The disliked AF 35-70mm f/3.3-4.5 zoom

[Ian R]

This lens never gets any love - and anyone who mentions it soon gets steered onto other options. It is said to be soft, poor quality and just junk. Well I have a clean example (from 1990), which is made in Japan and do enjoy using it. It is light, focuses quickly, has good resolution across the frame and is a pleasure to go out with. I certainly have never seen any of the negative issues that people speak of online, and whilst I do have 'better' lenses, the 35-70 is not a poor lens by any means. Where did this reputation come from? I was out with my copy on a D810 in St Albans today and the warm afternoon light was quite a pleasure to shoot in - and I never felt short changed by having only the one lens. I thought I would share a few examples. I'm sure with a more expert photographer it could do better still, but you get the idea.

Anyone else have one of these lenses? What was your thoughts on it?

[Jakov Minić]

Ian, I don't possess the lens but your examples clearly state that there is nothing wrong with it!
Usually we get too obsessed with the gear that we use instead of focusing on the final product...

[Frank Fremerey]

Sorrry I cannot see where you are not an expert in. The thoroughly designed shots are very well crafted and nicely
edited. Is it fishing for compliments? I do not think you need this technique because your eye is obviously very well
trained and talent seems to be there in abundance too.

That said I share your experience that sometimes great lenses are underrated.

I recieved a lot if bashing online from our guru in chief Bjørn for recommending the 2.0/24 AI until ... he found a very good incarnation of it and combined it with the right cam. Then he sang its praise.

So reasons are

1) some lenses feature huge sample variations.

2) on digital bodies some lens constructions seem to harmonize better others worse.


All the best

Frank


PS. Please consider not to leave any Church without a portrait of the pipe organ
we have a special thread only for it here

[Mike G]

Very nice series Ian, seems to be nowt wrong with your lens!

[Ian R]

Thanks for the input and comments. This lens can be had really cheap now - under £20 - and that is good value. I have seen a few examples with slow and sluggish aperture blades so one thing to watch out for.

Frank, I have spent time photographing the organ so I will look through my photos and see what I have. May be a project for my next visit if needs be. I'm sorry if it looked like I was fishing for compliments - that was not my intent - I am a bit self conscious of sharing my photos and am pushing myself to do it a bit more. The standard of work seems so high these days.

[Frank Fremerey]

Your standards are very high I feel, so respect your work more.

The Organ thread is here: http://nikongear.net/revival/index.php?topic=70.0

[frankv]

Inspired by Ian, i ebay'ed one of these. Arrived from Japan today at a very reasonable cost. It's small and light, wich makes it a perfect partner for my D7000 as a walkable system. The somewhat limited zoomrange is actually great. It challenges my mind, and hopefully makes me think like when I'm using primes. WIth a little bit of adjustment added. On my way from the postoffice i managed to grab a few shots, and it looks promising so far. Maybe a tad soft, but nothing worse than my DX 18-70 wich is my usual walkaround lens. Looking foreward to using and learning this lens in the weeks to come.

D7000, f8, difficult light

[John Geerts]

There are indeed some sample variations but this lens is not bad at all.

Here with D700 at 60mm F/8

[Bjørn Rørslett]

The AF 35-70/3.5-4.5 wasn't "disliked", it just got under the radar of most discerning photographers in its time. Today, one can speculate as to why this happened, but it shouldn't need to blush for its image quality. AF is not fast like most "screw driver" designs of that era, plus it is noisy by modern standards. I normally use the lens as a small and inconspicuous walk-around kit for an IR camera.

Here is an older visible-light capture though, on a Nikon D1X.

[Bent Hjarbo]

Does anybody know if the AiS has the same quality, I got one cheap, and consider keeping it instead of the 36-72 E-series. I like the close focus, and it the pictures look ok from my Df

[John Geerts]

I have the Ai-S (serial 209.....)  and like it a lot.  It looks that my sample may be better than the AF version.

[Bent Hjarbo]

Sounds good, mine is 210..; so I will pass the other one

[JKoerner007]

Of the images shown, none is really what I would call "truly sharp" ... and the colors are off a bit in a few as well.

Don't get me wrong, with a casual look, they're all nice images ... thanks to the subject + timing of the photographer ... however, if really scrutinized, no part of any image I would call either truly sharp or beautifully-rendered ... and some of the skin tones and other colors don't seem as true as other AI-S lenses here have put out.

If you look at the lens itself, it's an el-cheapo construction, so when you put these characteristics together, this (imho) is probably why the lens isn't over-loved compared to other options.

The 35-70mm f/3.5 AI-S is a better choice at that range ...

[David H. Hartman]

Sample variation is an unfortunate fact of photography life. Linhof used to test lenses and reject about 90%. Those that passed Linhof standards got a trim ring with Linhof engraved in it.

Dave

[David H. Hartman]

Don't get me wrong, with a casual look, they're all nice images ... thanks to the subject + timing of the photographer ... however, if really scrutinized, no part of any image I would call either truly sharp or beautifully-rendered ... and some of the skin tones and other colors don't seem as true as other AI-S lenses here have put out.

I've never touched the lens. I printed for a photographer who used the first 35-70/3.5 AI (72mm filter thread) and it was capable.

Now as to the AF 35-70/3.3-4.5 how does one make a judement about the lens from modest resolution JPG files posted on the Web?

Dave