Nikon 35/70 2.8 lens wanted: want a Nikon 35/70 2.8 lens if anyone knows any whereabouts !

TREBOR77 Loc: Winchester Kentucky

want a Nikon 35/70 2.8 lens if anyone knows any whereabouts !

cjc2 Loc: Hellertown PA

B&H has one used for $ 350. I owned one. Very good lens!

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

cjc2 wrote:

B&H has one used for $ 350. I owned one. Very good lens!

I got one on ebay last year for $292. It's a very sharp lens. Try KEH, too.

Papa j Loc: Cary NC

TREBOR77 wrote:

want a Nikon 35/70 2.8 lens if anyone knows any whereabouts !

Love the lens eBay great deal

Joe good luck

Screamin Scott Loc: Marshfield Wi, Baltimore Md, now Dallas Ga

I've got both the MF & AF versions... Great lens.KEH has some...
http://www.keh.com/shop/nikon-nikkor-35-70mm-f-2-8d-af-zoom-lens.html

phlash46 Loc: Westchester County, New York

TREBOR77 wrote:

want a Nikon 35/70 2.8 lens if anyone knows any whereabouts !

You'll get more exposure in the Classified forum.

Al Beatty Loc: Boise, Idaho

Hi,

Based on a suggestion from Jerryc41 on this group I bought one a couple of days ago off eBay and it's out-for-delivery today. When I put the lens on my watch list I found about 25 others for sale. You should have no problem finding one there or on KEH, etc. Take care & ...

Leitz Loc: Solms

Screamin Scott wrote:

I've got both the MF & AF versions... Great lens.KEH has some...
http://www.keh.com/shop/nikon-nikkor-35-70mm-f-2-8d-af-zoom-lens.html

I believe this lens was auto focus only. There were manual focus 35-70s with f/3.5 and f/3.3-4.5 apertures.

Screamin Scott Loc: Marshfield Wi, Baltimore Md, now Dallas Ga

That is correct. My MF version is only F3.5 (the variable aperture version isn't anywhere near as good) but I think it is sharper than the AF version. It's bigger, that's for sure...

Here is one of my images taken with the MF F3.5
http://www.flickr.com/photos/screaminscott/5217536555/in/photolist-8X4eQP-6xrZqU-6z3K2w-6xrZp9

Leitz wrote:

I believe this lens was auto focus only. There were manual focus 35-70s with f/3.5 and f/3.3-4.5 apertures.

h2odog Loc: Brooklyn NY

Excellent lens, well built, on the heavy side. It has push/pull zooming. You have to be concerned about fungus.

Leitz Loc: Solms

Screamin Scott wrote:

That is correct. My MF version is only F3.5 (the variable aperture version isn't anywhere near as good) but I think it is sharper than the AF version. It's bigger, that's for sure...

Here is one of my images taken with the MF F3.5
http://www.flickr.com/photos/screaminscott/5217536555/in/photolist-8X4eQP-6xrZqU-6z3K2w-6xrZp9

Nice shot. No question on the image quality. I have the second version, 62mm filter and closer focusing. I tried the 2.8 when it first came out - very sharp and "seemed" to have marginally better contrast, but not enough difference for me to buy it. I've heard others praise your version, also.

Screamin Scott Loc: Marshfield Wi, Baltimore Md, now Dallas Ga

As I said before, I have both the MF & AF versions. The MF version is larger (72mm filter threads) & heavier. I have cameras that can utilize either version, but I normally opt for the AF one due to convenience. That shot I linked to was taken with the older lens mounted on a Nikon D70s which didn't meter with older MF lenses, thus I had to manually determine exposure.

Leitz wrote:

Nice shot. No question on the image quality. I have the second version, 62mm filter and closer focusing. I tried the 2.8 when it first came out - very sharp and "seemed" to have marginally better contrast, but not enough difference for me to buy it. I've heard others praise your version, also.

Cibafan Loc: Virginia

I have one in great condition I will sell for $295.00 if you are interested let me know,
Jack

Leitz Loc: Solms

Screamin Scott wrote:

As I said before, I have both the MF & AF versions. The MF version is larger (72mm filter threads) & heavier. I have cameras that can utilize either version, but I normally opt for the AF one due to convenience. That shot I linked to was taken with the older lens mounted on a Nikon D70s which didn't meter with older MF lenses, thus I had to manually determine exposure.

I didn't have an autofocus camera when the f/2.8 was introduced, so that was no issue. I had to laugh the other day when someone in another thread made the uninformed comment that the lenses "made for film" were no good for digital!

cjc2 Loc: Hellertown PA

Leitz wrote:

I didn't have an autofocus camera when the f/2.8 was introduced, so that was no issue. I had to laugh the other day when someone in another thread made the uninformed comment that the lenses "made for film" were no good for digital!

Perhaps they weren't made for film either! :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: