|
| Accept Cookies | Customize | Refuse Cookies |
The following opinions have been automatically translated with Google Translate.  | sent on December 09, 2018 Pros: Compact and lightweight for a 2.8, decent AF, Prena ' Evergreen ' opportunity in good condition at a competitive price Cons: Risk matting around the corner (fortunately not mine) Opinion: Specific always to be a neocyte then to be taken with the pliers from my point of view (but I also think that the amateur advanced so much or you have certainly already had or points to something vintage of a different budget). I have only a few days this magnificent specimen taken at a very competitive price but especially immaculate. and compact, lightweight, well other than my Sigma art 18-35 that on d7100 and definitely another world like resolution and sharpness (accomplice F 1.8 and its excellent sharpness already at 2.2/2.5). But as colors do not disfigure at all indeed, the 35-70 and slightly warmer, though softer. And anyway usable already TA for close-ups very targeted and to have a good sharp composition you have to climb to other values. Even the pump mechanism (which I had never tried) does not cause difficulties indeed.. And very challenging! I still have not been able to observe the suffering of the flares (although those ' imperfections ' know so much of vintage flavour, perfection sometimes makes a composition cold). Attention to the hood: that you use it on DX or FF there are differences in terms of vignetting. I read that its standard and almost useless and I ordered HB-15 which seems to be the most suitable for DX. It ended with the AF of course noisy as managed by the body but it is discreetly fast and quite precise (certainly nn is so much better than the 18-35 test done also other specimens). Final advice? If you find an excellent specimen free from opacizzaxione take it but nn over 200-220 euros, if you think of doing the deal and then to do it revise, leave it alone. |
  | sent on October 06, 2018 Pros: Gorgeous sharpness, lens of yesterdays. Cons: Pump mechanism doesn't make me crazy. Opinion: I have owned this lens for several years time before handing it in when I had stopped using it. I made a big mistake because even if older did his job in Modino. In addition to my over the years I have used another pair but I have never happened to meet with Matted. Obviously can not compete with the modern 24-70 also because the major excursion of the latter is certainly more appreciable, to any good account for those who had problems of "budget" as can happen, the old 35-70 can largely do a great service. |
 | sent on June 15, 2018 Pros: Sharpness, used price, AF speed, macro, construction, brightness Cons: Flare, possibility of slow-disconnect Opinion: I have the Af-D version for more than a year and I took it with me pretty much anywhere. I use it on both digital (D700) and Analog (FA-F5-F100 etc.) so I use it for various purposes, from street to weddings. The sharpness is proven, on the other hand it was the Pro series of the years 80 (better known as "the lens of the Matrimonialista"). Compared with the current heir (24-70 AF-s) obviously has its "limitations", but honestly the speed of AF was never a problem, indeed: I find that the speed of some AF-D is better than many AF-s current. Since it is a lens that is born for the film has a very natural chromatic rendition, but against I could see that closes a lot of shadows. The pump zoom system is my favorite even if it pulls in some dirt. For the uses that I make (reported on) is very good, I would change only with a modern 24-70 VR, but already the 24-70 "smooth" in exchange for this I do not feel the need. |
 | sent on July 13, 2017 Pros: Incredible sharpness Cons: At the moment no one Opinion: I have been looking for this lens for quite some time until I found a copy in a shop in a casual manner, guaranteed a year of opacity, then talking to the owner who was definitely much more prepared than I explained a bit about the reason The opacity of the specimens and the reason why certain products (I remember remembering the lubricants and lubricants) ruined the lens.rnIf you succeed in finding cheap specimens you will not regret it. |
 | sent on November 12, 2016 Pros: construction sharpness Cons: Opaque lenses in almost all samples Opinion: I bought this magnificent lens to 180 euro with a slight opacity of the doublet group of lenses placed before the iris I decided to take it apart, starting from the rear lens mount lifting the plug without removing it then with 3 screws it comes off the first group in the first unit is removed with a compass with iron spikes the investigated group are cleaned well the lens with a cloth and liquid lenses for refitting all ..the're done ... but I risked it was worth pena.se glue the pair has invaded the lenses do not have to do anything to replace it and the parts are sadly slow service ... good ... good photos |
 | sent on November 05, 2016 Pros: Sharpness, construction Cons: glass front that rotates to focus, poor zoom range Opinion: Bought used for 260 €, in perfect condition, I was able to test it, and I'm very convinced ... It has an excellent performance, even in the focal extremes, though it gives the best in focal between the two extremes. A 2.8 is not a blade, but still returns more good pictures, turning a bit ', it becomes extremely well nitido.rnCostruito, you feel the strength in his hand, and, perhaps because of the lack of zoom range, the pump mechanism does not causes an excessive sliding down the front lens when the device is tilted, typical targets with pompa.rnSe operation can be found at a reasonable price, is consigliato.rnPer regard to opacification problems, I came across in 2 units this goal, and one I bought it, and neither of them seemed to be the problem of opacification. |
