Switch to English Language Passer en langue franšaise Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 74,632   Posts: 1,648,063   Online: 929
      
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 11
  1. #1
    dpurdy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Portland OR USA
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    2,129
    Images
    38

    AF NIKKOR 2.8D 35-70

    Anybody use one of those lenses? Is it any good? When you get a zoom lens like that going from 35 to 70, does it tend to be a better or sharper or less flare prone lens at the middle or one end of the range?

    I have a 2.8D 28-105 Tamron that is a great lens except that it is so large and heavy and it seems to flare some, and it cost a lot of money... which the 35-70 NIKKOR doesn't. Should the NIKKOR be just as sharp as the Tamron?

    Dennis

  2. #2
    keithwms's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Charlottesville, Virginia
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,075
    Blog Entries
    20
    Images
    129
    "Only dead fish follow the stream"

    [APUG Portfolio] [APUG Blog] [Website]

  3. #3
    chriscrawfordphoto's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fort Wayne, Indiana
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    1,053
    The Nikkor is likely sharper than the Tamron. A lot of people think it is even sharper than Nikon's 35mm f2 prime lens and on par with Nikon's 50mm and 85mm 1.8 lenses.
    Chris Crawford
    Fine Art Photography of Indiana and other places no one else photographs.

    http://www.chriscrawfordphoto.com

    My Tested Developing Times with the films and developers I use

    Become a fan of my work on Facebook

    Fort Wayne, Indiana

  4. #4

    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Westminster, Maryland, USA
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    1,504
    The Nikkor is much better made than the Tamron.

    I prefer the Nikkor 20-70 f/2.8 over the 35-70 f/2.8.
    When I grow up, I want to be a photographer.

    http://www.walterpcalahan.com/Photography/index.html

  5. #5
    Kevin Kehler's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Regina Canada (sounds more fun than it is)
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    605
    If you can afford it, use a 24-70 f/2.8 Nikkor. It will only work on AF bodies (so F5, F6, etc.) but I have never heard a bad thing about one except the price.
    Once a photographer is convinced that the camera can lie and that, strictly speaking, the vast majority of photographs are "camera lies," inasmuch as they tell only part of a story or tell it in a distorted form, half the battle is won. Once he has conceded that photography is not a "naturalistic" medium of rendition and that striving for "naturalism" in a photograph is futile, he can turn his attention to using a camera to make more effective pictures.

    Andreas Feininger

  6. #6
    dpurdy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Portland OR USA
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    2,129
    Images
    38
    I got the 35-70 off ebay with an F100 body. It is metal and sturdy but seems rather low tech compared to the other D series lenses I have and the push pull zoom seems backward and counter intuitive. Still I like the range being just a bit on either side of normal. Just curious if this is a popular lens and if people find it high quality over all or if there is a particular focal distance and fstop that it is best at.

    thanks for the replys
    Dennis

  7. #7
    chriscrawfordphoto's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fort Wayne, Indiana
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    1,053
    Dennis,

    It is one of the older lenses in the line, so the ergonomics are crappy but the image quality is great.
    Chris Crawford
    Fine Art Photography of Indiana and other places no one else photographs.

    http://www.chriscrawfordphoto.com

    My Tested Developing Times with the films and developers I use

    Become a fan of my work on Facebook

    Fort Wayne, Indiana

  8. #8
    narsuitus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    623
    Since I have never used the 28-105 Tamron, I cannot comment on it.

    However, I have used the 35-70mm Nikon for some time. It is a well built lens with very good image quality. Some do not like the push/pull zoom feature but I prefer it to a rotating collar.

    One of its short comings is its auto focus speed which is fast enough for wedding events but too slow for fast action sporting events.

    Another short coming is that attached filters rotate as the lens focuses. This is a major problem if you plan on using graduated neutral density filters on the lens.

  9. #9
    Craig's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Calgary
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    778
    Images
    39
    I tried one side by side with the Nikkor 24-85 f2.8-4, and I found the 24-85 noticably sharper. I also tried the 24-70 f2.8 and the 24-85 was sharper as well. I think the 35-70 and 24-70 were pretty close to each other, there wasn't much to chose from there, optically.

  10. #10
    Chaplain Jeff's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Norfolk, VA
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    172
    Hello,

    The 35-70mm (non-D) was the first AF lens I owned - bought it with my Nikon F4. GREAT lens.

    The "D" is a non issue. In Nikon "D" means flash distance metering. I have owned and shot multiple lenses of both generations and there is little to no variation in quality or exposure when using them (flash or no flash). In my observation, it was primarly a marketing tool rather than a technological advance from Nikon. Otherwise, your lens and the one I refer to are identical.


    "narsuitus" are you referring to the great little AFS lens? I agree that it is one of Nikon's best zooms in that range. Too bad they discontinued it. I bought one new when they first came out to shoot on my D2H and absolutely loved it - especially at a fraction of the price of it's big brother the 24-70mm, f/2.8 which it constantly was outperforming in tests.

    The 35-70mm is an older design and the newer zooms probably are sharper and definately faster . That's not to say the older zoom isn't good. It is. Very good. Remember, it's a Nikkor. I doubt the Tamron is up to the same specs.

    Good luck.
    Jeff M


    M3, M5, CLE, Minolta XE7, Minolta Maxxum 9, Minolta Maxxum 9000, Nikon F3HP, etc., etc.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  Ś   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin