Is the Nikon 35-70 f2.8 a reasonable alternative to the Nikon 24-70 f2.8: I'm considering a used Nikon 35-70mm f2.8 as an alternative to the Nikon 24-70mm f2.8. It's much less...

jerrypoller Loc: Huntington, NY

I'm considering a used Nikon 35-70mm f2.8 as an alternative to the Nikon 24-70mm f2.8. It's much less expensive and I've read reviews that claim it's as sharp or sharper than the 24-70. Comments?

DaveO Loc: Northeast CT

One opinion:

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/3570.htm

Bram boy Loc: Vancouver Island B.C. Canada

jerrypoller wrote:

I'm considering a used Nikon 35-70mm f2.8 as an alternative to the Nikon 24-70mm f2.8. It's much less expensive and I've read reviews that claim it's as sharp or sharper than the 24-70. Comments?

well your only missing 11 mm on the wide end and if your shooting with a Dx
24mm is not that wide any way it's like 36mm on that end on a Dx . but a 24mm on a full frame is considered a wide angel . so your 35 mm end on your Dx is like a 48 mm . I would much rather get the sigma 15 36 mm it's a better len's than nikon and in test it's like having four primes that cover that same area better than nikon or canon . the cost of getting four primes in canon or nikon in f2.8 would be at least $4000 or more , in this one sigma zoom it only sets you back $700 . oh did I mention the sigma is a 1.8fstop all the way through faster than nikon or canon . it's the best IMO

MT Shooter Loc: Montana

jerrypoller wrote:

I'm considering a used Nikon 35-70mm f2.8 as an alternative to the Nikon 24-70mm f2.8. It's much less expensive and I've read reviews that claim it's as sharp or sharper than the 24-70. Comments?

The old Nikkor 35-70mm F2.8D lens was always well regarded. The only downside to it was the limited zoom range. It was, and still is, a very rugged, lightweight second choice to the newer, and more expensive, choices. I personally like it and still have a nice copy in the store, although it does not rent nearly as often as it used to. It was pushed into the closet by most Nikon users when they could afford to upgrade to the newer AF-S 28-70mm F2.8D lens, a VERY fine piece of glass.

redhogbill Loc: antelope, calif

MT Shooter wrote:

The old Nikkor 35-70mm F2.8D lens was always well regarded. The only downside to it was the limited zoom range. It was, and still is, a very rugged, lightweight second choice to the newer, and more expensive, choices. I personally like it and still have a nice copy in the store, although it does not rent nearly as often as it used to. It was pushed into the closet by most Nikon users when they could afford to upgrade to the newer AF-S 28-70mm F2.8D lens, a VERY fine piece of glass.

seeing that it is already mentioned.......what do you think of the 28-70mm f2.8D up against the new 24-70mm 2.8??
performance not price....

mikecanant Loc: Texas

I tried it on D800 and found results to be less desirable than other choices.
Also, did not like the non-intuitive way it zooms (35mm is fully extended and 70mm is not extended) since I would have preferred to carry it in 35mm mode.

I know you are asking for comparison to 24-70 but my alternative choice for about same amount of money ($300), was a 24-85, 3.5-4.5 VR, which is sharper, lighter, longer range, and the VR makes up for the 2.8 advantage of the older lens. Build quality is not as good on newer lens but it is not a problem for me.

ISO 1600, f4, 1/60 sec

jerrypoller Loc: Huntington, NY

MT Shooter wrote:

The old Nikkor 35-70mm F2.8D lens was always well regarded. The only downside to it was the limited zoom range. It was, and still is, a very rugged, lightweight second choice to the newer, and more expensive, choices. I personally like it and still have a nice copy in the store, although it does not rent nearly as often as it used to. It was pushed into the closet by most Nikon users when they could afford to upgrade to the newer AF-S 28-70mm F2.8D lens, a VERY fine piece of glass.

So, rather than narrowing down my decision, the "alternatives" list is getting longer - choice is good!

What maximum price would you be willing to pay on both the 35-70 and the 28-70 in excellent condition (I don't know why I'd buy either in less condition - I'm going to have whichever lens I buy for a long time). The ultimate decision may just come down to the right price.

jerrypoller Loc: Huntington, NY

mikecanant wrote:

I tried it on D800 and found results to be less de... (show quote)

Just curious, what was your focus point on this photo?

ebrunner Loc: New Jersey Shore

jerrypoller wrote:

I'm considering a used Nikon 35-70mm f2.8 as an alternative to the Nikon 24-70mm f2.8. It's much less expensive and I've read reviews that claim it's as sharp or sharper than the 24-70. Comments?

I bought a used version from a person here on the forum. I find the 35-70 to be very sharp. It focuses reasonably quickly on my D-7000 (would probably do better on a pro body like the D700 or even the D300. ) I never used the new lens, so I can't give a comparison. I'm very happy with my lens. It is on my camera almost all the time.

MT Shooter Loc: Montana

redhogbill wrote:

seeing that it is already mentioned.......what do you think of the 28-70mm f2.8D up against the new 24-70mm 2.8??
performance not price....

Performance-wise it is every bit as good as the new AF-S lens. Speed-wise, the original AF-S motors may have been slightly slower to AF, but by VERY little. I think the only real difference was because of the larger elements in the older 28-70mm model taking a little longer to move is all. I really like both lenses, but the 28-70mm version can be used on my old film bodies as well due to retaining the aperture ring. Weight is an issue as the newer 24-70 is gelded and definitely lighter.

mikecanant Loc: Texas

I don't remember focus point, taken 4 months ago, quick unplanned shot.
Blew it up on my monitor and looks like the 24mm focal length had some DOF and I am guessing the red plastic bag just beyond man's knee was focus point. It was pretty dark in that passage way and I probably looked for something I could see good. Why curious about focus point?

jerrypoller Loc: Huntington, NY

mikecanant wrote:

Why curious about focus point?

Just wondered because the sharpness is so good from the nearest to the furthest point in the photo - very impressive.

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

DaveO wrote:

One opinion:

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/3570.htm

Sounds tempting.

http://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_from=R40&_trksid=p2050601.m570.l1313.TR3.TRC1.A0.H0.XNikon+35-70mm+f%2F2.8&_nkw=Nikon+35-70mm+f%2F2.8&_sacat=0

RKL349 Loc: Connecticut

mikecanant wrote:

I tried it on D800 and found results to be less de... (show quote)

David Busch tested the 24-85, 3.5-4.5 VRII and says he uses it as a walk around lens often because of its sharpness and light weight. Cameta has them refurbished for $299, quite a buy at about half the cost of a new one. They put a one year warranty on them. I have one and love it.

jerrypoller Loc: Huntington, NY

http://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_from=R40&_trksid=p2050601.m570.l1313.TR3.TRC1.A0.H0.XNikon+35-70mm+f%2F2.8&_nkw=Nikon+35-70mm+f%2F2.8&_sacat=0[/quote]

I'm watching several of them as I write this.

Let me also ask, I'm looking at f2.8 lenses because I want to shoot indoors at faster shutter speeds (grandkids just being grandkids don't sit still for long) without a flash. Is an f3.5-4.5 lens noticeably slower than an f2.8 lens? Sorry for such a newly question - I'm an enthusiastic photographer, but not at all technical [yet].