at 35mm at the wide end and has only a 2x zoom factor. If you are like me and have a 70-200mm lens and a 17- 35mm lens already then the 35-70mm lens makes a lot of sence if you don't have the $$$ for the lovely 24-70mm zoom. I have very few c/a issues with my 35-70mm lens on the D700 (never used it on a D200 though)</p>

<p>The 35-70mm as a mint- to excellent copy around US $400 - $500 easily represents excellent value for money as an FX format zoom but is outgunned in every other dept. by the newer 24-70mm and the recently superceeded 28-70mm lenses.</p>

[robert_hooper1]

<p>Hi Patric,</p>

<p>I can vouch for the Nikon AF 35-70mm f2.8. as being in the same league with the Nikon AF 80-200mm f2.8,though I would give some slight advantage to the Nikon 80-200mm f2.8. I carried around these lenses along with a Nikon AF 24mm f2.8 and a Nikon F4 as my walk-around kit for some time.</p>

<p>I haven't used a Nikon 35-70mm f2.8 on any of my digital cameras so I couldn't tell you what to expect. However, I am skeptical of many of the disparaging reviews of older Nikon film camera lenses on digital bodies. All it takes to screw up results is a little dirt or internal haze, misalignment of lens elements, etc., or simply poor technique and one can come to a totally bogus conclusion about the performance of a particular model of lens.</p>

[paul_aylett1]

<p>Another vote for the 35-70 2.8D. I found a mint copy (as in looks like it just came out the box) for US$200 but I was very lucky. On eBay they can go for up to $500. It a very overlooked lens and yes, can flare badly with a filter fitted. That said, for studio use (99% of my work), it's tack sharp and built like a tank. I love it to bits.</p><div></div>

[paul_aylett1]

<p>....forgot to add, it also handles macro work quite well.</p><div></div>

[Matthew Brennan]

<p>Yes, I also forgot to comment on the "macro" function of the 35-70mm lens. Whilst it's no substitute for a dedicated micro lens, the macro function at 35mm is more than handy. I've heard views to the contrary about the usefullness of the macro function but if it's the only lens on hand at the time you could do a lot worse.</p>

<p>Nice photos <strong>Paul Aylett</strong> , great input from both lens and photographer in both images!!</p>

[AndyMiller]

<p>Hi there I used to use a D70,D200,D2x and D300 - now I have gone FX and am using a D3, D700 and IR converted D100. I have the 17-35 f2.8 AF-D, - I had the 35 - 70 f2.8 AF-D as well but sold it to help finance the newer 12 -24 AFs f2.8 and 24 - 70 AFs f2.8. All the older AF-D lenses were crackers and I was reluctant to see them go - I had a collection of DX lenses 12-24; 18-200 etc but IMHO nothing beats a good Pro Nikkor - whatever the age. My big guns are a 500 mm f4 - P Nikkor and a 1000 mm f11 reflex - they are both over twenty years old and still going strong - they date back to my Nikon EL II and F2As days. I also have the 70-200 AFs VR and the 80-400. My one regret was getting the 70 - 200 to replace an 80-200 f2.8 AF-s lens - That lens is probably the best I ever used.</p>

[graham_line]

<p>If the speed is acceptable to you, the 24-85/2.8-4D has been my workhorse for several years, even after adding a DX camera and pairs well with the 80-200. My only objection is some waviness wide open at 24mm but it's fine otherwise and has a quasi-macro range as well. Because the lens got a poor rep early on, used prices are pretty manageable.</p>

[paul_aylett1]

<p>Thank you Matthew :o)</p>

<p>Yes it's obviously not as good as a dedicated macro lens but as you so rightly say, if you have nothing else then it's very handy.</p>

[sebastianmoran]

<p>The 35-70 f/2.8D is great. It was my workhorse with film. But, now using mostly DX digital, the 35-70 never even gets out of the cabinet. I suppose it would be a good DX portrait lens, but I use the 18-70 kit lens or one of my 50's instead. Great lens for FX but not for DX. </p>

<p>Matthew, excellent review! Paul, nice images. </p>

[paul_aylett1]

<p>Thank you Richard :o)</p>

[patric_parker1]

<p>Thanks, everyone for your advice. Glad to hear no particular warnings about the older design pro lenses. My other cameras are a 20 year old Hasselblad (with even older lenses) and a 40 year old Rolleflex - I'm not afraid of older equipment.</p>