35mm 1.8 vs 35-70 2.8 sharpness

Hi guys. I recently sold my beloved beginner D90 and got the D7000 + 18-105 for a fairly good price.

I already own the 35mm 1.8G, and was getting lovely results, very happy with it.
The thing is, im thinking on selling both 18-105 + 35mm, to get 35-70 2.8.

I mainly use the prime for my work (almost 80%) (portraits, landscapes and some street), but not for the focal length, just for the fast f/2. I've already owned the 18-105 and was primarily sitting on my backpack almost all the time.

Doing this makes me get closer to the subject by foot, i could really use that extra zoom as long as i keep the f2.8.
If i get the 35-70, which has f2.8 (almost close to that f/2 on 35mm), would i notice a huge difference on sharpness or image quality?.
I mean, using both on 35mm, f2.8 , is there a substantial difference?
Thanks in advance.

The 35-70 is amazingly sharp but prone to flare when used with backlit subjects (specially at 2.8).

Yeah, ive read that flares, but im most interested on the sharpness at 35mm against my prime. Because if it is as sharp, i can sell the prime and use the 35-70 as my portrait lens. Would i be missing my 35mm 1.8?

Me personally I would pass on the 35-70 and just go straight for an 85 f1.8 and call it a day. Especially if all you are looking for is a portrait lens, sell the 35mm (However I don't think I could do that myself) and keep the 18-105 (Hey you'll never know when you may need a zoom lens). This way it gives you more room and you can just walk around if you need to move a little closer/further.

skene said:

Me personally I would pass on the 35-70 and just go straight for an 85 f1.8 and call it a day. Especially if all you are looking for is a portrait lens, sell the 35mm (However I don't think I could do that myself) and keep the 18-105 (Hey you'll never know when you may need a zoom lens). This way it gives you more room and you can just walk around if you need to move a little closer/further.

Click to expand...

The 85mm is way out of my budget (even selling both lenses). And is way to long for my DX for using it as my only one lens.

Then if money is a problem, you're best bet would be to get a used 50mm 1.8 lens. I find that in DX format, it can do really nice portraits and it's Nikon's cheapest lens and one of the sharpest.

Nikkor 35-70 f 2.8 is brilliant. Wait till you can add one as an extra lens tho, you would be giving up too much range IMHO.
My LCS has a mint copy in the rack right now, no idea where you are located. Hunt Photo in Providence.
The copy I own is spectacular btw and I love it. Heavy little beast tho.....but balances perfectly with the MB-D10 attached.
I picked up my copy for $200 and consider myself lucky.

Marcel said:

Then if money is a problem, you're best bet would be to get a used 50mm 1.8 lens. I find that in DX format, it can do really nice portraits and it's Nikon's cheapest lens and one of the sharpest.

Click to expand...

I've already owned it, and changed it for my current 35mm. I liked it better.

hrstrat57 said:

Nikkor 35-70 f 2.8 is brilliant. Wait till you can add one as an extra lens tho, you would be giving up too much range IMHO.
My LCS has a mint copy in the rack right now, no idea where you are located. Hunt Photo in Providence.
The copy I own is spectacular btw and I love it. Heavy little beast tho.....but balances perfectly with the MB-D10 attached.
I picked up my copy for $200 and consider myself lucky.

Click to expand...

Yeah, i've seen many (many) galleries of the 35-70's pics, and i can see is pretty sharp. My main concern is if the 35mm i have, already covers that sharpness department on my portraits. If the 35-70 can do that job, i can really use that extra range (and pseudo macro).
I have the MB-D10 too, btw