Nikkor 28-70/f2.8D AF-S ED-IF vs the 35-70/f2.8D AF

First post on this site, but would appreciate any thoughts / comments on the following:

I use a D200 with either the 24-120 3.5-6.5 AF-S G VR or the 80-400 VR am looking for a fast constant aperture zoom to go with them. I am currently thinking about the two Nikkor options 28-70 & the 35-70.

Can anyone tell me why there is ca 1000 USD difference between the two? Is it just the delta between 28 & 35mm at the bottom end - do they behave similarly over the 35-70 range?

Thanks
--
David

I have had the 35-70 f/2.8, but not the 28-70, the 35-70 is an excellent lens, but a much older design. both lenses are excellent but from what I have read I would guess that the edge in sharpness at f/2.8 probably goes to the 28-70 and at f/8 the 35-70 might have an edge. the biggest differences between these lenses ate the greater range and AFS of the 28-70.

If you don't mind it's limited range and lack of AFS I think the 35-70 is one of the best bargains there is in a professional quality f/2.8 Nikon zoom.

--
Edward

Lenses listed in profile

I have seen photos posted from both lenses. They have similar IQ and color saturation and would both be considered pro quality. The 35-70 is the older and smaller lense with push-pull focusing, which is slower than the 28-70's AFS motor. I chose the 35-70 because of its smaller size and lower price. I like my lense and intend to keep it. Although I always wonder if the grass would be greener with the 28-70.
--
arvine

Does anyone know if the 35-70 focusses as fast as other screwdriver lenses on a D1 series body? I find non AFS lense noticeably quicker to focus on my D1x than AFS lenses. That wasn't the case with my D100.

I had a 28-70 & sold it as I hardly used it since buying a 17-55 but still wouldn't mind something a little longer as a a better portrait lens (55mm is just a little on the short side at times). If the 35-70 focusses as fast (or quicker) on my D1x than the 28-70 I may consider picking up a 2nd hand one

TerribleTwins said:

First post on this site, but would appreciate any thoughts /
comments on the following:

I use a D200 with either the 24-120 3.5-6.5 AF-S G VR or the 80-400
VR am looking for a fast constant aperture zoom to go with them. I
am currently thinking about the two Nikkor options 28-70 & the
35-70.

Can anyone tell me why there is ca 1000 USD difference between the
two? Is it just the delta between 28 & 35mm at the bottom end - do
they behave similarly over the 35-70 range?

Thanks
--
David

Click to expand...

Two very good lens we dont see enough from here. Its always 12-24 or 17-55 . Somebody should start a picture thread from those two.

I've owned both, but not at the same time so I can't say I directly compared them.

My general impression is that the 35-70 is slightly soft wide open compared to the 28-70 which I really like wide open.

I didn't like the push-pull, though you may not care as much.

Focus is AFS and is a lot faster- probably only really important in shooting kids and dogs running around, and sports.

If I didn't shoot so much sports though I would probably have saved myself the thousand dollars and kept the 35-70.

btw, the 35-70 and the 20-35 together used makes a great bargain 2.8 combo. I do still own the 20-35 and though am having the same thoughts about the 17-35 as I did before about the 28-70, I think I'll save my money for a little longer this time

--
http://www.sportsshooter.com/cyadmark
Ann Arbor, MI USA

I'll second an earlier poster's response. I use the 20-35/f2.8 and 35-70/f2.8 with my D200 and absolutlely love the results.

Both are the older, immediate predecesors of the newer, bigger, heavier, and more expensive by about $1000 each, AF-S 17-35/f2.8 and AF-S 28-70/f2.8.

I also think about the newer lenses. But AF on a D200 is fine for both, IQ and color rendition wise on the D200 it's hard to tell the two lens sets apart without extreme pixel peeping. On some image sensors (not the D2 series), there is noticeable CA with the 20-35/f2.8; believe the 17-35/f2.8 with ED added was the response to this for the D1 series. No such issues that I'm aware of with the 35-70/f2.8.

Others here can comment with first hand knowledge, as I've never owned a D1 series SLR.

IMHO, great pair that I'll keep forever. No AF-S motors to burn out and great images.

Good mates to my 12-24/f4 on the wide end and 70-300/f4.5-5.6 VRII on the long end, which is easily the equal of the Canon 70-200/f4 L in its range wide open & much smaller and lighter than the 70-200/f2.8 VR and almost it's IQ equal, albiet at a slower aperture which VR doesn't quite make up for. But, no tripod required.

Zoom wise I'm set. Just lusting after a couple more primes, 85/f1.4 being next on the list -- LOL.
--
Andy_F
[Equipment in use -- see profile]

Chuck Yadmark said:

I've owned both, but not at the same time so I can't say I directly
compared them.

