I need Advice on AF NIKKOR 35-70mm lens

[Kathy O]

I do not really know anything about camera lenses, so I am looking for some information. What type of photos would you use a AF NIKKOR 35-70mm lens? What would make you want to use this lens over another? Thanks for your help.

[Manfred M]

It's an older mid-range lens that went out of production in 2005 and designed for full-frame cameras. I have the f/2.8 24-70mm lens and I probably do about 60% - 70% of my shooting with it. It's nice for landscape, city scapes, group shots and even some portrait work. I would probably miss the bottom end versus my lens, i.e. the focal lengths below 35mm. It's f/2.8, so it's quite fast too; i.e. it was aimed at the pro market.

If you have a crop-frame sensor camera, it will go from normal to a short telephoto range; at the top end, it is where I start shooting a lot of portraits. The only thing to watch is that it does not have an internal focus motor, so autofocus will only work with those camera bodies with a built in motor. The lens is not stabilized, so a bit more care has to be taken while shooting.

[Polar01]

Kathy, I would use it for landscape as it has a nice width to it of 35mm and can zoom all the way to 70mm. That said it is a real piece of junk I would stay as far away for it as possible. If I was going to get some in that range it would be the 24-70mm f/2.8 which is a lens that will last a life time.
A lot of my landscape images I take, I use a 16-35mm f/4 VR usually set at around 24mm on a FX camera body.

Cheers:

Allan

[Kathy O]

Kathy, I would use it for landscape as it has a nice width to it of 35mm and can zoom all the way to 70mm. That said it is a real piece of junk I would stay as far away for it as possible. If I was going to get some in that range it would be the 24-70mm f/2.8 which is a lens that will last a life time.
A lot of my landscape images I take, I use a 16-35mm f/4 VR usually set at around 24mm on a FX camera body.

Cheers:

Allan

Thanks for your response, I have an opportunity to purchase one for 50.00 from a person I know. I do not have a lot of money to buy lenses for my camera and thought since it was not very much I might add it to my bag. If I do not like it I guess I am not out of a lot of money, do you think it would be worth paying 50.00??

[Polar01]

Kathy: for $50.00 just realize what you are getting, a light plastic lens that had a repetition of being a soft lens, that said it maybe something that will work for you as a stepping stone to something else.

Cheers:

Allan

[Kathy O]

Kathy: for $50.00 just realize what you are getting, a light plastic lens that had a repetition of being a soft lens, that said it maybe something that will work for you as a stepping stone to something else.

Cheers:

Allan

Thanks for your advice Allan, it is appreciated!!

[Manfred M]

Alan - are we writing about at the same lens? The only ones I've seen are older pro glass that were quite solid metal housings; I looked at a used one a few years ago and ended up not picking it up.

[PhotomanJohn]

There were several versions of 35-70mm lenses. There were manual focus AI and AI-S 35-70mm f3.5 made in the 70's and 80's. The AF 35-70mm 2.8D was made in the late 80's thru 2005. I believe these were all pretty good lenses and AF-D is probably the one that Manfred is referring to. There were also variable aperture lenses during the same time (AI-S 30-70mm f3.3 - 4.5 and AF 35-70 f3.3 - 4.5) which may have been lower quality and might be what Allan is referring to.

Kathy - I think it is important to know exactly which lens your friend has. The fixed aperture AF-D lenses are probably well worth $50.

John