Trading 35-70 - what would you do?

Discussion in 'Lens Lust' started by alex_a, Jul 21, 2007.

  1. Hi guys,

    I'm considering selling my 35-70/2.8D and 50/1.8, and buying 35/2+85/1.8 instead. Here's the reasoning: if I need zoom, and I have enough light, my 28-105 gives me fairly satisfactory results. So satisfactory, that I've found myself using 35-70 only on occasions where I have a time to set up for the shot. 50 is a different story, I just never feel that FD is just right -- it's always either too short or too long.

    What do you think? Will I miss 35-70? Or the above pair would give me a sound replacement?

    Thanks,
    Alex
     
  2. nykonian

    nykonian

    570
    May 4, 2007
    New York
    Those are four good lenses you have mentioned. I don't think you should sell two good lenses to get another two good lenses. You should just add 35/2 and 85/1.8 to your kit.
     
  3. +1

    If you sell that 35-70 you will just end up buying it back!
     
  4. DeoreDX

    DeoreDX

    616
    Jan 16, 2007
    Alabamastan
    I could see getting rid of the 50 1.8 for the 85mm and keeping the 35-70. I almost consider the 35-70 as a good 35 and 50 and 70mm 2.8 prime. I've never used the 35/2 but is that extra bit of speed buying you much over the additional versatility of the 35-70 besides size/weight?
     
  5. It all depends on what kind of shooting you do.
    For my shooting, I am almost always in the 35-70
    range. So, I'd go with the zoom, but thats me.

    The prime lenses you mentioned are not going to
    be much better than the 35-70 2.8.
    This is one of the best zooms out there.
     
  6. Zachs

    Zachs

    884
    Feb 25, 2006
    NC
    I bought the 35-70 with the intentions of selling it after I used it for a film gig. I'm not letting anyone pry this lens from my hands.
     
  7. Holmes

    Holmes

    Oct 28, 2006
    Wyoming, USA
    I used my 35-70/2.8 exclusively for canine portraiture. This spring I decided I no longer wanted to shoot for hire and sold the old zoom. Shortly after, I let myself get talked into a paid shoot for a local sporting dog association and had to quickly acquire another one. Did the shoot over a two week period and started carrying the lens as a daily walkabout. Never had used it for that application before.

    I'm enjoying the 35-70 so much now my 35/2 prime is seeing little use as its been displaced by a Sigma 30/1.4 for low light shooting.

    I'd sell the 50mm and add the 85/1.8 to start with. If you still want a little fast prime, go for the 35/2 as its a great lens.

    But don't part with that 35-70.... I truly believe you'll regret it.

    Good luck with the all-too-common lens lust dilemma!
     
  8. Nuteshack

    Nuteshack Guest

    the 35-70 2.8 is like having a handful of primes in one lens (with a very usefull close-up feature ta boot). after having a good sample of this lens the only question should be, do i need primes in this focal length?
     
  9. onemorelens

    onemorelens

    742
    Jul 3, 2007
    california
    I also find I hardly ever use my 35-70/2.8 primarily due to awkward FL on DX but also because I have excellent alternatives like the 35/2, 50/1.4 and 85/1.4.
    2 other reasons include slight softness at f2.8 (at least compared with the primes at 2.8) and the relatively large size and weight making it less fun to carry around and shoot esp compared with the 35/2. If I need a lens for an 'event' I reach for the tamron 17-50 that is smaller, lighter, more useful with a wide 17mm and sharper at f2.8 to boot.
    The 35-70/2.8 was my first pro grade optics and my first love but I think I've moved on.
     
  10. Nuteshack

    Nuteshack Guest

    "moved on" ??? ironic, i find the 35-70 renders a certain "look" i've only seen a tad better in the 28-70, a $1600 lens mind u...diff strokes i guess ....;-))
     
  11. Nuteshack

    Nuteshack Guest

    What's "f/8" ona 35-70 2.8? lol ...i shoot mine 2.8 to f4 most the time,,,,i'm convinced u had a bad copy ....;-(

    here's one from mine shot in some dimly lit woods @f5, 35mm
    543658759_1754612cae_o.
    i doubt my 35f2 prime @f5 would have done any better.
    and the very next shot from the same place same lens @f2.8, 70mm
    543583081_899d0ccc47_o.
    something the 35 would not have done without some serious perspective distortion.
     
  12. Zachs

    Zachs

    884
    Feb 25, 2006
    NC
    I shoot mine wide open and thats it for the most part. Its the only reason I have the lens!
     
  13. Nuteshack

    Nuteshack Guest

    it's certainly a very good wider open performer but i find it works well at all F stops, something that can't be said for all high performance glass....
    here's one of my favorite Peony shots @f16
    514206378_8270e9fcea_o.
     
  14. onemorelens

    onemorelens

    742
    Jul 3, 2007
    california
    Obviously the 35-70 still has some hardcore loyalists. It is a terrific lens f/5.6-f/11 but the FL is just not as practical for me as other lenses I have. I have moved on.
    Agreed - Diff strokes for diff folks...
     
  15. Nuteshack

    Nuteshack Guest

    well, there's quite a few 28-70 2.8 owners that still have their 35-70 and WON'T let it go...maybe your copy wasn't all that???
     
  16. I have all four lens you mentioned but my 35-70 is the one I use all the time. It can replace all other lens with one lens. I would sell the 35,50,and 85 before selling the 35-75. Thats how nice a lens that is.

    Arnie
     
  17. gugs

    gugs

    490
    Feb 24, 2006
    Belgium
    I would never sell my 35-70 2.8 That lens is much too good on my digital cameras and on my F5, by far my favorite.
    As far as primes are concerned, the 85 1.8 AF is by far my favorite, followed by a few AIS lenses like the 35 f2, 85 1.4 etc... 50mm is among my least used lenses...
    In other words, don't sell the 35-70 and buy the primes you mention...
     
  18. DABO

    DABO

    Jan 13, 2006
    I also must have a very good copy of the 35-70. At anything above f/4, it's sharper than my 35/2. At f/4 they're too close to call, and at f/2.8, the 35/2 is sharper. But when I say sharper, it's not a huge difference in real life. They are both very sharp. I use the 35-70 for family type events. The 35/2 is for light weight travel. If I could only have one, it would be the 35-70.

    Buy the 35-70, live with them both for a while, and you'll soon realize which one YOU keep reaching for. If you can only keep one, sell the other one.

    DAB
     
  19. sbruno

    sbruno

    892
    Jul 20, 2007
    Baltimore, MD
    I know the 35-70 is a special lens with fabulous color rendition, but I have to agree here. I used it for a time, but couldn't justify keeping it when I bought my Sigma 18-50/2.8 macro. It's just a much more useful focal length for me b/c I use the wide end all the time. And the difference in IQ is minimal. Now, build quality is a different story...

    Anyhow, I really think it depends what you're shooting as to which focal lengths you need most. I personally think that should be the deciding factor in your decision - is your set-up going to get the shots you want? That said, you really you really can't go wrong with either combination. I have the fast 35/85 combo to compliment my 18-50 and I wouldn't replace any of them.

    Good luck,
    Steve
     
Loading...
Similar Threads Forum Date
Trading Down Lens Lust Jun 14, 2016
Thoughts on this trade Lens Lust Jul 31, 2015
Trade 80-400 AFS for 300 f/4 PE? Lens Lust Feb 8, 2015
Trade- in for new AFS 80-400VR.... Lens Lust Oct 16, 2013
Thoughts on trade in program at Adorama Lens Lust Mar 5, 2013