My general impression is that the 35-70 is slightly soft wide open
compared to the 28-70 which I really like wide open.

I didn't like the push-pull, though you may not care as much.

Focus is AFS and is a lot faster- probably only really important in
shooting kids and dogs running around, and sports.

If I didn't shoot so much sports though I would probably have saved
myself the thousand dollars and kept the 35-70.

btw, the 35-70 and the 20-35 together used makes a great bargain
2.8 combo. I do still own the 20-35 and though am having the same
thoughts about the 17-35 as I did before about the 28-70, I think
I'll save my money for a little longer this time

Click to expand...

Thanks for the info - as usual this leads to more questions! The intended application would predominatly be candids (including children!) in low light (yes I know a 50mm f1.4 would be nice & I will probably get one, but there are times when I need the flexibility of a zoom).

So the questions:

a) will the AF 35-70 f2.8 focus faster than my AF-S 24-120 or AF 80-400 in low light?

b) is it significantly better (both in terms of lens quality & focusing speed) than e.g. Sigma's 24-70 F2.8.

Perhaps a better way of asking the question is what would a suitable zoom be for the above application, bearing in mind that 1400 USD at the moment is on the high side.

As an aside - Adorama are selling used 35-70's in the 300 USD range

--
David

TerribleTwins said:

a) will the AF 35-70 f2.8 focus faster than my AF-S 24-120

Click to expand...

probably

TerribleTwins said:

80-400

Click to expand...

definitely

in low light?

TerribleTwins said:

b) is it significantly better (both in terms of lens quality &
focusing speed) than e.g. Sigma's 24-70 F2.8.

Click to expand...

Don't know that one

TerribleTwins said:

Perhaps a better way of asking the question is what would a
suitable zoom be for the above application, bearing in mind that
1400 USD at the moment is on the high side.

As an aside - Adorama are selling used 35-70's in the 300 USD range

Click to expand...

You could always buy one to try and resell it at no loss if it's insufficient

--
http://www.sportsshooter.com/cyadmark
Ann Arbor, MI USA

Just my two cents, but:
a) Probably slower focus than your 24-120, but not by a lot. Much better IQ.

b) The 35-70 gives you $1400 image quality for $400. It used to sell for $1600 originally and the waiting lines were like the 18-200 (but pros, not amateurs).
--
Andy_F
[Equipment in use -- see profile]

Chuck Yadmark said:

TerribleTwins said:

a) will the AF 35-70 f2.8 focus faster than my AF-S 24-120

Click to expand...

probably

Chuck Yadmark said:

80-400

Click to expand...

definitely

in low light?

Chuck Yadmark said:

b) is it significantly better (both in terms of lens quality &
focusing speed) than e.g. Sigma's 24-70 F2.8.

Click to expand...

Don't know that one

Chuck Yadmark said:

Perhaps a better way of asking the question is what would a
suitable zoom be for the above application, bearing in mind that
1400 USD at the moment is on the high side.

As an aside - Adorama are selling used 35-70's in the 300 USD range

Click to expand...

You could always buy one to try and resell it at no loss if it's
insufficient

Click to expand...

Thanks for the input - at the Adorma prices I was thinking along the lines of your last comment.

--
Thanks
David

Lenses & equipment in Profile

edwardneal said:

I have had the 35-70 f/2.8, but not the 28-70, the 35-70 is an

excellent lens, but a much older design. the biggest differences > between these lenses are the
greater range and AFS of the 28-70.

Click to expand...

I agree, and would just add that the other big differences are price and size. The 28-70 is quite large (calling Uncle Frank....) and expensive. I picked up a used LNIB 35-70 AFD for $300, it's one of my sharpest and most-used lenses. The build quality of the 35-70 is also superb--it's built like a tank!

edwardneal said:

If you don't mind it's limited range and lack of AFS I think the
35-70 is one of the best bargains there is in a professional
quality f/2.8 Nikon zoom.

Click to expand...

Couldn't agree more!

NP

--
http://www.pbase.com/nonprophet

'Anyone can make a buck, try making a difference instead.'

'A good photographer frets over which lens to buy,
a great photographer knows that vision and creativity
produce spectacular images--not lenses.'

'No photographer is as good as the simplest camera.'

I have posted on this matter before. I had the 35-70 and it was simply awful on the D200. The camera rarely focused it well and the pictures were less than sharp It was one of my best lens on the F5. I have the 28-70 now since the focal length is perfect for me and it is a great lens, sharp wide open, and a joy to use. It's weight isn't a big deal vs. the benefits, and overly stated. It balances well on the D200 as well.

I believe, actually know, that the 35-70 has gone through some major changes in the lens coatings used over the years. Compare an older model with a newer one, and the difference is obvious. Also, many have posted that though the lens may look good used, that long term use seems to loosen up the filter groups resulting in less than sharp images.

Just be sure to test the lens before you buy. The newer 35-70 seems to produce acceptable images, according to others. I bought mine new, about 5-6 years ago so the lens coating may have been the older formula at that time.

Your Milage may vary,

Good luck.
Dan

TerribleTwins said:

The intended application would predominatly be candids (including
children!) in low light (yes I know a 50mm f1.4 would be nice & I
will probably get one, but there are times when I need the
flexibility of a zoom).

Click to expand...

The 28-70/2.8 is best used as an event lens or as a studio lens. It's a very fast/accurate focuser, but its sweet spot doesn't start until f/4, so it's not the best choice for low light work unless you're using a flash with it.

TerribleTwins said:

Perhaps a better way of asking the question is what would a
suitable zoom be for the above application, bearing in mind that
1400 USD at the moment is on the high side.

Click to expand...

You need to go higher. The 70-200/2.8 VR would be your best bet.

--
Warm regards, Uncle Frank
FCAS Founder, Hummingbird Hunter, Egret Stalker
Dilettante Appassionato
Galleries at http://www.pbase.com/unclefrank

Dan from New Jersey said:

I have posted on this matter before. I had the 35-70 and it was
simply awful on the D200.

Click to expand...

Really? You must not have had a very good copy--I use mine on my D200 all the time and I get some great shots with it......

NP

--
http://www.pbase.com/nonprophet

'Anyone can make a buck, try making a difference instead.'

'A good photographer frets over which lens to buy,
a great photographer knows that vision and creativity
produce spectacular images--not lenses.'

'No photographer is as good as the simplest camera.'

Fraid' so. At least that was my experience. A bad sample....I can't really say because it was the only one I've ever tested with my D200. As I said, it was great on my F5 so why the startling difference. Can't say. As I noted, some people have good results. I have very great results with my 28-70 so it's not me. It was my lens.

I keep posting on this issue because it cost me a considerable amount of money to replace it with the 28-70. Worth it, yes. Costly, yes.

I encourage people to test the specfiic lens they are interested in before buying it. My standards are quite high in my expectation of "pro" lens, so I can only testify to my own experience.

On the issue of the 20-35D....I own one (was perfect companion to the 35-70) and I find it very sharp. Just don't shot directly into the sun re: CA but that is true of most wide angles.

Regards,

Dan

I have bought the 35-70mm f2.8 new last week. So far I am really impressed by the build quality. Though I have not done any serious comparison with my 50mm f1.8 but I have got quite acceptable result. I am now looking for a suitable day to go out with my 35-70.

Here is a site which features the pictures all with 35-70mm f2.8 but its all in Chinese I guess. But at least you can guess what you can with that beauty.

http://forum.xitek.com/printthread.php?threadid=262708

Humphrey

TerribleTwins said:

First post on this site, but would appreciate any thoughts /
comments on the following:

I use a D200 with either the 24-120 3.5-6.5 AF-S G VR or the 80-400
VR am looking for a fast constant aperture zoom to go with them. I
am currently thinking about the two Nikkor options 28-70 & the
35-70.

Can anyone tell me why there is ca 1000 USD difference between the
two? Is it just the delta between 28 & 35mm at the bottom end - do
they behave similarly over the 35-70 range?

Thanks
--
David

Click to expand...

--
**********************************
Humphrey Chakma
http://www.flickr.com/photos/hochphana/

B&H is advertising the Nikon 35-70 f2.8D new for less than $500. You should buy the current model rather than an older one to get the best photo results.
--
arvine

Uncle Frank said:

Uncle Frank said:

Perhaps a better way of asking the question is what would a
suitable zoom be for the above application, bearing in mind that
1400 USD at the moment is on the high side.

Click to expand...

You need to go higher. The 70-200/2.8 VR would be your best bet.

Yes - if I had the cash. So saving up..... If money was no object, then I would really like the 200mm F2, but thats another story

Click to expand...

--
Thanks
David

Lenses & equipment in Profile

arvine said:

B&H is advertising the Nikon 35-70 f2.8D new for less than $500.
You should buy the current model rather than an older one to get
the best photo results.
--

Click to expand...

Is there any way to tell the age or rather model number of these lenses ? That way one could determine the age of the used versions - just in case one got lucky & was able to find a demo version available?
--
Thanks
David

Lenses & equipment in Profile