Going to look at a Nikon 35-70 2.8D

[rekud]

Been saving up for a 24-70 2.8, but came across this lens for sale locally. I don't shoot professionally(no desire to), locally and with kids quite a bit of indoor plays and concerts and do enjoy taking good shots.

Lens is coming from a Wedding Photographer who is upgrading to the 24-70, and is asking $400. Very well priced from anything I can find

The biggest con I found on the lens is the limited zoom, but the pros is how well it is built and performs which seems to outweigh the con.

I have a D5000 and a D40(may not focus on this body), for an amateur and a quarter of the price of the 24-70, anyone see a reason not to purchase.

Thanks in advance

 

[carlgo]

Got me curious about this lens, so I looked it up. Great build quality, but not too heavy. Good performance, even a decent macro setting. Good for film, DX or FX so you should be set for the future.

$400 may not be a super bargain, but you can check this out at B&H, Adorama, ebay, etc. It was used by a pro, so it was used....but at least you can play with it. If it feels smooth and solid, and looks good, it probably is.

You should also check out whether all of its features, auto focus, etc. works on a 5000.

Rockwell's site has a good compatibility chart for which lens functions work with various cameras. Nikons have a lot of backwards compatibility.

 

[flosseR]

ok, the 35-70 used to be a really awesome lens. I still know people that swear by it, especially at the price.. BUT as you mentioned, it will not autofocus on anything below a D90. If you can live with the fact that you have to manually focus (which is hard on moving subjects!!!), i can highly recommend the lens. It is sharp and works VERY well. BUT, if you need autofocus at any point, I would rather get the tamron 28-75 f2.8 if with the built in motor (they make that, right??) bigger zoom range and better lens overall...

 

[Ruahrc]

Yeah it's not going to autofocus on either of your bodies, which will probably make it a deal breaker IMHO. It's just going to be too hard to accurately manual focus on moving subjects with a narrow f2.8DOF and the inferior pentamirror viewfinders on the D40 and D5000. Also, on a DX body, the 35mm at the wide end makes it a little long for general use. If it's going to be heavily used for remote/candid people photography it might be okay though.

Ruahrc

 

[compuwar]

I have a D5000 and a D40(may not focus on this body), for an amateur and a quarter of the price of the 24-70, anyone see a reason not to purchase.

Thanks in advance

It won't AF on your bodies, but I'd purchase it anyway- you should be able to shoot with it to see how it performs, and worst-case you'll likely be able to get a couple hundred more for it than you paid. Unlike the others here, I don't find the zoom range all that limited on DX, and it's generally been my most-used studio lens on a DX body. I find 35mm to be plenty wide enough for most of what I shoot, as wider tends to lose detail due to distance and contain too much sky- I can see situations where that wouldn't be true- but for me it generally is true, and I'd rather stitch 35mm shots than shoot wider most of the time (FX or DX, I find that my 35-70 and 20-35mm lenses both tend to be used at 35mm for landscapes unless there's a very compelling composition at a different focal length.)

Paul

 

[rekud]

Thanks for the info

Thanks for all the input and thoughts. I did purchase after reading more about and seeing how these won't be action shots but 90% static it will work quite well. The condition of the lens is top notch and has a B+W filter on it as well.

Once I get a chance to use it in the situations I got it for, I will post some pics.