Can someone tell me if this is a good travel lens to use with my Nikon F3? I will be picking up a Nikon AF camera in the future so would you recommend that I pick up the Nikon 35-70mm AF F2.8 instead? I will be keeping the F3 as a backup. Thanks. BTW it's the first version one I'm inquiring about (72mm filter)

-- Brandon (brandon_999@yahoo.com), December 29, 2000

Answers

Brandon,

I owned one of the newer 62mm versions of the 35-70 MF f/3.5. I really liked it a lot as an all purpose mid-range zoom. It balanced well with my F3, even better with the MD-4 drive attached. I traded it when I bought a 24-120 Nikkor. I regret having sold it now.

It was quite sharp at all focal lengths, even wide open. I liked the macro capability of the 62mm version, which I believe the 72mm version does not have. I also really liked the two-touch design (both the 62mm and 72mm MF versions are two-touch lenses) of the MF 35-70 f/3.5. I don't like the push-pull designs for some reason, and I think that the newer AF 35-70 f/2.8 is a push-pull lens. Someone will correct me if I'm wrong on this.

Also, the Nikon Compendium states that the newer 62mm 35-70 f/3.5 is a better lens than the older 72mm version, and that the still newer 35-70 AF f/2.8 is the best one of all by far. Moose's Nikon book indicates that the 72mm version is a very fine lens, sharp all the way out to the corners, and very popular with photojournalists.

Good luck with your purchase, Sergio.

-- Sergio Ortega (s.ortega@worldnet.att.net), December 29, 2000.

I don't know about the 35-70/3.5 AI. The Nikon AF 35-70/2.8 lens is a sharp lens and has had good reviews. This is a push-pull version. However, it's also prone to fogging if you buy second-hand. I believe that this lens is no longer available new. If you're on a budget, and don't really need a zoom get some AF primes like the 35/2D and the 50/1.8. If you really really need a zoom, a Tokina AT- X Pro II 28-80/2.6 will be a good substitute.

-- Ron Gregorio (gregorio@ksc.th.com), December 30, 2000.

I have used the original 35-70/3.5 AI with the 72mm filter ring, and it was quite prone to ghosting. But otherwise it is an excellent lens and the sharpness came fairly close to the 35-70 f2.8 AF.

-- Charles Miller (chasmill@swbell.net), August 30, 2001.

I have owned this lens since the early '80s and still use it to this date professionally. Optically, image quality is super-excellent from f/5.6 and smaller at the center and edges. Contrast is high and distortion is exceptionally minimal to absent even at its extreme settings. Viewing is bright since the front (72mm) allows more light to come in (I have used it with F2s and FM2s). It gives you a solid feel with its weight and robustness.

If you're using this lens for travel, the 35-70 range is quite useful for most of your indoor and outdoor needs. One difficulty I find with it is using a polarizing filter with it (which may need a bit of dexterity) since the front barrel rotates with focusing. Otherwise, for the money, this may be the best zoom lens in its class during its time and may beat newer zooms today. Lastly, it retains its value if you decide to sell it for the 2.8AF.

-- August (finefotos@hotmail.com), December 27, 2001.

You asked about using this lens as a travel lens. I tried using it in Japan and had problems with its slow speed (Using Kodak Plus X and Kodachrome 64) and range. I kept needing something more than 70mm (85mm is my minimum for people's faces) and less than 35mm for buildings. It was frustrating. However, what I was able to squeeze into my F3 veiwfinder was fine. I think having a 50/f1.4, 105/2.5 and a 24mm to 28mm f2 or f2.8 (35mm if large buildings are not your thing) will prove to be handier. Speed is nice, as is low-grain film.

-- Maurice J. Teppr (judiknit@earthlink.net), February 17, 2002.