The venerable Nikkor 35-70 f2.8D

[larry_johnson6]

<p>In July I purchased a new D610 and the terrific 16-35 f4 VR zoom, and have been adjusting my thinking away from medium format film work. I'm looking ahead to adding to my kit and keep reading about the 35-70 zoom that apparently was quite popular fifteen years ago. My question is, does it hold up to a current 24 mp sensor and produce good, sharp images capable of being printed, say, 20"x30"? I value optics over any weight or size concerns. What do you think?</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>only one way to find out. the lens was only discontinued a few years ago. keep in mind, however, that of the Nikkor pro standard zooms, only the 24-70 was developed in an age of full frame sensors. that said, the 35-70 was sharp enough for film. according to Ken Ro*kwell (i know, i know) it's sharp on a d600 but loses out some edge acuity at large apertures compared to more modern zooms. i would expect the more current zooms to have better flare resistance and of course, AF will be faster on an AF-S lens. it's also a push-pull design so you've got to be ok with that. seems to be a good bang for the buck lens; for about $300 on the auction site you may not be able to do much better. you can sell it for what you paid if you dont like it. you might also want to look into the tamron 28-75 which is a sharp optic which also holds up on FX sensors (though it's a bit soft @2.8).</p>

[mccosh]

<p>Sorry I can't answer your question but I can recommend the Tamron 28 - 75mm f/2.8 lens teamed up with my D600 is giving me increadably sharp images. Check some out <a href="http://www.mccoshphotography.com/Client-Galleries/Jack--Gabrielle">here</a>. Now looking at buying the Tamron 70 - 200 f/2.8 <br /><br />John</p>

[jon_porter]

<p>A friend of mine uses the 35-70mm quite a bit with his D800 and his results are impressive. I had one when I got my D700 and was also satisfied with the results. But I sold it for what I paid for it when I switched to the 24-85mm, since VR, AFS and a wider zoom range were more important to me than the constant f/2.8 aperture.</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>While the 35-70 might be the most economical way to get a good f/2.8 medium range zoom, I find its zoomrange really awkwardly short. A 28-70 or 24-70 adds that bit wide end that makes them versatile tools, but a 35-70 to me is pretty much like a 35mm and a 50mm prime with a slower aperture. And given that you have a good lens at 35mm, why not simply add a 50mm? The 50mm f/1.8G is a pretty great performer, costs less and at f/2.8 will certainly hold up to the resolutions you want.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>Hi Larry, your wide zoom is a 16-35mm/f4 AF-S VR. Do you need f2.8 for your mid-range zoom? If a slower zoom is acceptable, I would get the 24-85mm/f3.5-4.5 AF-S VR: http://www.photo.net/equipment/nikon/lenses/review/24-85mm-f3.5-4.5-af-s-vr</p>

<p>I bought the 35-70mm/f2.8 AF back in 1990 (pre-D version, but optically identically to the AF-D version). Optically it is fine, but I really dislike the limited zoom range, especially since 35mm is not very wide on the short end.</p>

<p>If you need f2.8, the current 24-70mm/f2.8 AF-S is very fine but expensive and big. I have the older 28-70mm/f2.8 AF-S that has an aperture ring. That older lens is still great on the D800E. Of course, there are also some third-party options.</p>

[robert_bouknight1]

<p>I had one. Optically, it was good when stopped down a little. But I did not like the AF "sound", and limited zoom range. Some screwdriver AF lenses sound OK (105DC and 180/2.8 as examples), but the 35-70 was irritating, IMO.</p>

<p>Though I dot have them at the same time to compare, I think my 28-70/2.8 AFS is a good bit better at f2.8. In fact, I avoided using the 35-70 at 2.8 if all possible and don't hesitate to use the 28-70 wide open.</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>The 35-70/2.8D is a good lens for 35mm film and on my old 4 meagerpickle D2H. Not bad on my 10 middlepixel V1 with all manual adapter. It's adequate wide open but really needs to be stopped down to f/4 for critical sharpness - detailed eyelashes, pupils, etc. No particular problems with veiling flare but it is vulnerable to ghosting flare at night with bright lights in the frame. But for a D610 I'd look for something with better multi-coatings on the rear elements to minimize loss of contrast and saturation due to internal flare. It sometimes lacks the snap associated loosely with perceptions of "sharpness" due to higher contrast and saturation associated with more recent optical designs. On the other hand, I like that slightly decreased contrast/saturation for portraits, especially with film.</p>

