DSLRUsers.com

Hi Peeps, just wondering if anyone has one of these and what they think as i can hold of one for around $490 as i dont have a wide lens for my D3, was thinking of the 24-70 as they are pricey as we know and a good lens but thought for this older one and price would be ok for a walk around. Ken Rockwell seems to give it a good write up over the 24-70 for size and weight.

Cheers
BBJ

I've not used one but been told they're pretty sharp lens...Link below a bit cheaper...

http://www.photoforum.com.au/showthread ... -condition!

BUT 35mm is not that wide, even on FX. Have you considered a prime lens?

how about a third party 24-70?

I've got one thought I don't use it much because I tend to use a 17-35mm and a 50mm f1.4 instead. It's capable of good quality, though. I was going to attach an image but in trying to upgrade Filezilla I've killed it. Same just happened with JAlbum as well. I might put it up later if I get Filezilla working.

OK, got them going ...



Skip Landy @ Goulburn Blues Festival, 2008.

I have one.. I lucked out and found it in a dusty corner of a camera shop and got it for a bargain! I wont say how much as it will make you sick

Its a super lens. however I would swap it for a 24-70 nikkor .. maybe .. The biggest issue with it compared to a modern lens is the coating is not as good. so it tends to flare a little when shooting into light. there is also a known weakness in that there are batches of this lens that tend to have veiling flare. Ie the rear elements tend to get a bit misty/dirty. You will need to inspect it to see it. ie look through it from the back into something bright like an open window to a bright sky or doorway etc...

Its is Very very sharp at 35mm edge to edge on FF. Great for landscape, esp. when stopped down a little. 35mm is its sweet spot in terms of FL. however even at 70 its no slouch. I use it on my DX cameras mostly but I do slap it on my Film camera for landscape shots at 35mm from time to time. My main use for it is on my DX for portraits and for my shoots with some local community theatre co. I also use it for macro with my raynox DCR(Close up Filter - 3 element!).

Why I would find it hard to give up? well the filter ring is 67mm which fits my snap on Raynox. Its so much smaller than the new monster 24-70 lenses. IQ beats most third party lenses in that range except for the flaring when shooting into the sun but I don't do that often . 35 mm is sharp! on my DX its like a prime normal ... with zoom!

Would I get one now? .. Yup... If you don't find the range restrictive. On FX you really need to consider it as a wide normal that can zoom a little. on DX its just about perfect as a portrait lens! I am waiting for tamron to bring out a 28-75 VC version with great IQ so that I can upgrade. ie I would like a wee bit more range, + VR, + better flare control. I am happy enough to wait. Its all I need (and more) in a lens in that range.

Thanks All, for replies.
I was sent a list of gear for sale and thought it might be ok and i guess it would be, just thought for the price it might be worthy to pick for the price as i had intended to buy a 24-70 at some stage when i stop spending money on stuff for the boat.

Thanks pa for the link but that one was sold, again it comes down to what you use them for as i mainly do sport work when i do shoot and always leave the 300 f2.8 on the D3 and 17-55 on the D2x. Anyhow will have a think about it some more and see what happens.

Thanks again.

BBJ
John

I suppose I should have said I use mine on a D3.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/tango62/26 ... 841180256/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/tango62/se ... 240562359/

I found mine at Kayell..for less than $200 but its very well used. the front is dented and the contacts are worn. But it still produces good & sharp images.

I got mine on EBay for I think $300. It's a relatively recent sample and in good condition apart from a scratch on the lens that the seller didn't declare. Doesn't affect the images, though.