Nikon lens recommendation

M

Merkin

For the Weekend
Local time
9:27 AM
Joined
Sep 8, 2008
Messages
867
View My Gallery
I received a 'new' lens in the mail today, the Nikkor 35-70 f/2.8d macro. I have never been so happy with a lens so quickly. It is very small and light for an all metal zoom lens, much smaller than Nikon's current midrange fast zooms. Image quality is fantastic, and OOF rendering is as good as you could hope for on a Nikkor zoom. I was kind of hesitant to purchase it, as I have never liked push-pull (dust pump 😉) zooms, but the price was right (about half the cost of the absolutely massive 28-70 2.8), and the small size was a nice bonus. The macro focusing is manual focus only, which is fine with me. Here is a sample shot that I made this afternoon, using the in-camera multiple exposure feature of my D700:

4016685009_2609420cbf_b.jpg

Post processing via Aperture 2 and Silver Efex Pro

If you shoot Nikon SLRs and you are in need of a midrange zoom, it is very difficult to go wrong with this one.
 
While somewhat outdated, the Nikon 35-70 2.8 is a great lens and holds up well to Nikon's best "modern" zooms in terms of image qaulity. I had a sold one several years ago and have been thinking about buying another one to go with my D700. It's truly a sleeper in a field of Nikon's current huge 2.8 zoom. Another sleeper is the 20-35 2.8.

And BTW, awesome image!
 
EyeofSearle said:
While somewhat outdated, the Nikon 35-70 2.8 is a great lens and holds up well to Nikon's best "modern" zooms in terms of image qaulity. I had a sold one several years ago and have been thinking about buying another one to go with my D700. It's truly a sleeper in a field of Nikon's current huge 2.8 zoom. Another sleeper is the 20-35 2.8.

And BTW, awesome image!
Click to expand...


Thanks!

The 20-35 is next on my list, so I can complete the trifecta of 90's era pro zooms- 20-35 2.8, 35-70 2.8d macro, and 80-200 2.8 AF-D, all teamed with the 50mm f1.8d.
 
Great shot Merkin! I have a good mid-range zoom, the 17-55/2.8, and while it's wonderful there is no getting away from the size and it's DX! I guess it's the price you pay for the constant aperture throughout the range. This looks quite small but it's range looks great for an FX, not a DX. Does the whole front of the lens rotate when it focuses, including a filter if you have one on?
 
peter_n said:
Great shot Merkin! I have a good mid-range zoom, the 17-55/2.8, and while it's wonderful there is no getting away from the size and it's DX! I guess it's the price you pay for the constant aperture throughout the range. This looks quite small but it's range looks great for an FX, not a DX. Does the whole front of the lens rotate when it focuses, including a filter if you have one on?
Click to expand...

Thanks, and yes, the entire front, including the hood and filter, rotate. I never use graduated filters, so that isn't a problem for me, but I can definitely see that being a downside for a lot of people. This is part of the way they saved size and weight, though. If it was internal focus, it would be a lot bigger.
 
This is another good reference for that particular zoom that I read today. There must be something in the air... Hmmm...

I would like that particular focal length hadn't it been for my experience with another sleeper (and even discontinued) of Nikon: the AF-S 24-85 f3.5-4.5. It's plasticky and light, but quite sharp and it even allows a very close focusing that I wish I could exemplify here.

In any event, you got a good lens and it shows that you know how to use it. Thanks for posting! 🙂
 
I have this lens too (use it on crop) and it's a very nice portrait solution there!

Agreed that it's really compact for what it is!

Another nice thing is I got it for cheap with an F90 attached 🙂
 
What I find most amazing about the 35-70/2.8D, is the focus speed. Despite not being an AF-S lens, it's darned fast.. easily outrunning the other zooms I have. The only downside to this is the jolt with which it bangs into the near and far focus limits.

The faux macro mode is a godsend, and although officially it requires manual focus, it doesn't actually disengage the AF driver until the very last part of the macro twist on my sample.

The 35-70 range might seem limiting, especially on DX, but with the macro mode thrown in, and a single additional 20 in the bag and I can tackle just about anything I run across..
 
I hate that the 35-70/2.8 only focuses to .7 if I remember right. Of course if you're coming from the RF world .7 is just fine 😀. I passed on a non-D version that my local camera store had for $50 the other day.
 
Last edited:
UPDATE: Two weekends ago, I shot my first wedding. Between the rehearsal, the ceremony, the formal portraits, and shots at the reception, I shot over 700 pictures, and all but about 60 of them were shot with the 35-70 2.8D macro. I have to say, I could not imagine a better lens for the application. Out of all of those images, I only missed focus a small handful of times, the oof areas looked very nice, especially for a zoom, and the macro feature was indispensable. The zoom range was fantastic. There were 26 people in the wedding party, and it was held in a small country church, so I simply could not have done the group shots without the 35mm end. Also, the light weight saved my arm. With the 80-200 on my D700 with grip and flash, I had to use a monopod. With the 35-70, I was whipping it around one-handed. After the reception, i was surprised to find that while my feet were killing me (which I expected), my arm wasn't sore in the slightest. I still don't like the push-pull design as much as I like the "two touch" design, but I got used to it quickly, and the two touch midrange zooms are HEAVY.
 
The 35-70 f2.8D has a reputation for getting cloudy inside, according to some posts at photo.net. I have just had mine serviced by Camera Clinic (Melbourne, Australia) after it became cloudy over the space of a year. One element they said had "fungus" and they couldn't clean it off, so a replacement element was installed. It cost me a bit, but it's such a useful lens that it was worth it to me to have it done. I'm not convinced that it was fungus. But what else could it have been? My storage is good: I have never before had any fungus in any of my lenses.

I wonder if the amount of air pumped in and out might make the lens more susceptible?
 
The 35-70/2.8 is as renowned for haze and fungus as the 55/2.8 is for oily blades. I've probably seen 6 fungusy 35-70's and I've never seen another lens with so much fungus. Not even ones stored unused for 30 years in a very humid environment.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom