Nikkor 35-70D F2.8 questions

molested_cow

TPF Supporters
Supporting Member
Joined
Jul 3, 2004
Messages
3,714
Reaction score
531
Location
Here N There
Website
img24.photobucket.com
Thinking of getting one of these used, but I don't have access to one so I don't really know how it feels.
I've heard good feedback regarding the image quality, but concerned about its weight and size.

I know it has a metal construction, therefore feels solid, but the downside is it's heavy. I will be using it with D700, and will serve as a walk-around lens. Will this combination be too heavy for walk-around?
I've never used push-pull zoom lens. It sounds less precise than screw mechanism to me. Is this a big deal?
The lens can be switched to "macro" mode. I am guessing that it just means that it can focus at a rather close distance. Can someone share more details on this? For an example, what's the close focus distance for both macro and normal modes and how big is the magnification in macro mode?

Is the AF pretty decently fast?

What other alternatives are there? (New or used) I can't afford the 24-70 new and it seems that used prices are still pretty high. The 35-70 F2.8 sits well within my budget.
 
Internal hazing of the elements is VERY common with this lens (google 35-70mm haze), although any decent camera repair shop can clean it really cheaply.

Other then that it's a great lens, very light weight compared to the 24-70 and it focuses quite fast for a AF lens. That said, I think the newer tamron 28-75mm f2.8 is a better choice for around the same $$. Similar performance, a wider focal range, and without the hazing problem.
 
I used to own the 35-70, it's a very very sharp lens. AF is quick for an olde AF lens. My beef with it is that it's just a very boring lens. For a midrange focal length, f/2.8 isn't really fast. I'd rather go with a 50mm f/1.4 and back up or move forward.
acpggfze6cku.pnh
 
I had one of these until a short while ago. (I sold it to raise funds for a wide zoom). It worked really well with my D700 and the weight is not an issue. It is not as heavy as the newer AFS lenses in that range. You are right about it being a close focus lens and not a true macro. It will close focus down to a couple of inches, its closest focus is only at 35 mm focal length. The push/pull feature is easy to get used to, nearly all zooms used to operate this way. The lens is a solid piece of kit and although not heavy compared to other 2.8 zooms the weight gives the impression of being heavier because the lens is not physically that big. My D700's focus motor handled it no problem fast and accurate focus. As Sw1tchFX just said, the lens is really very sharp, it has been described as a 50mm with some wiggle room. The colour rendering is very nice as is its off focus image elements. This lens makes a very nice portrait lens for DX. But as also said, it is a bit of a boring focal range on FX, as is the 28-70 when it comes to that. It being an older lens (2 lens generations back) it does not have the modern Nano coating and is prone to flaring so a hood is strongly recommended. It is a very well made and solid lens, as are most of the older D type pro lenses from Nikon.

I have seen a lot of examples of this lens among the photographers I've known and I have never personally seen one with the famed and supposedly common lens haze problem. Remember, often on the internet a "once in a while problem" often because a major issue very quickly. It only takes a few instances for something to suddenly be a major flaw. These are still being bought and sold in the $400 to $500 range. I saw a new one still on the shelf of a camera store a few months ago being offered at nearly $1000.
 
I have this lens and the newer 24-70 f2.8. It is just as sharp but focus isn't as fast. Other than that, the 35-70 f2.8D is a solid lens. You won't be disappointed.
 
Thanks. For walk-around lens, seems that there aren't too many choices.

Rage wise, I actually care more about 50++. Say 50~85 ish. I have a 70-300 AF-D but it's IQ gets pretty bad result on the D700 so I rarely use it. Also, it's a hassle to have to change to a big lens all the time.
I already has a F3.3~4.5 which is quite beat up. It still works great, but I would want one that gives me bigger aperture for more light, as well as better IQ. Of course, if I can get something of a wider range, that will be a big plus!


What about the 24-85 F2.8~4D?
 
If you're worried about the 50mm range, than why not just get a 50mm? It will not only be smaller, lighter, smoother, sharper, but also cheaper!
7onaeojsxun5.pnh
 
I got a used copy recently and it has been on my wife's D80 and performing well. It worked well on the D700 and agree the weight isnt overwhelming. Really sharp and easy to use.
 
Alright, just got it today. Took test shots on my way back. Yes it's heavy, especially with the D700. Still getting used to the push-pull. I think I am too pampered with prime, kept forgetting that I can zoom! Also, It's a bit counter intuitive that the zoom is at the furthest when pulled in, still wish it was a screw mechanism. Sharpness wise, I guess it's simply unfair to compare it to my 50 F1.4D. At F2.8, sometimes it's great, sometimes it's not. The color is not as "full", or saturated as the 50mm as well. Perhaps that's because of the hazy weather today. The macro focus button is quite a pain to use. I find myself having to access it in many different positions to make it work. I'm glad that they have this options though, because it will open up many more opportunities for composition.

