1. Welcome to NikonCafe.com—a friendly Nikon camera & photography discussion forum!

    If you are thinking of buying a camera or need help with your photos, you will find our forum members full of advice! Click here to join for free!

I'm loving my 35-70mm f/2.8

Discussion in 'Lens Lust' started by TeeSquare, Apr 29, 2007.

  1. After reading such good things here about this lens I got one and it's terrific. Thanks for all the great info.
    Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
  2. rlacy


    Apr 22, 2007
    San Diego
    Very nice photo and example of the 35-70. I am keeping my eyes open for a good used one of these to become available. Did you buy yours used or new? How do you most often use it? This lens has a reputation of being tack-sharp and producing great IQ. Your photo seems to support that reputation. Do you agree with its reputation?

    Nice work and keep it up.
  3. Thanks Ron,

    I got mine used off eBay for $275.00 in Mint condition. It is tack sharp especially stopped down a bit. This one is at 5.6. The OOF areas are nice as well. I mostly use mine for people pictures as a portrait lens (it's great for parities or events).
  4. Did someone say 35-70 f2.8?

    Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
  5. Ottrott's Human

    Ottrott's Human

    May 21, 2006
    Nice pic's.....both of 'em!!

    What makes the 28-70 2.8 more "desirable"......i.e. expensive?
  6. Gr8Tr1x

    Gr8Tr1x Guest

    Probably the ED glass and AF-S...

    I had a 35-70mm, and admittedly, it was very sharp, but it flared badly in the sun. I have been thinking about re-acquiring one for indoor use.
  7. Nuteshack

    Nuteshack Guest

    woa, nice pics all of these...Josh, try the hb-15 or 26 hood that comes on the 70-300 g and d series lenses..;-)

    geeeeeeez Woody ...;-))
  8. It's better all around, but only by the tiniest margins... and it's especially well adapted to shooting people... Wait a minute... You already know all this. :tongue:
  9. Nuteshack

    Nuteshack Guest

    lol Woody ...ya, i remember early on u showed me the diff on skin,,subtle yes, but diff none the less and definetly better even though only slightly...;-)
  10. Ottrott's Human

    Ottrott's Human

    May 21, 2006
    I'm amazed at how much more we will pay for such incremental improvements. I've never used the 35-70, but these two examples sure do make it look like a heck of a good buy.
  11. PJohnP


    Feb 5, 2005
    Stuart :

    It is.

    For most folks, the 35-70mm f/2.8 will be a stellar lens, with great qualities, albeit not as wide-angle as the Beast, but also having macro capabilities in place of WA. The push-pull nature of the lens can be a touch disconcerting for some people, but most quickly adjust.

    I've told many friends to consider the 35-70mm instead of the Beast, usually because they have a myocardial infarct when they find out what the 28-70mm f/2.8 AFS goes for, new or used. Given that a solid condition 35-70mm goes for a third or a quarter of the price of a 28-70mm, the differential is large in cost and small in quality.

    I personally think that the 35-70mm f/2.8 is one of the most underrated best value high performing zoom lenses in the Nikon series of lenses.

    John P.
  12. Henry Goh

    Henry Goh

    Mar 17, 2005
    and also the 35-70 f/2.8 is only 2/3 the weight of the Beast, making it a better choice when one has to travel with it.

    I think this will be the one I'm going to pick up instead of the beast when I hive off my 28mm.

  13. fjgindy


    Jan 21, 2007
    I just picked one up on Ebay for $200 shipped. It's the non D version but in excellent condition. This lens is amazing. Hard to believe I paid the same for this lens as I did my Nikon 18-70! A few from today:

    Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

    View attachment 92988

    View attachment 92989

    View attachment 92990
    Last edited by a moderator: May 21, 2007
  14. Nuteshack

    Nuteshack Guest

    congrats FJG ...whata deal, eh?
  15. fjgindy


    Jan 21, 2007
    Thanks Nute. Good things come to those who wait... ;) 
    It is one heck of a lens!
  16. Kerry Pierce

    Kerry Pierce

    Jan 7, 2006
    Which version did you have, Joshua? I have the latest version, f/2.8d. I also have a new 28-70 AF-S. From what I've see so far, the 28-70 has worse flare than the 35-70. I use the screw-in metal hood, from the 85 f/1.8, on the 35-70, which helps reduce flare issues even more.
  17. Henry Goh

    Henry Goh

    Mar 17, 2005
    I guess since I wish to use it in the studio mostly, I should find little difference between this guy and the Beast? Especially at 50 to 70mm? Would I be right?

  18. In my opinion, this lens is optically at least as good as the beast.
  19. kwork


    Jun 8, 2006
    This lens seems to be the best bang for the buck lens since the 50 f/1.8

    Gotta get me one!
  20. exposinglife


    Apr 12, 2007
    Right now, it's the only lens in my bag. I'll be adding a tele later, but the 35-70 f/2.8 is great.

    The flare does bother me though. I just have to remember to keep the sun at my back for the most part. Other than that, it's perfect.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.