Nikkor 35-70 2.8 AF lens info?

[jack55]

I have a guy who wants to trade his "mint" Nikkor 35-70 2.8 AF (not 35-70 2.8 AF-D)
for my Nikkor 70-300mm 1:4.5.6 ED VR

Jim, or anyone else, can you tell me more about this lens?
I know it is a late 80's, early 90's lens.

I don't need the 70-300mm as I have the Sigma 150-500mm OS.
I need a wide to mid-range lens as my 18-70mm lens is a DX and won't work on my Nikon D3.

Is this a decent trade? This 35-70 lens is a fast one and built like a tank, hardly any plastic on it. In it's day, it was one of the best.

[jack55]

I need to know info/opinions before I make the trade Saturday at 1pm Pacific Time.

[TCav]

The 'D' means that the lens provides distance info to the camera (for flash and metering) and is not significant. Since the one you're looking at is NOT a 'D' lens, you won't have that info. (You won't see the 'D' on Nikon's lenses anymore, because all their lenses provide the distance info, so they stopped using it.)

But otherwise, the one you're looking at should be identical to the 'D' version. SLRGear.com has 9 User Reviews for that lens. There's some good info there. You might want to look at it here: http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showp...uct/121/cat/13

It seems to have a problem with flare, and apparently it's a push-pull zoom (which would drive me nuts.)

[jack55]

Ken Rockwell raves about this lens
http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/3570.htm
Unless I hear some negatives, I think I'll do the trade Saturday at 1pm.

[TCav]

If you can handle the Push-Pull zoom, go for it. I had a Push-Pull zoom lens once, and that was the one feature I hated about it. It's very difficult to make minor adjustments to the zoom. Whenever I tried, i'd always overshoot my mark.

And get the lens hood.

[tizeye]

It is probably a decent zoom with moderate range. Used, noted on KEH in EX+ condition at $484 which should be a fair trade for the 70-300.

I'm trying to get my head around the logic of creating the gap between 70 and 150 where otherwise had it covered. Also gettting rid of a F4.5-5.6 70-300 and relying on a f5.6-6.3 150-300.

[jack55]

Originally Posted by tizeye

It is probably a decent zoom with moderate range. Used, noted on KEH in EX+ condition at $484 which should be a fair trade for the 70-300.

I'm trying to get my head around the logic of creating the gap between 70 and 150 where otherwise had it covered. Also gettting rid of a F4.5-5.6 70-300 and relying on a f5.6-6.3 150-300.

that's not a 150-300.... it's a Sigma f5.6-6.3 150-500mm OS.
Fantastic lens.

[jack55]

I wrote a fairly lengthly report on the Nikkor 35-70 2.8 AF I just got.
Then got this stupid message when I tried posting!

Your submission could not be processed because the token has expired.

Please push the back button and reload the previous window.

I'm not gonna try again... at least today.

[TCav]

Yeah, sometimes, when you take a long time to compose a reply, the system forgets about you. I'll sometimes compose a reply in Outlook (get to use the spell checker, etc.) when I know it will be a long one. Of course, sometimes this site doesn't like the formating Outlook uses, so I paste it into Notepad, copy it from there and paste here, then add whatever formatting and links I want.

[jack55]

Got the Nikon 35-70 f/2.8
Research convinced me to trade for it. Glad I did. Really like it so far!
Read what some say about this lens.
http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/s...hp?product=112
Example:
This lens is the predecessor of the 28-70 f/2.8 which is itself the predecessor of the new 24-70 f/2.8. What we are talking about is great pro-level glass. The 35-70 is heavy duty pro-build with metal construction unlike many lenses these days, but it’s considerably smaller and lighter than the two lenses that replaced it which cost well over $1000 more.

Ken Rockwell says:
Instead of paying $1,750 for the 24-70mm f/2.8 AFS, which is so big that it's a pain to carry around my neck, this 35-70mm f/2.8 does the same thing for one-fifth the price with 30% less weight, and it's built tougher than the newer 24-70mm f/2.8 AFS!