Want a 24-70 but don't have ~$2k?

[akshun]

<p>I have the d700 and the 24-70mm, i would say nothing compares to its sharpness, and its extremely versatile, price is high, but you get what you pay for.<br>

id say save the money and get a 24-70mm as the 35-70mm has too much colour fringing.(look closely at above images)<br>

but if your not too picky, its fine i guess.</p>

[eric friedemann]

<p>On Nikon's current U.S. page for the 35-70mm f/2.8D, it states "Maximum Reproduction Ratio (Macro Setting): 1:7.7(.)" See Tech Specs:</p>

<p><a href="http://ns3.nikonusa.com/template.php?cat=1&grp=5&productNr=1963">http://ns3.nikonusa.com/template.php?cat=1&grp=5&productNr=1963</a></p>

<p>The original post indicated that the 35-70mm f/2.8D lens was superior in that it had a "macro mode." Even if the 35-70mm f/2.8D does go down to 1:4, its maximum reproduction ratio still falls short of the 24-70mm f/2.8G.</p>

<p>Again, though, the 35-70mm f/2.8D lens is a swell lens at its pricepoint. I almost bought another one when I first switched from D200s to D700s and 24-70mm f/2.8G lenses weren't available for an extended period. </p>

[emiliogtz]

<p>And it has an aperture ring... =)</p>

[john_wall6]

<p>The 35-70 f/2.8 Nikkor is optically a great lens -- I used to own one -- but it has push-pull zoom.<br>

That was a deal-breaker for me. I hate using push-pull zooms.<br>

Also, the zoom range is VERY short. The rap on this lens when it was new was that you could zoom that much with your feet, a step back, a step forward, and you have the zoom range on this lens.<br>

The purist argument was that you ought to buy a 50 mm f/1.4 for less money and much more control of depth-of-field.<br>

On the other hand, the rumor mill has it that Nikon is due out with a 24-105 f/4 zoom with VR. If its as sharp as the 28-105 variable aperture zoom, I'll stand in line.</p>