h_rodkin Posted May 21, 2003 Share Posted May 21, 2003 I have a pretty good range of fixed focus Nikon lenses and the 80- 200. For my all purpose lens I'm still using a 12 year old AF35-105, 3.4-4.5. I like the size, weight and the range and the optics seem to be decent if not great. Does anyone have experience with this lens and have any suggestions as to whether I should just stick to this lens, or is there another one that will be an improvement and worth the investment. Thanks, Howard Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jason michael Posted May 21, 2003 Share Posted May 21, 2003 The general consensus amongst prime users (prime focal lengths that is) is that the 28-105mm f3.5-4.5 AF-D IF is an "acceptable" zoom. I like the 28-105mm and my only uncertainty regarding recommending this lens would be for manual use as the focus ring has the least amount of throw I have seen in any Nikon. Other than that I find it to be an excellent day lens. Oh and it has an excellent close focusing distance with an okay macro setting (half life size). Many of us Nikonians also have high hopes for the as-of-yet-unreleased 24-120mm AFS VR. I've also used the 24-50m AF, 24-85 f2.8-4, 24-85 AFS, 24-120, and the 28-200 and I've found the 28-105mm to be the best zoom day lens for quality and focal lengths. Cheers, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
h_rodkin Posted May 21, 2003 Author Share Posted May 21, 2003 Jason, Does that mean that you would recommend I ditch the 35-105 for the 28-105. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jason michael Posted May 21, 2003 Share Posted May 21, 2003 H., I have no experience with the 35-105mm so I wouldn't be able to say what to do...what I am getting at is that the 28-105mm might be a lens you would enjoy experimenting with. It's sort of a best of breed for the consumer zoom lenses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rolf_lockwood Posted May 22, 2003 Share Posted May 22, 2003 It's a good question, Howard, and one I wrestle with too. I'm embarassed to say how many lenses (both primes and zooms) I have in this general range, but I too am drawn to the 35-105 (AF-D version). I have or have had every AF Nikkor in this range, plus the Tokina 28-80 2.8, and I don't think you need to change a thing. The 28-105 has some advantages but none that seem, to me, anywhere near worth the cost of switching. I don't think it's any sharper, at least not when comparing my 2 samples. Sooner or later I'll settle on one of them, plus the Tokina for its speed, but I think you're already there. Spend the money on film. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
h_rodkin Posted May 22, 2003 Author Share Posted May 22, 2003 Rolf, The lens I have is an AF, but not a D. Do you know what the difference would be, and do you think it would change your opinion. Thanks for the feedback Howard Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rick_campbell Posted May 22, 2003 Share Posted May 22, 2003 I used the AIS version of the 35-105 for a number of years and finally got rid of it. It was very prone to flairing and just was not a sharp as my prime lenses. I've heard very good things about the 35-70 f2.8 lenses but have never used one myself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim_Tardio Posted May 22, 2003 Share Posted May 22, 2003 I have owned and used both the 35-105/AF-D & 28-105/AF-D. The 35-105/AF-D is a fine lens, but the problem is that it doesn't focus close enough...for me anyway. The 35mm focal length cannot be used to its fullest unless you can get close. The 28-105 is much better in this regard. <p> Just my opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rolf_lockwood Posted May 24, 2003 Share Posted May 24, 2003 Sorry for the delay in responding to your second question, Howard. The computer failed me and it's taken awhile to get rolling again. In any event, I think there are some substantial differences between the 'D' and 'non-D' versions of the 35-105. I've never owned the earlier lens -- except the MF version, which I didn't like much -- but I believe they use different optical and/or mechanical formulas. Nikon added internal focusing to the 'D', but I think they also increased the closest-focusing distance from about one foot to three. That doesn't bother me at all but other folks see it differently. Doesn't the non-D lens get a 'macro' moniker from Nikon? The only other difference I'm aware of is that the hoods are different for the D and the non-D, which signifies substantial changes. Is one better than the other? Sorry, I just don't know, but I can't imagine that the differences would be worth the switch. Can someone who has owned both lenses help here? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
h_rodkin Posted May 26, 2003 Author Share Posted May 26, 2003 Thanks Rolph. Ultimately, I am beginnung to thing that it may not be worth the money to switch. Thanks to everyone for the very useful responses. Howard Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gordon_checknita Posted June 1, 2003 Share Posted June 1, 2003 Have you ever tried the 75-150mm series E zoom lens? A very sharp manual focus "one touch" lens. Focus at 150mm and zoom out. Great color rendition, bokeh and sharp. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now