Nikkors
Shootout at 70mm
by
J. Ramón Palacios
tell
a friend about this article
|
CONCLUSIONS
MTF
tables grade these two lenses at 3.7 the 28-70mm AF-S and 3.8
the 35-70mm AF. The slight edge of the second over the first may
very well come from that contrast variation observed here. Although
it is not only through these statistics that you get to know and
appreciate a lens, they are most valid to the point of this simple
test.
| |
|
35-70mm
f/2.8D AF and 28-70mm f/2.8D ED IF AF-S
|
The
28-70mm f/2.8D ED IF AF-S lens is very sharp, very
very
fast to focus, a little heavy (nicknamed "the beast")
and expensive at USD1,430; USD1,330 (Imported)
in
the US*
If
you need the wider angle in a single package and the focusing
speed, this is the one to have. |
|
|
The
35-70mm f/2.8D AF lens is also very sharp, not as
fast
to focus -obviously, not having a Silent Wave engine-
but less heavy and expensive, at USD680; USD550
(Imported)* when new.
It
seems a pity this lens is ignored or early dismissed by
many that find it "too limiting" in its focal range or
its front element rotating "an unbearable nuisance" when
using a polarizer. |
|
 |
Evaluations
combining objective and subjective elements place the 28-70mm
AF-S at the highest score value of 5 and the 35-70mm at a very
close 4.5, obviously considering the extended focal length range
convenience of the AF-S, faster AF and IF characteristics.
MTF
tables reinforce the results show here, at the long end -usually
critical for most zooms- where they both render excellent similar
images in terms of resolution; with slightly more contrast from
the 35-70mm f/2.8D AF.
The conclusion
is that if you cannot have the 28-70 f/2.8D AF-S, with the 35-70mm
f/2.8D AF you obtain at least the same optical quality if not
slightly better.
This may become
more relevant in the near future, when digital photography
use
expands. The current 1.5X crop
factor
in Nikor DSLR DX sensors, makes the 70mm focal length of these
lenses an ideal effective 105mm portrait lens.
For film, if you
still miss the wider end, get a 24mm f/2.8D AF for even more coverage
than the 28mm. If you yearn to cover that lower end with a zoom,
then go for the great complementary 20-35mm f/2.8D AF if you can't
have the 17-35mm f/2.8 AF-S.
All in all the two lenses compared
make one want to become a better photographer.
I am the one having the need to
do them justice. So I'll keep them both while saving for the
24-70mm f/2.8G ED IF AF-S Nikkor.
I may later make again this comparison
on a FX body. In the meantime ....
Have a great time  |
