Anybody know anything about....

coastietech · May 27, 2007

The Nikon 35-70mm f2.8? I am thinking about getting this as my next lens. So far I have read some pretty great reviews. Anybody have first hand experience with this lens?

Sw1tchFX · May 28, 2007

I used to have that lens, effin' amazing! sharpness and clarity aside, this lens had bokeh like none other. At f/2.8 it was almost like a soft-focus, it was odd and amazing at the same time.

Off my D70,

Here's a shot of the dog I used to have:

here's a 100% chunk from it

I can't recommend it enough...for film. 35-70 is an awkward focal length on a digital camera, I almost never used it on my D70. I usually either used my 18-35, or my 80-200. the 18-35 is absolute junk, even on cropped cameras. I ended up selling both my 18-35 and 35-70 and trading them in for the 17-55 f/2.8 becuase I got a smashing deal on it, ended up only paying about $400 for the 17-55 and I was about to replace the 18-35 anyway becuase it was so bad.

So yeah, if you need f/2.8, amazing clarity, and awsome bokeh, get the 35-70, but you'll hardly use it.

JIP · May 28, 2007

Personally I think the 24-70 2.8 is a better lens http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/169589-USA/Nikon_1961_Zoom_W_A_Telephoto_AF_S_Zoom.html but either way you are still overlapping if focal length with your 18-55 alot to be buying 2 expensive lenses.

fmw · May 28, 2007

The 35-70 is famous as being one of Nikon's great designs. It is one of the best zoom lenses ever designed. If you want to replace the kit lens with something better, however, the 17-55 f2.8 DX lens is probably a slightly more useful lens thanks to having a wide angle component to the zoom range.

JIP · May 28, 2007

fmw said:
The 35-70 is famous as being one of Nikon's great designs. It is one of the best zoom lenses ever designed. If you want to replace the kit lens with something better, however, the 17-55 f2.8 DX lens is probably a slightly more useful lens thanks to having a wide angle component to the zoom range.

I take back what I said ab. the 24-70 now that I see in your sig that you are replacing a kit 17-55 I agree with this the 17-55 2.8 is a great lens.

coastietech · May 28, 2007

Essentially the reasoning behind this lens is this, I would like to get as much of a wide focal lens in as few lenses as possible with out sacrificing optical quality or speed. My end goal is to have three lenses that take me from approx. 12-400mm. I plan on doing this by getting either a 12-24 or a 17-35 f2.8, the Nikon 35-70 f2.8, and then the Nikon 80-200mm f2.8 with a Nikon 2x tele-converter. I really don't use the 28-300mm but I want to keep it since it was given to me. I also plan on getting rid of the 18-55mm that I have. I like the 50mm prime but I have been in situations were I really needed a zoom in and around that focal length because there wasn't room for me to move backwards or forward to frame the shot. I also may get rid of the 70-300mm when I get the 80-200mm and tele-converter. But I'm not sure I like the compactness of the lens and the fact that it is lightweight so I may keep it for when space is an issue or I need a lightweight telephoto. So am I going in the right direction with this or have I completely lost my mind?

Sw1tchFX · May 28, 2007

I used the Nikkor 28-70 on a D200 once and it was like my 35-70, not wide, and a bit long.

EDIT:

You don't want a million lenses, they just get in the way. 12-24, 17-55, 70-200 with 2x. You're not going to miss that lost 15mm between 55 and 70mm, and the 80-200 f/2.8D doesn't play well with TC's. The 17-55 covers enough distance to eliminate the midrange zoom on a digital body, becuase that's what the 17-55 becomes, a 28-80 if you count the crop.

coastietech · May 28, 2007

Sw1tchFX said:
I used the Nikkor 28-70 on a D200 once and it was like my 35-70, not wide, and a bit long.

EDIT:

You don't want a million lenses, they just get in the way. 12-24, 17-55, 70-200 with 2x. You're not going to miss that lost 15mm between 55 and 70mm, and the 80-200 f/2.8D doesn't play well with TC's. The 17-55 covers enough distance to eliminate the midrange zoom on a digital body, becuase that's what the 17-55 becomes, a 28-80 if you count the crop.

My only issue is funding. I can't afford the 17-55mm or the 70-200mm which is the other reason I was going to go with the other lenses. I don't want a million lenses either. I am keeping the 28-300mm because it was a gift. I plan on getting rid of the 18-55mm and maybe even getting rid of the 70-300mm. And why doesn't the 80-200mm play well with the 2x tele-converter? The B&H website says it is fully compatible.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=WishList.jsp&A=details&Q=&sku=38014&is=USA

Sw1tchFX · May 28, 2007

You said you were looking into the nikkor 17-35, The 17-55 DX is $100-$200 less expensive!

And no, B&H doesn't say it's compatible with the 80-200 f/2.8D, it says it's compatible with the AF-S 80-200 f/2.8D. There is a difference.

The_Traveler · May 28, 2007

I have a 12-24, 18-200, 18-70, and 50/85/105 primes. I love the primes and the 12 -24. The 18-200 is OK for a walkaround but not my first choice if I have a bagful.

I shoot mostly in the 12-50 range and I'm thinking of replacing the 18-70 with the 17-55 IF there is a significant improvement in quality.

Can anyone make a comparison between those two? (I don't believe Ken Rockwell)

coastietech · May 28, 2007

Sw1tchFX said:
You said you were looking into the nikkor 17-35, The 17-55 DX is $100-$200 less expensive!

And no, B&H doesn't say it's compatible with the 80-200 f/2.8D, it says it's compatible with the AF-S 80-200 f/2.8D. There is a difference.

I didn't do my research on the 17-35mm so I didn't realize it was that much. so that will take that off my short list and put the 12-24mm Nikon since that is more within my reach in the future. Although to be honest the wide lens is not a major priority for me. I usually shoot from 40mm and up. I really don't like the distortion that you get from the wider lens and I don't find that I use a super wide lens enough to warrant a crazy price tag. Right now my main concern is to get fast lenses that will cover me from 40mm- ~450mm. I can't seem to find the 80-200mm AF-S lens anywhere. What is the price difference between that and the AF-D lens? And where can I find it?

Sw1tchFX · May 28, 2007

The_Traveler said:
Can anyone make a comparison between those two? (I don't believe Ken Rockwell)

Good! You shouldn't, he shoots in JPEG anyway, and that just robs quality.

I moved up to the 17-55 DX from my old 18-35 and it was night and day. I can actually shoot wide open now and at f/22! The only aperture my 18-35 was reasonable at was f/8. Not only that, but after I had started to consistently spend 1-3 hours per image fixing color fringes and CA, I knew what I had to do. It was ridiculous. Not only that, but I got an awesome deal on the 17-55 that i couldn't have gotten anywhere else.

There was someone else who used to have the 18-35 and she said the same thing, it's junk.