Is Nikon AF 35-70 f/2.8 better than AF-S 28-70 f/2.8?

[jwake]

Finally put together enough to cover my purchase of the AF-S 28-70

f/2.8 and went to order from B&H this past Tuesday....after being in

stock for the last two months...it is now out.

 

Not being able to wait to get my hands on it I drove to a not-so-near-

by camera shop with the intention of buying the the AF-S 28-70 they

had in stock ($100 more than B&H + tax) but the same salesman that

had showed me both the 35-70 and the 28-70 before and let me shoot a

roll of film through both suggested I take both out and shoot a

broader range of subjects in the block around the store (what

outstanding integrity - should have just taken my money for the 28-

70!).

 

With tripod and both lenses as well as my F100 and two rolls of newly

purchased Kodak Supra 400 (I like 100 but the dealer's fridge only

yielded 400)in hand I took the neighborhood on and shot the my normal

range of stops f/5.6-16)and 3 interations of focal lengths (35, 50,

70)with both lenses. To make sure there were no differences in

results of two different rolls of film I went to the trouble of

switching lenses after shooting a run of shots at a certain f stop

and all 3 focal lengths. The results are making me pause to be so

quick to spend $1500 on the 28-70.

 

I developed the film at home and inspected shots in Photo Shop (no

alterations, just straight in from the scanner). Every shot with the

35-70 had slightly better sharpness and contrast than the 28-70?

Could the 28-70 I used be a bad sample...or...is the 35-70 really

slighty better?

[philip_glass]

The 35-70 is a great lens, the best Zoom I have ever used . There can be some pincushion distortion from sample to sample so make sure to check it against some graph paper. It is also fast enough to keep up with normal action (not sports). With the money you save you could buy a couple of primes or a macro too. According to Photozone.de, both lenses test about the same.

[rudymerz]

Depends on your gear.

I have allready the 80-200 AFS and the 17-35 AFS they all share

the same filter attachment size, 77. Therfore i'll buy the 28-70 AFS.

And i like the silent wave motor.;-)

[dale_cotton]

I applaud your methodology in shooting test rolls before purchase.

 

I also have the 35-70 and love everything about it except the chromatic aberration (and lack of a greater range of focal lengths). (Also, the 28-70 may well exhibit the same or greater amount of CA.) At this level of quality I suggest you are better off to do "cherry picking" than worrying about which of the two lens models you end up with. Cherry picking is the term for testing a variety of individual lenses, then choosing the particular sample that shows best.

 

That said, you may need to cover all the focal lengths from something like 24 to 105 or longer, depending on your photographic vision. If you buy a 35-70 then subsequently need to add a 28mm prime, that may well eat up the cost savings of the 35-70 over the 28-70. In that case, cherry picking for an excellent 28-70 would be a good idea.

 

*That* said, you may end up with a wide angle zoom, such as the 16-35, making the 28 end of a 28-70 redundant. All part of the fun of pro lens shopping. ;)

[lloyd_ator1]

I purchased the 28-70 to replace my 35-70 for the additional 7 mms and the s wave motor. I like the additional width, it's a little faster on AF (wasn't a big issue for me), and it takes the same filter (77mm) size as my 85 f4, 80-200, etc. What no one else has mentioned, however, that I actually miss, is that the 35-70 can be switched to manual and used as a macro (not a true macro, but damned close) with the built-in front element extension capacity.

I've also found here and in other forums that many people feel that the quality control somehow wasn't, at least initally, what it should have been, resulting in complaints from some about a lack of sharpness with the 28-70.

I haven't done a side-by-side, but subjectively believe that my 28-70 is not as sharp as my old 35-70, but it sure it a lot bigger and heavier.

[constance_cook]

I have both and the 35 - 70 is certainly excellent. But the 28 - 70 is my most frequently used lens. There would be a serious tussle if you tried to get it away from me.

 

Conni

[Ed_Ingold]

Both lenses are very sharp. I prefer the 28-70, but won't part with my 35-70 for backup. Both are good for landscapes, but the 28-70 has several advantages: non-rotating filter ring (for polarizer), effective lens shade design, and better flare resistance. 28mm is enough wider than 35 to make lens-switching less frequent. The quiet focusing is very desirable. I also shoot concerts. With a blimp, the camera (F5) is inaudable from 5' away with AFS lenses.

 

Otherwise, I can't see any difference in sharpness and contrast. The 35-70 is outstanding for landscapes if you're willing to tweak the polarizer after focusing, and shade the lens with your hand/hat occasionally.

[jwake]

Thanks for all your responses!

 

Some more information for your consideration;

 

I shoot mostly nature/wildlife/landscapes

 

I have a full range of filters for 52,62 & 77mm

 

I have a AF 24mm f2/8D already and will be buying the AF-S 17-35 in the next few days.

[ShunCheung]

I have had the 35-70mm/f2.8 since 1990 and it is an excellent lens for landscape. Unfortunately, during a recent trip, I discovered a layer of mole or something on an internal element. As a result, the images now look a bit "foggy" with low contrast.

 

I took it to an local camera store which has a repair department, and they suggested sending it back to Nikon USA for repair. But I have little doubt that they'll charge me at least $200 if not more. So I am thinking about upgrading too. I already have the 17-35mm AF-S zoom, but I think the 28-70's longer range is helpful as 28mm is a very useful focal length for landscape. With the 28-70, I don't always need the 17-35 with me. However, on digital bodies with the smaller CCD area, even 28mm is not wide enough in most situations and the 35-70mm range is somewhat restricted in today's standards.

 

The downside is, of course, cost and the 28-70 is a very bulky lens too.