Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="ernest" data-source="post: 259231" data-attributes="member: 20812">[SUB]I own the Nikon 35-70mm f2.8 AF for quite sometime now and it takes time to really love it. [/SUB][SUB]I am using the 35-70mm only for video with canon SLR because it is a bargain if compared to the expensive Canon 24-70 L.[/SUB][SUB]Honestly I rarely use it for photography, because in most cases every time I mount it on the camera I ended up switching to wider or portrait lens.[/SUB][SUB]The 35-70 f2.8 is sharp from 35 to approximately 60mm at f2.8 but at 70mm it often produces soft result especially when it is pointed to bright areas. It has bluish chromatic aberration especially in high contrast. The best result if I stopped it down to f4 and the picture looks perfect. The color of 35-70mm is similar to my 20-35mm f2.8 AF-D and 80-200mm f2.8. Optical quality is quite good, for lens under $300 (used). [/SUB][SUB]The AF is pretty fast but not as fast as my 20-35 or 50mm. Compared to 50mm f1.4 AF-D at f2.8, prime lens is always the winner, prime lens produces brighter image (almost 1 stop) with same settings, but the 35-70mm produces warmer color and at 70mm the “bokeh” can be quite “creamy”, if I take it at its closest focus distance which is 0.6 m. So I figure this lens performs well as candid and portrait lens.[/SUB][SUB]The worst thing about the Nikon 35-70 mm is the ergonomics. The push-pull zoom is quite hard to get it precise and the grinding autofocus noise is very annoying. I’ve tried the newer professional 28-70mm f2.8 AF-S lens, in my experience both the 35-70 and the 28-70 produces quite similar result but the zoom ring is smooth and precise, AF is silent and fast has shorter minimum focus distance and the 28-70 has  9 bladed diaphragm which the 35-70 only has 7. But the 28-70mm is gigantic and heavy, the lens barrel is huge and I find myself hugging it all the time to get unshaken picture under low light situation. I use Nikon D700 and 35mm is still pretty wide, so with the 35-70, I could step back a little about half a meter and I can cover wider focal length similar to 28mm. So I’ll pass the 28-70mm f2.8 because of its huge size.[/SUB][SUB]I’ve once borrowed Nikon 24-70mm f2.8 AF-S G and done some testings, and it is heaven! If someone used to work with the Nikon 35-70mm f2.8 and switch to 24-70 mm f2.8 AF-S G, it is like switching from an old jeep to a modern big SUV, everything feels smooth and easy, it is very seriously designed by Nikon and when you grab the lens barrel, it feels right, the AF is fast and dead on and the sharpness is superb.   I’ve tried Tamron 28-75mm f2.8 for Nikon, because it is more modern lens it has better coatings, which is designed during digital era, which means it handles chromatic aberration much better than the old Nikon 35-70mm f2.8. Like I said earlier, [/SUB][SUB]it takes time to really love [/SUB][SUB]the old Nikon 35-70mm f2.8. It has great optics especially if stopped down to f4, it has fast autofocus (pro level lens grade) which is faster than the Tamron, it is well built and very tough lens but it only offers short mid-range 35, 50, 70 and that’s it.If I you need a cheap high performance mid-range zoom lens I will recommend the cheaper Nikon 28-105mm f3.5-4.5, it produces slightly less contrast image compared to the 35-70 f2.8  but has macro ability ratio 1:2 at 105mm and it is lighter, goes from 28 to 105mm which will be great for travel lens or general purpose lens. The next choice is the Nikon 24-85mm f3.5-5.6 AF-S, and the best choice is the newer 24-85mm VR or skip the short mid-range and use the cheap but superior in low light 50mm f1.8D and try to move back and forth a little.[/SUB]</blockquote>

Verification