Nikon 35-70mm F/2.8D?

[Kenny32]

Anyone have a Nikon 35-70 F/2.8D?

The price is extremely attractive for the focal length and aperture it possesses.

I saw Ken Rockwell's review, and he seems to hint that the autofocus is a little bit slow, but not too bad...I've heard good and bad things about the old style "screwdriver" lenses, so I was wondering if someone here could shed a little light on the pros and cons of this lens. (I'll be using it with a D300)

I'd probably use this for concert photography and basketball, as well as team shots and portraits, so anything you can say about that type of stuff would be much appreciated.

 

[PhotoXopher]

It's an old professional series lens, I had one and enjoyed it quite a bit. Focus is a tad slow by todays standards but it's built like a tank.

Image quality is incredible.

 

[JimmyO]

Id get it if it wasnt a push/pull zoom, i just dont like that stuff. Yes its a good deal for fast, sharp lens. But keep in mind thats not a real usuable range for DX.

 

[Kenny32]

Id get it if it wasnt a push/pull zoom, i just dont like that stuff. Yes its a good deal for fast, sharp lens. But keep in mind thats not a real usuable range for DX.

Another photographer told me the same thing (about the range)...I'm just not sure that's true, though...I basically use my 28-80 (which is horrible) for everything that my 80-200 can't do. Going between 28 and 35 really doesn't seem like a HUGE difference.

Are there any other affordable (under $800 or so) lenses that are better than this lens? I was looking at the Sigma 24-70 F/2.8, but all the reviews seem to say that it's fairly soft at 2.8, which just isn't that acceptable to me.

 

[JimmyO]

Id get it if it wasnt a push/pull zoom, i just dont like that stuff. Yes its a good deal for fast, sharp lens. But keep in mind thats not a real usuable range for DX.

Another photographer told me the same thing (about the range)...I'm just not sure that's true, though...I basically use my 28-80 (which is horrible) for everything that my 80-200 can't do. Going between 28 and 35 really doesn't seem like a HUGE difference.

Are there any other affordable (under $800 or so) lenses that are better than this lens? I was looking at the Sigma 24-70 F/2.8, but all the reviews seem to say that it's fairly soft at 2.8, which just isn't that acceptable to me.

Honestly if you like the range of the 28-80 you should be fine. I also dont shoot alot wider then 35mm and thats actually my widest lens besides my fisheye. But for my next lens i think im going with a 16-50mm becuase the upcomming paid work i have will need some wider walk around glass.

 

[IgsEMT]

Buddy of mine uses it on D3 as an all-in-one lens. Loves it.

 

[Sw1tchFX]

I used to own this lens, sold it with the 18-35 for the 17-55 DX.


The 35-70 is a solid performer, has some trouble with flare, but for the most part, it's pretty good.


The problem with it is that the range is so boring. even if you're on FF, 35mm isn't too wide, 70 isn't really telephoto, it's not terribly fast in the 2x range, and worst yet, on DX it acts like a 50-105.

i never used it, and personally, i'd much rather have a 35 f/2 and 50 1.8 and 85 1.8 in the range, just more interesting.

 

[ann]

i have one, and use it quite a lot; first for film and now for digital. When i first started with digital i had a d100 and found i kept backing up. Never thought i would need anything wider than the 35 , but.......

Now i use it on a d700 so no issues with backing up and yes it is old and it does push pull zoom and i haven't noticed the focusing being slow, but then i am not using it for sports i have a 70-200 for that sort of thing.

once in awhile i wonder if i should sell it off and get something more "modern", but it is very sharp, and we are old friends .

 

[benhasajeep]

I have one as well about 9-10 years old now I think. And I will not be selling it for an AF-S! It auto focuses just fine for me, produces great pictures and have not had any creep problems with it, even after having it for so long. I still shoot film as well as digital so it is still in a good range for me. When the D700's replacement comes out whenever, I will probably move up to FF digital then. So it will then be back in the normal range on the digital bodies. I have only purchased 1 better quality DX lens figuring could sell it when I do go FF. My other DX lenses are the cheap "kit" VR's that I have for my cheap travel camera. Idea with them is if it's stolen or broken I am not out that much. But they do perform pretty well.

When you make your purchases, kinda think of where you will be in a couple years. You can get quite a bit back on lenses selling them used. Not as bad a loss as a body. But I am always thinking ahead, so I just stayed away from getting the higher priced "good" dx lenses knowing I will just end up having to sell them in the near future.