[larry_johnson6]

<p>I appreciate the input from everyone so far, and Lex, yours is the kind of specific explanation I can relate to. I thought this lens might be an affordable gap-filler for me, allowing me to keep it on for a lot of general walk-around use. Yes, I know several of the contemporary 24-70 and 24-105 range lenses will perform better, so I need to work on budgeting for this and buying right, once.</p>

[johnfarrar]

<p>Loved this lens on the D700, hardly use it on the D800, for landscape; still use it for people. It's sharp enough stopped down but the flare issue is serious; bright backlights are a real problem, not helped by a poorly designed hood. Why not go prime? The 50/1.8G was mentioned above; the 85/1.8G is superb.</p>

[larry_johnson6]

<p>John, good suggestions. Of the two scenarios I'm considering, using primes makes a lot of sense. The next piece in the kit would be the 50mm f1.8D (used ~$110). DxO gives it a great grade, and the 85mm f1.8 gets similar props. </p>

[john_narsuitus]

<blockquote>

<p>"I'm looking ahead to adding to my kit and keep reading about the 35-70 zoom that apparently was quite popular fifteen years ago. My question is, does it hold up to a current 24 mp sensor and produce good, sharp images capable of being printed, say, 20"x30"? I value optics over any weight or size concerns. What do you think?"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The Nikon 35-70mm f/2.8 auto focus had been my primary wedding zoom lens when shooting film. I also used a Nikon 20-35mm f/2.8 when the 35-70mm f/2.8 was not wide enough.</p>

<p>When I started shooting weddings with a DX digital SLR, I kept my two film lenses. However, my 20-35mm became my primary wedding zoom lens and I only used my 35-70mm when I needed more reach.</p>

<p>These two lenses, along with the Nikon 14-24mm f/2.8 and 80-200mm f/2.8, are the four zooms I routinely use to shoot weddings.</p>

<p>I cannot comment on the 35-70mm image quality with a 24mp sensor because my DX dSLR does not have a 24mp sensor. Plus, I shoot with prime lenses when I know I will be making large prints.<br>

<br /> </div>

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>I have heard rumors of the 35-70 f/2.8 sometimes suddenly fogging over. I do not know if they are true.</p>

<p>I could not afford the 24-70 and did not trust the 35-70, so I bought the 28-70 f/2.8. Works like a charm on the D800E. </p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[bob_h]

<p>Larry if you are serious about your D610 replacing your MF film, and buying an 85mm lens, the 85 1.4G is noticeably better than the 85 1.8D, yes a thousand dollars more expensive, but it will help to make your work in that range stand above the others. Rent them both and your eyes will say "keep saving, get the good one".</p>

[larry_johnson6]

<p>Thanks, Bob. That's a strong endorsement for the 1.4G over the 1.8D. Realistically I know a FF 24 MP won't replace what I get from a 400 MB scan of a good 67 trans, at least not for huge prints, but I believe I can get satisfactory quality if I limit my print to, say, 20x30 prints from the D610. I've been doing several sessions using the comparison tests from DxO the past week: Interesting stuff. Meanwhile, I've moved on from the 35-70 idea. A week ago I added a 50mm f1.4D to my kit and have been trying it out. Now, looking further ahead, I expect to get a very good 85mm prime next, unless my local camera shop guy convinces me I'd be better off with an excellent used 80-200 f2.8D he's got two of! Any opinions about that? Thanks.</p>

[larry_johnson6]

<p>Thanks, Bob. That's a strong endorsement for the 85mm 1.4G over the 1.8D. Realistically I know a FF 24 MP won't replace what I get from a 400 MB scan of a good 67 trans, at least not for huge prints, but I believe I can get satisfactory quality if I limit things to, say, 20x30 prints from the D610. I've had several sessions using the comparison tests from DxO the past week: Interesting stuff. Meanwhile, I've moved on from the 35-70 idea. A week ago I added a 50mm f1.4D to my kit and have been trying it out. Now, looking further ahead, I expect to get a very good 85mm prime next, unless my local camera shop guy convinces me I'd be better off with an excellent used 80-200 f2.8D he's got two of! Any opinions about that? Thanks.</p>