Here are some quick test shots on my way back from the store. Straight out of the camera, no further unsharpen mask or adjustment other than saving it in smaller size (compressed as well).

I will just choose a few and you can look at the rest in the link:

test pictures by unrelated - Photobucket

DSC_5156.jpg


DSC_5163.jpg


DSC_5170.jpg


DSC_5184.jpg


DSC_5194.jpg


DSC_5197.jpg


DSC_5200.jpg


DSC_5215.jpg
 
I have been using the 35-70 AF-D (bought it used) for a couple of years now. It stays on my D700 most of the time. That macro function comes in really handy at times. I did not want to pay over twice as much for a newer 28-70 or 24-70. To make up the difference on the short end I use my feet. Something we old goats have been doing for years. If I really get in a bind I have a 20mm I can use. The combination of a pro body and a pro lens adds up to weight. I got used to that a few years ago. Pro camera body's have more metal in them then pro-sumer models. Add that to the old school pro lenses such as the 35-70 (lots of metal) and you will notice the difference over a mostly plastic pro-sumer body and lens. The other thing is the focus speed. The pro body's (D700,D3/D4,etc) have a strong internal focus motor to handle those screw drive focus lenses. Most of the pro-sumer and all the entry level body's do not have as strong a focus motor. As a matter of fact at least one of the entry level models does not have a built in focus motor at all. Some place down the road Nikon may discontinue focus motors in most of their body's because of the switch to the motors built into almost all of the Nikon lenses now. However, there are still a ton of the old style screw drive lenses on the used market so I think things will stay as they are for some time.Just MHO! ;)

I would like to add there is a very good conversation regarding screw drives and camera bodys on this forum here: http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/nikon/276190-focus-motor-really-necessary-luxury.html
 
Last edited:
I have seen a lot of examples of this lens among the photographers I've known and I have never personally seen one with the famed and supposedly common lens haze problem. Remember, often on the internet a "once in a while problem" often because a major issue very quickly. It only takes a few instances for something to suddenly be a major flaw. These are still being bought and sold in the $400 to $500 range. I saw a new one still on the shelf of a camera store a few months ago being offered at nearly $1000.

I've purchased this lens a many times from estate sales and most of them had the haze problem. This may be due to the way they were stored or perhaps I'm just unlucky, but I'm not the only one. I've also noticed many others for sale on auction sites with this problem. Just something to look out for, and it's not always noticeable right away--what happens is that you get very bad flare and poor contrast in brightly lit situations.
 
I have seen a lot of examples of this lens among the photographers I've known and I have never personally seen one with the famed and supposedly common lens haze problem. Remember, often on the internet a "once in a while problem" often because a major issue very quickly. It only takes a few instances for something to suddenly be a major flaw. These are still being bought and sold in the $400 to $500 range. I saw a new one still on the shelf of a camera store a few months ago being offered at nearly $1000.

I've purchased this lens a many times from estate sales and most of them had the haze problem. This may be due to the way they were stored or perhaps I'm just unlucky, but I'm not the only one. I've also noticed many others for sale on auction sites with this problem. Just something to look out for, and it's not always noticeable right away--what happens is that you get very bad flare and poor contrast in brightly lit situations.

Your right...just bad luck. This lens was used by many pros back in the day. The one I purchased was from the original owner who was still using it. Came with the box and still had a couple months left on the warranty. I think purchasing any used lens is a "buyer beware" deal. When I buy a used lens I always shine a small powerful flashlight through the lens from both ends. It helps determine how the glass looks as far as scratches and the like. Not sure if you would see any cloudy stuff or not. I'm thinking the haze does come from how the lens was stored. If your going to let a lens sit for a long period of time it's a good idea to put the lens in it's original box or case if possible along with a packet or two of (can't think of the name of the stuff) stuff that absorbs moisture. I just picked up a 80-200 2.8 AF-D that had not been used in quite some time and had been stored on a closet and the lens is in great condition. I also picked up a 70-210 f4 AF that was purchased in the late 1980's, used a handful of times, and put away by the original owner. Again the lens was in like new condition. There are some great bargains out there in the used lens market but it is up to you to make sure about what your buying. Always take your camera body with you and try the lens out using your own camera body!!! Just M.H.O. ;)
 

Most reactions

New Topics

Back
Top