NikonGear'23
Gear Talk => Lens Talk => Topic started by: ArthurDent on January 06, 2017, 12:26:41
-
It seems to focus much quicker than it did on my D7000. Here are a couple of images:
-
second image:
-
I loved mine when I had it. some of my published pictures were taken with that lens. :o :o :o
AF was not so bad on my D700/D7000. I imagine that the new motor on the D500 must be awesome, it has the same AF module as the D5 but I am not sure if that means having the same motor as well ::)
-
I loved mine when I had it. some of my published pictures were taken with that lens. :o :o :o
AF was not so bad on my D700/D7000. I imagine that the new motor on the D500 must be awesome, it has the same AF module as the D5 but I am not sure if that means having the same motor as well ::)
I looked online and found several posts where others said that the D500 has "the same" autofocus system as the D5, but didn't find anything I'd consider authoritative, so can't answer your question. In any event, it seems much snappier on the D500 than it felt on my D7000, and, as you said, it was good on the D7000. It is a nice lens, is built like a tank, seems to have good optics and used copies can be found at a very reasonable price.
-
I've been culling photos I've taken with my AF 35-70/2.8D Nikkor and Ive noticed a signature. The lens is sharp and focuses accurately but there are a number of shots that are top backlit with diffused light that have a broad, even flare across the frame. It's largely correctable in the digital age but still I don't think I'd buy this lens again. Now when the sun or other bright light is in the frame the flare and ghost is really bad. It would be interesting to see what a single nano cyristal coating might do. An updated version would be nice if the new lens were still small and discreet.
Today I'm using an AF 35-105/3.5-4.5D or AF 28-70/3.5-4.5D in place of of the 35-70/2.8. I'm quite happy with these lenses on my Nikon D800. Flare is less of an issue with the 28-70 and the 35-105 has more reach. Sometimes I miss having f2.8 but otherwise I prefer them to the 35-70/2.8.
My sample of the 35-70/2.8 has a alignment problem that wasn't there a year or two ago. It shows up at apertures larger than f/5.6. It seems to vary somewhat so I'm hoping something internally has come loose. I may open it and see what I can do. It's a paper weight as it is now.
At the right price the AF35-70/2.8D is a good deal. Otherwise the AF 28-70/3.5-4.5D and 35-105/3.5-4.5D (only the AF-D version) can be had for less than $90.00 (USD). Both are small, light and discreet; both have a single hybrid aspheric element.
Dave Hartman
I've used the AF 35-70/2.8D in its better days on my D300s and D800 but not on a D500.
-
My lens does not exhibit the top backlit problem your's does. But I must agree with you about flare and ghosts. One must always be aware of the sun's location when using this lens. Any hint of direct sunlight coming through the front of the lens will cause it to flare. It is the lens's primary weakness.
I don't have either of the other two lenses you mentioned, but I do have a 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5 AF-D which is probably quite similar. I'm going to try it out tomorrow and I'll post a couple of images. It is a lot smaller and lighter than the 35-70, but, being constructed of plastic (although it does have a metal mount), I wouldn't expect it to have near the durability of the 35-70. I liked the 28-105 on the D7000, but I thought the images lacked the color saturation of those produced with the 35-70. It's another lens which can be found quite inexpensively.
-
The top back light wasn't direct sun light but rather light coming through roofing that was once clear but is now diffused about like shower curtain but a little less diffused. It's diffused enough so it doesn't give distinct ghost patterns. If the angle is right so an HN-3 hood can keep the light off the front element it's lovely light.
Dave
I just did a bit of editing as the above didn't quite make sense. Probably a cut and paste error. I hope it makes sense now. :) 2017-02-07
-
FWIW, I found this image of 35-70/2.8D officially modified by Nikon for the professional use (better MF handling).
Edit: I have added the image of the 'Normal' AF and AF-D lenses to this post to better show the differences. Erik.
-
That was an interesting modification Akira, and likely something that really made the lens easier to use if one wishes to forego the (noisy) AF. Wonder if Nikon learned from this? Their initial approach to AF operation and user response of it was a little naive if I may say so. The present modification shown here is not trivial as a lot of the lens casing and internals had to be revised.
-
The present modification shown here is not trivial as a lot of the lens casing and internals had to be revised.
Bjørn, I would suspect that they just put a wider focus ring put over the original one... A neat job nevertheless.
Judging from the addition of the "rabbit ear", even though this lens originally didn't have two dents on the aperture ring to indicate where the screw holes should be drilled, the photographer might still have used old non-Ai bodies like the earlier F2 Photomic.
-
No, there is more to it than that. The original ring is removed and replaced by a much wider one, and in doing so, the upper part of the lower sleeve (for zooming) has been cut away as well.
Nikon service did put the rabbits ear on my 35-70/2.8 as well. I used the lens on older cameras at the time.
-
The diameter of the added focus ring is large enough to rotate over the existing zoom ring. You won't need to cut it.
-
The aperture ring looks like a standard ring, with the addition of rabbit ears
The zoom ring (with macro button) also looks standard. On the original lens there is a space between the zoom and focus rings which has the index line and name of the lens. It appears the modified lens has a new focus grip which fits over both the original focus ring and the spacer ring. The new grip would be fixed to the original focus ring, and damping might be by an inner felt lining which provides friction between the outer grip and the fixed spacer ring. Such a modification would be easily reversible.
-
Roland, yes, that's exactly the same as my thought.
-
FWIW, I found this image of 35-70/2.8D officially modified by Nikon for the professional use (better MF handling).
That's a really interesting example you've found Akira.
Do you happen to have any more images/info about it?
-
Do you happen to have any more images/info about it?
Unfortunately, no. I found this one image posted as a preview of the item that a familiar camera store is going to sell at the second hand camera show held here in Tokyo later this month.
-
The whole front with the bayonet for the lens hood is also different, it is moved forward so the front lens group assembly is different!
This is a whole new lens!
I have added the images of original AF and AF-D lenses from Rolands pages to the post from Akira to show the differences.
-
Thanks Eric. It is good for the direct comparison. :)
-
Ahhh it's the AF-D front it is different - I'll add that as well :) but still a lot of differences!
-
Eric, sorry I had edited my post before you explained the situation. :o
The lens in your added image appears to have a protection filter screwed on it: the front "element" looks flat!
-
Yes you are right! It must be some sort of 'deep' filter that looks like the front is extended, sorry for the confusion.
The name plate ring is simply gone,,,
-
No worries! Please leave the image you added as it is nevertheless.
-
Here is the exploded view of the lens.
The name plate ring is loose, it's in the top right corner, the focus ring parts are top middle, and they need to be a larger diameter and extended maybe from another lens and also machined to remove the feet scale - Quite cleaver! Very nice job:)
-
The whole front with the bayonet for the lens hood is also different, it is moved forward so the front lens group assembly is different!
This is a whole new lens!
I have added the images of original AF and AF-D lenses from Rolands pages to the post from Akira to show the differences.
Note to self: source better quality images for these lenses (and many others)
I believe the picture of the AF (non D) 35-70 shows a lens with a filter attached to the front, which may be why the front looks different. Otherwise the AF-D version bayonet attachment looks the same...
-
I saw a used copy of the "modified" 35-70 sold in Singapore maybe 2 years ago. My reactions then were: (i) should I buy it? (ii) likely a prototype that was never returned to Nikon. Needless to say, I didn't buy it and somewhat regretting the inaction.