Nikon 35-70 2.8 AFD
- Thread starter DCB
- Start date
Have it, love it.....sharp sharp sharp throughout the whole range and sharp at f2.8. Range a bit goofy on a crop camera. Doesn't bother me. Super on the D700. Heavy tho but a good match for your D300. I got mine on the cheap $200 off local C/L face to face deal from a local pro. He had a 24-70 f2.8 and went that route instead. I went the $200 route.
Nice!
Nice!
The pro I bought it from said he just couldn't dial the lens in, didn't like the old school push/pull zoom and the useless macro feature only at 35mm. Thus the quick short sale......He shoots a pair of D610 and just didn't like how the 35-70 handled. There is a lot of zoom creep too which he didn't like. As we know if you don't like a lens it is tough to get good results even if it is a high end lens like the 35-70 D AF.
I of course being old school going back to a 59 Nikon F with no light meter have no problem with it!
I of course being old school going back to a 59 Nikon F with no light meter have no problem with it!
dh photography
Senior Member
Have the 35-70 and the 80-200 myself; both the push pull versions. Love them both! Had to do some manual fine tuning for the 35-70 on my D7000, but now it's sharp as a tack (and that's without using a fine tune chart). Could probably get even sharper!
Picked mine up in a local CL deal as well from a pro who had moved on to bigger and better (more pricey and cool) lenses for a paltry $150. Almost as good as the $100 I spent on the 80-200.
Great lens. No brainer IMHO. Id love a bit more on the wide angle side, but I manage to work around that just fine.
I have been looking into this lens.
It is the predecessor of the 24-70 and for that made for the same users, so to the same standards.
Some claim it is optically better. Some claim you should move a step forward or backward with your 50mm to have an even better solution (+ crop a little).
Personally I keep getting stuck, since this is not the range I mostly shoot I will not spend the Nikon 24-70 money. I run with my back in the wall or flowerpots with the 50mm.
The 28-70 is better in price. The Tamron 24-70 has a good reputation.
The 35-70 is cheap (I`m trying very cheap), but I think I would like something wider then 35mm for landscapes/group portraits.
For walking around on events 35-70 seems fine to me.
My dilemma is that the 35-70 + an IAS 24mm is not that much less then a new (gey market) 24-70 Tamron.
A lot more expensive is a 16-35 f4 + 35-70 f2,8, which seems to come too close to a Nikon 24-70 price.
Even wondering if the 28mm f1,8 + 50mm f1,8 is not a very nice alternative, but on parties you just need to move fast in framing and a zoom is nice.
So 35-70 is an excellent quality price, but if you need more range, does it still make sense? Do primes not deliver more?
It is the predecessor of the 24-70 and for that made for the same users, so to the same standards.
Some claim it is optically better. Some claim you should move a step forward or backward with your 50mm to have an even better solution (+ crop a little).
Personally I keep getting stuck, since this is not the range I mostly shoot I will not spend the Nikon 24-70 money. I run with my back in the wall or flowerpots with the 50mm.
The 28-70 is better in price. The Tamron 24-70 has a good reputation.
The 35-70 is cheap (I`m trying very cheap), but I think I would like something wider then 35mm for landscapes/group portraits.
For walking around on events 35-70 seems fine to me.
My dilemma is that the 35-70 + an IAS 24mm is not that much less then a new (gey market) 24-70 Tamron.
A lot more expensive is a 16-35 f4 + 35-70 f2,8, which seems to come too close to a Nikon 24-70 price.
Even wondering if the 28mm f1,8 + 50mm f1,8 is not a very nice alternative, but on parties you just need to move fast in framing and a zoom is nice.
So 35-70 is an excellent quality price, but if you need more range, does it still make sense? Do primes not deliver more?
dh photography
Senior Member
Tokina 11-16 f2.8 and the 35-70 f2.8. That's where I'm headed; unless a Nikon 17-55 f2.8 falls in my lap in the next couple months for less than 4 bills.
rocketman122
Senior Member
This should work for APS-C:
11-16 gives A FOV equivalent of 16-22 The Tokina is a great lens. It seems you have the 18-55 if you really need to fill the gap.
35-70 gives something like 50-105 FOV Equivalent.
I`m still wondering to see if that combination can work on FF with the Kenko 1.4 on the 11-16; As far as I read only on 11 it gives too much vignetting.
The 17-55 is supposed to be the 24-70 replacement for APS-C.
The 35-70 in my case would be more for FF, I stopped believing in APS-C for low light, unless Active Pixel Color Sampling in a few years.
At this moment I tend to favour one lens for the wide normal range.