Nikon 35-70mm 2.8 AF-D vs Tokina 28-80mm 2.8 AT-X Pro somethingrather...

[nickzou]

Alright, another one of these boring comparison threads.

Usually, I would just go into the stores and compare them for myself, but as these are no longer "common" I can only either get it on eBay or when someone locally is selling one. Such is the situation I am in now. I allocated 400 dollars for a midrange fast zoom. That's my budget, so that puts a lot of the usual recommendations out of my range. 24-70mm AF-S?? Ha! Yeah right... The new Tamron with the VC, still out of my range. But these older gals fit comfortably within my budget.

I'm not even asking which is better. I mean, if you have an opinion, great, I'm all ears. But if you just have experience with either lens and would like to share those experiences, I would really appreciate that too. Sample photos would be even better.

Alright, cool thanks, a lot in advance.

 

[CdTSnap]

FYI, I had a test with that Tamron VC you speak of.. Amazing lens.

But ive heard that Tokina is quite good also, either way I think youd do well

 

[MOREGONE]

The Tamron 28-75 is a pretty good option that can be found well within your budget. I have had 2 now and found both to be good lenses (sold one for the 17-50 and then went back when I went FX) Current one is the older screw drive type and the other was the newer style.

New they are sub $500 USD on Amazon and have used versions around $300.

 

[Mach0]

I have the 35-70. Its served me well. It can flare if light is in the frame. I need another one since mine crapped on me but hey- it's with me for a while and the price to repair is the same to get another.

 

[djacobox372]

The 35-70mm is prone to flare which kills contrast.

I'd suggest the tamron 28-75mm instead.

 

[Mike_E]

I have an ATX 280 and love it.

I shoot it on a D800 and don't look back. Maybe if I were printing above six feet but for what I do it's great.

 

[nickzou]

I have an ATX 280 and love it.

I shoot it on a D800 and don't look back. Maybe if I were printing above six feet but for what I do it's great.

Wow, that's quite the endorsement. I was worried a bit about sharpness, but if it can render well on a D800, I think I'm in the clear.

 

[astroNikon]

I have a 35-70/2.8 AF-D
It's a very nice lens, very detailed photos and it gets good reviews BUT it is also old tech, very old. being a Push-pull lens.

I've only used it indoors in a more controlled environment (home studio) because of that as the 35-70 is limited focal length.

For instance, I also have a great 24-85/2.8-4.0 which is the companion to my 80-200/2.8 when I go places.
I also have a 20-35 but that and the 35-70 are long & old tech lenses in a sense. Plus for uwa I grab the 18-35/3.5-4.5 lens mostly.

But over all it's a great lens for the price. I haven't compared it to the competition and I don't know the Tamron, Tokina prices by comparison though.
There's alot of reviews of it out on the web.
I use it on a d600 or d7000. I was in the same boat, can't afford the 24-70/2.8 and didn't want the 28-70/2.8

 

[nickzou]

BUT it is also old tech, very old.

That's half the reason we tell people to go Nikon isn't it? For that legendary F-Mount.

 

[Patrice]

I've had a 35-70 and it's a nice enough lens, makes a nice portrait lens indoors on DX however I let it go when I got my D700 for reason of limited range and propensity to flare. My mid range zoom is now an older first generation (Angenieux design with screw on lens hood) Tokina ATX pro 28-70 2.8D and I am very pleased with the build, the sharpness and the rendering. The original lens hood vignettes at 28mm.

Here is a set of images at 28 and 70mm and 2.8 and 8.0 (careful not to describe out of DOF elements as being due to lack of lens sharpness) The focus point each time was the red house in the central part of the images.

28mm f/2.8
70mm f/2.8


28mm f/8.0
70mm f/8.0