Home
SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

Just bought me a Nikkor AI 35-70mm f3.5 (constant aperture)
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Wed Feb 27, 2008 11:47 am    Post subject: Just bought me a Nikkor AI 35-70mm f3.5 (constant aperture) Reply with quote

The Nikkor AI 35-70mm f3.5 is a pretty nice looking lens and I believe it is sharp at pretty well all settings only surpassed by the AIS version (and everyone says - but only very slightly.) I am awaiting its arrival but would be interested to hear from anyone who has experience of this lens. From what i have read and seen, it has typical Nikon build quality of the 1980s for Nikon pro and near pro lenses- in other words it looks to be superbly crafted. These lenses are quite cheap due to their small zoom range and manual focusing but they are certainly nice.


PostPosted: Wed Feb 27, 2008 12:39 pm    Post subject: Re: Just bought me a Nikkor AI 35-70mm f3.5 (constant apertu Reply with quote

peterm1 wrote:
The Nikkor AI 35-70mm f3.5 is a pretty nice looking lens and I believe it is sharp at pretty well all settings only surpassed by the AIS version (and everyone says - but only very slightly.) I am awaiting its arrival but would be interested to hear from anyone who has experience of this lens. From what i have read and seen, it has typical Nikon build quality of the 1980s for Nikon pro and near pro lenses- in other words it looks to be superbly crafted. These lenses are quite cheap due to their small zoom range and manual focusing but they are certainly nice.


I've not used it, but it has a good reputation for sharpness and low distortion spoilt only by being a little susceptible to flare.

Have you seen this review:

http://www.naturfotograf.com/lens_zoom_02.html#MF35-70f3.5(72)


PostPosted: Wed Feb 27, 2008 5:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I have its successor the (ahem) AF 35-70/2,8 and it is one of the best zooms ever made. Sharp pretty much through the range. I believe the 3.5 AI and AIS versions were also very sharp.


patrickh


PostPosted: Wed Feb 27, 2008 8:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Samples please........


PostPosted: Wed Feb 27, 2008 8:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

OK everyone thanks for the input. Attila I will provide samples but the lens will not arrive for perhaps a week. As soon as I get it I will post some test shots.

I was hoping people would confirm that it is sharp and this seems to be the concensus so that makes me happy.

RichardD I should have thought of the site you provided the link for but had momentarily forgotten about its existence. Interesting that he rates the earlier lens (which I have bought ) as better than the later one. Most other testers claim the later one with the slim barrel to be slightly better.

I am pleased with this as quite apart from the sharpness which of course is the main consideration I like the look of this monster with its 72mm filter mount - I have a thing about big lenses.

Patrick I have been considering getting the AF 2.8 version for some time and no doubt will do so one day as EVERYONE raves about it. Apart from its limited range I have never heard a bad thing said about it. But at $139 Australian this one was a bit of a bargain compared with the AF 2.8 which seems to go for around $400 US on eBay if its in excellent condition. Like most here I do not mind owning multiple versions of the same basic lens as its fun to shoot and compare. (Modification of an old saying..... Whoever dies with the most lenses, wins.)

I recently also bought the very cheap 35-70mm f 3.3 -4.5 in Nikkor AF mount. It cost me all of about $35. It was a bit of an experiment because i had read that shot in aperture priority mode and stopped down to f5.6 or lower this was a sharp lens. And sure enough it turns out it is. It produces, sharp, nice looking images with very nice color. I have not had time to check Bokeh yet. For anyone who is willing to try it, its a bit of a sleeper - one of those common lenses that is a bit despised because its cheap and cheap because its despised but in reality quite OK.

Incidentally I do not find the 35-70 range to be too limiting even with digital. It gives some flexibility - enough I find and the rest I provide by moving myself if I need to. People who regard 35-70 as being out of the question are fooling themselves. For someone who shoots with a prime, even a modest zoom range is a useful change and in any event the main thing is the image quality.


PostPosted: Wed Feb 27, 2008 8:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I am so curious I completely passed Nikkor zooms.


PostPosted: Wed Feb 27, 2008 9:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

PeterM wrote:
Incidentally I do not find the 35-70 range to be too limiting even with digital. It gives some flexibility - enough I find and the rest I provide by moving myself if I need to. People who regard 35-70 as being out of the question are fooling themselves. For someone who shoots with a prime, even a modest zoom range is a useful change and in any event the main thing is the image quality.


Bit OT but I agree about 35-70 - I used a Sigma Zoom Master 2.8-4/35-70 as my main lens on my BC-1 for twenty years as it covered nearly all my requirements apart from super wide.

I liked that little lens so much I even went so far as to pick up another one in M42 for the Bessaflex.... Laughing


PostPosted: Wed Feb 27, 2008 10:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

While you are at it - keep an eye out for the nikkor 50-135/3,5 AIS. Another of the famous "sleeper" lenses. Very sharp through most of its zoom range. And the fixed 3.5 is very acceptable. Also it's not a monster for size (62mm filter).

patrickh


PostPosted: Wed Feb 27, 2008 11:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

patrickh wrote:
While you are at it - keep an eye out for the nikkor 50-135/3,5 AIS. Another of the famous "sleeper" lenses. Very sharp through most of its zoom range. And the fixed 3.5 is very acceptable. Also it's not a monster for size (62mm filter).

patrickh


I will do this. I have seen them on eBay and my interest has been piqued already. I should have mentioned that I have also just bought the famous Nikkor 80-200 f4.5 in AI mount. It cost me under $40 plus postage. This lens seems to be better regarded than its replacement, the F4 version although I think even its most ardent admirers would admit they are splitting hairs. I have shot a couple of informal shots with it but will try to do a more robust series of tests this weekend. At first blush it looks pretty good.

Attilla You really should try Nikon glass. Most is very good and some is downright excellent including some early lenses such as the 24mm f2.8, the 50mm f2 and f1.4 the 105mm f2.5, the 135mm f3.5 and f2.8, the 180 f2.8 etc. Most of these - especially the earlier ones, can be had for a song. The later AI ones can be a bit more expensive as you can use them on Nikon digitals, so they are in more demand but if you are using another camera body (e.g. a Canon or Olympus) with an adapter, whether any given lens is AI or non AI does not matter in many cases (although there are some that had improved optical formulas with later lenses and or the use of multi coating and are recognised as being slightly better performers.)


Last edited by peterm1 on Wed Feb 27, 2008 11:33 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Wed Feb 27, 2008 11:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Peter, I passed only Nikkor zooms, I have many Nikkor primes, I sold some but I kept the best ones like 34mm f1.4,105mm f1.8, Micro Nikkor 200mm f4 etc.


PostPosted: Wed Feb 27, 2008 11:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Attila wrote:
Peter, I passed only Nikkor zooms, I have many Nikkor primes, I sold some but I kept the best ones like 34mm f1.4,105mm f1.8, Micro Nikkor 200mm f4 etc.


OK understood. There are also many good examples of zooms including the ones I mentioned.


PostPosted: Thu Feb 28, 2008 12:06 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I am curious I have no experience with them.


PostPosted: Thu Feb 28, 2008 1:17 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Attilla this is typical of their better MF zoom lenses. You can pretty much see the quality and precision just by looking at them



PostPosted: Thu Feb 28, 2008 1:19 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Very nice looking lens and looks well built as all Nikkor.


PostPosted: Thu Feb 28, 2008 6:53 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

For anyone interested, here is what Ken Rockwell had to say.......

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/35-70mm-35-ai.htm

and about the later AIS version.................................................

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/35-70mm-35-ais.htm


PostPosted: Wed Mar 05, 2008 2:55 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Whoooeeee. The 35-70 Nikkor f3.5 has just arrived. Looks nice. Pretty good condition, and a very good looking lens in terms of its design and build.

Its got an odd but rather pleasant way of zooming that I do not hink I have seen in any other lens. It does not exactly have internal focussing: the front element still moves in and out, but it moves in and out within the outer shell of the lens so the lens' actual length does not change overall. So when its set on 35 (or is it 70) the front element is well inside the outer shell of the lens which acts as a kind of hood. ( A bit like some macor lenses that have a front element buried way deep in the body of the lens.) Never the less there is a hood for this...now all I have to do is to hunt one down as the lens has a reputation of being a flare monster. This being about its only recorded sin.


PostPosted: Wed Mar 05, 2008 2:58 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Whoooeeee. The 35-70 Nikkor f3.5 has just arrived. Looks nice. Pretty good condition, and a very good looking lens in terms of its design and build.

Its got an odd but rather pleasant way of zooming that I do not hink I have seen in any other lens. It does not exactly have internal focussing: the front element still moves in and out, but it moves in and out within the outer shell of the lens so the lens' actual length does not change overall. So when its set on 35 (or is it 70) the front element is well inside the outer shell of the lens which acts as a kind of hood. ( A bit like some macor lenses that have a front element buried way deep in the body of the lens.) Never the less there is a hood for this...now all I have to do is to hunt one down as the lens has a reputation of being a flare monster. This being about its only recorded sin.