Nikkor 35-70mm f/2.8 AFD

[swimcraze]

anyone used this lens before? is it worth getting it since it is not cheap? does its performance and usefulness justify the cost?

thanks.

[Ian]

Swimcraze,

It's a great lens overall, but only if you need it's fast aperture rating and can live with the weight and size of the lens.

Optically it's superb in most areas with minimal distortion and light fall off open wide. Contrast and Sharpness edge to edge are well above average and the lens is stunning at around F8.

The downside however is the lens doesn't have a fixed front so it rotates while focusing, which can be a pain when using a polarizer. Also the lens flares very easily, and does suffer from some ghosting. Both conditions occur when pointing the lens towards the sun.

AF performance is very good for a non AFS lens. The lens has been overtaken by the AFS 28-70/2.8 for most professional applications.

The lens points beautifully with an F4 or F5 body (same with D1, D1x, D1H) but I've found it front heavy with bodies like the F100, F90, D100 and with the consumer grade/amateur bodies.

Ian

[chyeo]

Personally I feel that of this focal range, Tokina ATX Pro series and Sigma 24-70 is better. Unless you wanna get the AFS version lah.

[Ian]

Originally Posted by chyeo Personally I feel that of this focal range, Tokina ATX Pro series and Sigma 24-70 is better. Unless you wanna get the AFS version lah.

In fast 35-70/2.8's there's no comparison between the Nikkor and Tokina / Sigma offerings. The Nikkor simply has it all over them.

The Sigma suffers from terrible levels of curvilinear distortion when directly compared to the Nikkor 35-70/2.8, as well as noticable coma and to be honest a pretty low standard of durability and construction. It's fine for non demanding amateur use but is no where near the standard of the Nikon 35-70/2.8.

The Tokina 28-80/2.8 has lower distortion levels than the Sigma 24-70/2.8 (around 1/2 the distortion) and isn't quite as contrasty or sharp wide open. Build quality is closer to that found in the Nikkor.

[wanglk]

Nobody mention the new Tamron SP 28-75/2.8XR?

[Jay]

Originally Posted by wanglk Nobody mention the new Tamron SP 28-75/2.8XR?

In my hobbyist eyes, I find the performance of this lens and the Tokina 28-80 similar (have both of them). A little soft when open wide.

With regards to the Sigma 15-30 (has it too), it renders beautiful colours when used indoor, especially without flash. It has flare problem and one has to learn to use it properly in order to control the flare.

[Kho King]

first I thought of selling off my Tokina ATX PRO 28-80mm and buy the Nikkor 35-70mm, but after reading the posts above...I think I will stick to my Tokina for the time being. Can't afford the AFS and I need a zoom for event shooting.

I find the Tokina to be a bit soft, at f2.8 and f4, which are the two apertures that I use most of the time. If the Nikkor is to be the same...then no point changing for me.

Ian, is the AFS much better? I don't wanna shoot at f8 but f2.8 and f4 most of the time.

Thanks.

[Ian]

Originally Posted by Kho King Ian, is the AFS much better? I don't wanna shoot at f8 but f2.8 and f4 most of the time. Thanks.

It depends entierly on lens to lens varience.

The AF-D 35-70/2.8 (see above, my first post).

The AF-S 28-70/2.8 is a superlative lens, but large, heavy and pricey for the amateur.

Optically it's a mind blower, it's sharp even wide open, but compared to when it's stopped down to around f5.6 it's a tad soft. Corner illumination is excellent and all light falloff in the corners is eliminated by f5.6 in the units I've used. At f4 light falloff is a minor concern.

Field curvature is as close to nil as it's possible to get in a zoom lens. Distortion is limted to a bit of barrel distortion and absolutely no chromatic fringing, coma or other bugbears worth mentioning that often plague the 3rd party zooms.

It's a lens that must be used with the hood and it is prone to flare and the odd bout of ghosting so avoid shooting with the sun in the frame if possible. Bokeh is outstanding. Weight is a petite 935 or so grams, which compared to the older AF-D 35-70/2.8 is roughly a 40% increase in weight (35-70/2.8 is 665gr.)

[Neo]

It's a very sharp lens, easily one of the best wide-angle zooms out there. But like what the other posts said, 35-70 is a little bit limiting nowadays. 28-70mm could be a better choice.

Nobody mentioned two of its biggest drawbacks - the front is rotating so using polarizing and graduated filter is a pain, and it is a push-pull zoom so it may be slightly awkward and imprecise when zooming.

Optical wise... top notch...

[Ian]

Originally Posted by Neo It's a very sharp lens, easily one of the best wide-angle zooms out there. But like what the other posts said, 35-70 is a little bit limiting nowadays. 28-70mm could be a better choice. Nobody mentioned two of its biggest drawbacks - the front is rotating so using polarizing and graduated filter is a pain, and it is a push-pull zoom so it may be slightly awkward and imprecise when zooming. Optical wise... top notch...

Not quite true ... As I posted in my first post on this thread...

Originally Posted by IAN The downside however is the lens doesn't have a fixed front so it rotates while focusing, which can be a pain when using a polarizer. Also the lens flares very easily, and does suffer from some ghosting. Both conditions occur when pointing the lens towards the sun.

Pushpull isn't inaccurate for framing provided you are truly accostomed to it. If anything in certain circumstances such as manual zooming and focusing at the same time it's a positive advantage to have a push pull type action.

[Neo]

Hi Ian,

Perhaps you have different experience from me. I found the Nikon more contrasty and sharper at 35-70mm than the Tokina (I've used both). Like what you mentioned, it could be due to sample variance. But I maintain my stand that the Nikkor is still slightly sharper (no... I'm not a brand snob! )

WRT to the zooming smoothness, I guess whoever is buying the lens has to decide for himself if it is as accurate as turn-ring zooms. Again, I still stick to my opinion that air suction and compression issues within the lens make it more erratic than a turn-ring zoom. So Swimcraze would have to try out the lens to see if it suits his/her needs.

And oops... you did mention the rotating front element before my post.

[swimcraze]

Originally Posted by Neo Hi Ian, Perhaps you have different experience from me. I found the Nikon more contrasty and sharper at 35-70mm than the Tokina (I've used both). Like what you mentioned, it could be due to sample variance. But I maintain my stand that the Nikkor is still slightly sharper (no... I'm not a brand snob! )

Originally Posted by Ian In fast 35-70/2.8's there's no comparison between the Nikkor and Tokina / Sigma offerings. The Nikkor simply has it all over them.

erm....Neo, please read Ian's thread again....

[Neo]

Oh darn... I must have been sleeping when posting my previous thread... sorry Ian... I misinterpreted your earlier post. <sheepish grin>

[Ian]

Originally Posted by Neo Oh darn... I must have been sleeping when posting my previous thread... sorry Ian... I misinterpreted your earlier post. <sheepish grin>

WAKE UP!!!!

Seriously though it's ok, $hit happens to all of us from time to time.

[swimcraze]

Originally Posted by Ian WAKE UP!!!! Seriously though it's ok, $hit happens to all of us from time to time.

i don't mind if $ happens to me....just don't 'hit' me with it!

get it? get it????

[Ian]

Originally Posted by swimcraze i don't mind if $ happens to me....just don't 'hit' me with it! get it? get it????

hmmm