Anybody own/use a Nikon 35-70mm f/2.8D?

[p3nnst8r]

<p>I own a Nikon d80, I am looking at a new lens to use instead of my base 18/135 f/3.5-5.6. I am also looking into FX cameras to purchase at a later time (2-3 years down the road), so would not like to get into DX format lenses. I was looking around for an all purpose lens under 800 (tight budget currently) and came upon the 35-70 for ~300. I looked into it and saw a few people had some high praise for it.<br />Has anybody used this lens? I know it would turn into a 50-100 pretty much with my camera (d80), but I'm wondering if it's worth the value.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<blockquote>

<p>I am also looking into FX cameras to purchase at a later time (2-3 years down the road), so would not like to get into DX format lenses.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Why?</p>

<p>If you are going to be using DX in the next 2, 3 years, why not just get an appropriate DX lens for that period. If 3 years from now you indeed switch to FX, sell that DX lens then. If you buy a good-quality DX lens, especially a Nikon one, reselling it in a few years shouldn't be a major issue and you should not get a major financial loss.</p>

<p>I bought a 35-70mm/f2.8 AF back in 1990. I always found 35mm not wide enough for 35mm film/FX. It developed the common fogged up problem inside about 8 years ago. Since I never liked that zoom range anyway, I didn't bother to get it repaired. It has been sitting on the shelf ever since.</p>

<p>2, 3 years from now, most likely 20MP, 30MP will be the norm for FX-format DSLRs. (Not that most people will need that kind of resolution, but the "mega-pixel race" still seems to be on-going.) How well these older AF lenses will perform on 30MP is a big questionmark.</p>

[joseph_wisniewski]

<p>Shun makes sense...</p>

<p>The 35-70mm is heavy, and an extraordinarily awkward focal length range on a 1.5x crop camera. 53-105mm. Long before digital, Nikon's prime line went in 20-30% jumps from wide to normal: 16, 20, 24, 28, 35, 50mm, then took a flying 70% leap up to the 85mm telephoto. The telephotos then continued merrily on 85, 105, 135, 180mm. There were four different 50mm lenses (1.8, 1.4, 1.2, and an economy 1.8 "E" series) and two different 85mm (1.4 and 1.8) on the other side of the "hole". They certainly could have filled it in. All camera brands are like that.I call that area from 50-85mm the "universal hole". Nikon, Canon, etc. didn't care that their zooms left a gap in that range: they had 35-70mm f2.8 (later, 28-70mm f2.8) and then 80-200mm f2.8.</p>

<p>By something that satisfy your needs, right now. It will pay for itself in the next 2-3 years, either in enjoyment (if you're a hobbyist) or in money earned (if you're a professional). And, when you do go FF, in 2-3 years, Nikon may replace the (really, quite amazing) 24-70mm f2.8 G, and you might be able to get the AF-S 28-70mm f2.8 AF-S (a generation behind the 24-70mm f2.8 G) cheaper, and end up with a FF lens that blows the doors off that 35-70mm f2.8.</p>

<p>You can sometimes run into the Nikon 17-55mm f2.8 AF-S DX in the $800-900 range (you do have to shop around). That's a 26-80mm equivalent, a lot wider than the 35-70mm that Shun didn't like on film. Or, your $800 can get you a brand new, stabilized Tamron 17-50mm f2.8. 26-75mm is a great normal zoom, and stabilized doesn't hurt. It will leave you $200 change, for a used manual focus 105mm f2.5 or 55mm f2.5 micro-Nikkor and a Dandelion chip to get them working with metering on your D80.</p>

[bgelfand]

<p>I have and use the 35-70 f/2.8D on my F100 35mm camera. (I do not use it on a DSLR simply because I do not have a DSLR).</p>

<p>I find it to be a sharp lens with good contrast. The only disadvantage I have seen is it does tend to flare more than the 50 mm f/1.4D when pointed in the direction of the sun, even with a lens shade.</p>

<p>Here are a few examples of photos taken with the 35-70mm f/2.8D with the lens set a various focal lengths.</p>

<p><a href="../photo/5679060">http://www.photo.net/photo/5679060</a> (set at 35mm)</p>

<p><a href="../photo/6875901&size=lg">http://www.photo.net/photo/6875901&size=lg</a> (set at 70mm)</p>

<p><a href="../photo/3712092">http://www.photo.net/photo/3712092</a> (set at 70mm)</p>

<p><a href="../photo/3712100">http://www.photo.net/photo/3712100</a> (set at 70mm)</p>

<p><a href="../photo/3973455&size=lg">http://www.photo.net/photo/3973455&size=lg</a> (set at 44mm)</p>

<p>In the photos of the young man, the lens is sharp enough so you can count the hair on his head, the eyelashes on his eyes, or the freckles on his face (if you have the patience <grin>). </p>

<p>By the way, does the D80 have the ability to autofocus this lens, which requires the camera body to focus via the "screwdriver" drive? If not, you will need an AIS lens.</p>

<p> </p>

[ShunCheung]

<blockquote>

<p>does the D80 have the ability to autofocus this lens</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes, the D80 has the AF motor built into the body.</p>

[jon_porter2]

<p>It's a superb lens, though I've always hated push-pull zooms. I used one for 10 years, primarily on film cameras. I also used it on my first digital SLRs, a D50 and D1X. But I didn't like it on those cameras due to its less useful focal range on DX and its weight/bulk. I sold it last year when I bought a D700 and switched to the 28-70mm f/3.5-4.5, which is smaller, lighter, and a more useful zoom range. Also, an f/2.8 aperture isn't as critical for digital. I agree with the other posts; buy something more useful for what you have today. </p>

[Ed_Ingold]

<p>If you use this camera professionally, spend a little more and put a 17-55/2.8 on the camera. DX cameras are going to be around a long time yet, and you can sell it for nearly what you paid for it if you move on to an FX camera.</p>

<p>I have the 35-70/2.8 AFD, which compares well in sharpness with the 28-70/2.8 AFS and is about 30% smaller and lighter. In it's day, it was a companion with the 20-35/2.8 AFD and 80-200/2.8, of which there were three varieties.</p>

<p>The downside is it's relatively narrow wide end (35mm), narrow focusing ring and the filter ring rotates when focusing. The last point makes it hard to use with a polarizer and allows only a round lens shade. It is somewhat more susceptible to flare than the 28-70. I got along well with the push-pull zoom, but most people do not.</p>

<p>With film, the 35-70 was my "normal" lens. However, no lens in this focal range is particularly useful with a DX camera. I used a 17-35 half the time with my D2x, with the mid-range zoom mainly for formal groups and portraits. I resisted getting a 17-55/2.8 DX lens, although it would have been required less swapping lenses during weddings and events. I now have a D3, and keep the 28-70 mounted most of the time.</p>

[john_stockdale2]

<p>I use one of these lenses. I like it so much that I had the cloudy element replaced at considerable cost. I bought a full frame DSLR because I already had many lenses that I wanted to use. And I still use several film cameras.</p>

<p>But if I had not already owned these lenses, I think that I would have been completely satisfied with a DX camera, and modern DX lenses would have been my choice.</p>

<p>For DX, the 35-70 range would not be very useful for me.</p>

<p>I agree with Shun: don't buy something today that's not ideal in the expectation that it will be useful in several years: lots of things will change by then.</p>

[kenfretz]

<p>I have the 35-70mm f2.8 which I originally used with my F5. It never seemed to be short enough or long enough. When I got my first DX body, I found that it is just perfect as a portrait lens. It runs from normal, for full length shots, to 2X normal for the head and shoulder perspective. With its f2.8 aperture I can control the depth of field almost as well as I can with a prime lens. I wish there was a 50-100mm for use with the FX format.<br /><br />Ken<br /><br /></p>

[john_narsuitus]

<p>

<p>I have used a 35-70mm f/2.8 auto focus Nikon lens for some time. It replaced a 35-85mm f/2.8 Vivitar lens which replaced a 43-86mm f/3.5 Nikon lens.<br>

　<br>

On my FX camera, this lens is a great substitute for a normal lens. Since I preferred using prime lenses, I use this lens as a backup. I also use this lens when I cannot not switch fast enough between my 35mm, 50mm, and 85mm prime lenses.<br>

　<br>

On my DX camera,, this lens is ideal for full-length, ¾ length, half length, and head & shoulder portraits of adults.<br>

　<br>

On my DX digital camera, this lens is one of the four lenses I use the most:<br>

14-34mm f/2.8<br>

24-35mm f/2.8<br>

35-70mm f/2.8<br>

80-200mm f/2.8<br>

　<br>

Of the four lenses, it is the only push/pull zoom. However, I prefer the push/pull zoom feature when I am using the lens in the manual focus mode.<br>

　<br>

On auto focus, this lens is fast enough for weddings but is too slow for fast action sports shots.</p>

<br>

.</p>

[pschuler]

<p>Greg,</p>

<p>I think these responses reveal that a lens' value depends primarily on parameters that only you can determine.</p>

<p>For me ... The 35-70 is my standard, all-purpose lens on my DX-format camera, fitting my needs much better than the lens did when I shot film. I don't use a polarizer often enough for the rotating front element to cause problems, and even when I use a polarizer on other lenses I continually readjust the filter as much with them as with the 35-70. My limited budget forces me to adopt a longer time horizon when buying lenses -- I can't afford to buy a lens that I would use for only 2-3 years, even taking into account its resale value. </p>

<p>If I were shooting different subjects, under different lighting conditions, and had a different budget constraint, I would have a different appraisal of this lens.</p>

[tony_defilippo1]

<p>Hi Greg,</p>

<p>I've got a 35-70/2.8 which I bought originally for my D80 and find it to be a very good lens for the money. You should be able to find one for significantly less than $800, here in the DC area they generally go for $325-400. <br>

<br />I haven't encountered the cloudy element problem that several people have mentioned here though I guess I'll be on the lookout.</p>

<p>I use the lens now on my F5 and D300, it is a bit akward on DX if your hoping for a general purpose walk around, or event lens. I find it very nice for 3/4 to head shot portraiture and for some architectural work. I have read of several people using it successfully as a studio lens as it is sharp and renders the out of focus areas nicely. On the F5 I absolutly love this lens, it rarely comes off. I also have the 20-35/2.8 which is a bit more usefull on DX and very wide for FX.</p>

<p>Regarding the push-pull, you get used to it. I also shoot with the MF Series E 75-150 that is push-pull. Supposedly they are more prone to getting dust inside which makes sense but I have not witnessed it with my copies.</p>

<p>I haven't shot with the 28 or 24-70 but the size and cost difference is significant. If you can find one for around $350 I don't think you'll be disappointed.</p>

[pablito_pistola]

<p>Yes, it produces very pleasing and sharp resutls. I use it on a DX camera for portraits or available light theatrical work in small spaces. I do not like push-pull either, but if it has to be push pull then I wish at least it worked the opposite way, with the 35mm f/l achieved when the lens was pulled in instead of fully extented. I won't sell it because I do use it occasionally but agree it has limited use on DX format.</p>

[steve_levine]

<p>Never used one on a crop camera. But it was mine, and a million other wedding shooters favorite for a few years. Especially the D version, which allowed some brilliant flash features. This was the (constant aperture) zoom by which others were judged. Stopped down to F8 or so, it was as sharp as comparable primes.</p>

[luis_g]

<p>I had one that I used on various Dx format cameras, and found the range quite useful for portaiture.</p>

[mark liddell]

As sharp as any prime 35-50mm even wide open but performance at the corners drops off at 60-70mm. Flares like you wouldn't believe, and it's image ruining veiling flare too.

 

Great lens for the money and well built but I'd take the new 24-70 if I had thousands to drop on a lens.

[michael_krouskop]

<p>I managed to somehow get two of these lenses while shooting film. I used it as my primary lens with my F4s. After the switch to digital and experiencing other lenses I don't care for much on either FX or DX format.. It focuses too slow and the macro feature is pretty worthless. I sold one recently and will trade or sell the other later.</p>