 | sent on November 01, 2016 Pros: Blurry, clear, construction. Cons: For the moment I can not find. Opinion: I bought this zoom (version D) despite not being a lover of this type of lens (I only fixed in the kit). I took it more than anything to have a lens "handyman" as around town. I find this remarkable zoom in yield with very nice blurry. The AF is reactive (at least on the D3), the pump mechanism I have no problem in using. RNE ' "morbidino" to 2.8 when shooting at 35mm (such as the Canon 24-70 2.8 The first version I had), aged 50 and older is nice crisp. In backlight "pushed" I have yet to try it so I can not give a judgment in merito.rnTrovo useful to be able to use it as a "macro" blocking 35mm pump mechanism to use it only in manuale.rnVignetta and distorts it with a click of ACR settles all (although to be honest I always leave vignetting because I like) .rnPer who wanted a serious "zoom" at a very low price I see no alternative at home ... Nikon recommend it to chiusi.rnOc eyesappliance opacification of the rear doublet. |
 | sent on July 24, 2016 Pros: laboratory http://www.nfservice.it/ Nikon Florence Cons: no harm done, by that lab, never in 30 years of Nikon Opinion: If you have problems, to remove the clouding of the lens at 35-70 2.8 .to laboratory in Florence Osmannoro http://www.nfservice.it/ clean it with 80 € ... It 'been my faithful companion for a couple of decades for matrimonial services in analog, but it is super also with digital, and cleaned up after, becomes the phenomenon that has always been .. Try, are very serious for each repair |
| sent on July 24, 2016 Pros: laboratory http://www.nfservice.it/ Nikon Florence Cons: no harm done, by that lab, never in 30 years of Nikon Opinion: If you have problems, to remove the clouding of the lens at 35-70 2.8 .to laboratory in Florence Osmannoro http://www.nfservice.it/ clean it with 80 € ... It 'been my faithful companion for a couple of decades for matrimonial services in analog, but it is super also with digital, and cleaned up after, becomes the phenomenon that has always been .. Try, are very serious for each repair |
 | sent on January 13, 2016 Pros: Excellent lens Cons: Repeating defect, the rear doublet becomes opaque due to the deterioration of the adhesive used to couple the lentirnPROBLEMA solved ONLY REPLACE THE doublet, THAT BUT 'NOT BEEN' PROVIDED BY NIKON Opinion: Info for those like me were trying this lens: On suggerimanto a friend fotoriparatore, I contacted LTR ask for a quote for the replacement of the doublet, if he had revealed difettoso.Questo the content of my email and the answer to LTR: rnrnData: 04/01/2016 00: 18: 40rnVorrei to revise a zoom Nikkor AF 35-70 f = 1: 2.8 D suffering the known problem of opacification of the rear doublet. Net I read that Nikon no longer provide replacement, I want to know if it is true. If it is just a "hoax" I would like to know approximately the cost for replacement. Thanks rnrnData: 01/11/2016 12: 22: 13rnGentile Mr Musolino, I refer to your communication we regret to inform you that your product is no longer repairable, as being out of production, there are more parts to intervene. rnCordiali greetings, LTR SERVICEVia Victims of Piazza Fontana No. 5210024 Moncalieri TO - Tel.199.12.41.72 Fax.0118144833 |
 | sent on January 08, 2016 Pros: very good optics for yield, sharpness and blurring Cons: OPAPACIZATION, OPACITY, OPAPACIZATION, OPAPACIZATION Opinion: |
 | sent on November 08, 2015 Pros: Sharpness, construction, blurred Cons: Yield backlight Opinion: For me a 'very valuable optical although it is often underestimated. If you find a non-opaque not let it escape. The blurred and sharpness amount to much more expensive lenses. It is excellent as a lens ceremony. Highly recommended for what it costs on the used market. rnDa try absolutely rn! rn |
 | sent on August 11, 2015 Pros: Construction, Sharpness, Defocussed, Fire, Price Cons: Opacification, Yield Lit, zoom to pump, you can not use a circular polarizing, Absence chip D, limited zoom range Opinion: A great standard zoom with excellent color rendering and a good sharpness and blur at a price competitive is an understatement to say that: a sample-free matting and in excellent condition you can find 300 Euros and worth them all. Clearly being dated perspective has several limitations, the worst of which is definitely the PESSIMA yield backlight, which loses almost completely contrary; also the lack of the chip D should be reported, as in the use with the flash exposure wrong 7 times out of 10, or in any case not constant. Built to the highest standards of the past externally, the same can not be said of the famous problem of the eye doublet that, in the long run, in fact prevents its use and must be changed to an outlay of 150 euro. In general, a lens that is worth trying but it absolutely does not replace the 28-70 nor even the 24-70 who are of a different category. |
 | sent on April 16, 2015 Pros: Build quality, clarity, sharpness at full aperture, focus, brightness Cons: Backlit bad Opinion: The yield of this lens is outstanding, the blur is very pleasant and the sharpness is the highest level at all apertures and focal. I am using it on DX and is great for portraits and reportage. It 'a good choice in relation to the price at which you can find in the market of' used, taking care not to acquire exemplary suffering of the known problem of opacification. |
 | sent on July 12, 2014 Pros: Compact, excellent yield at all focal points and diaphragms, pump movement Cons: Little range (2x)... to buy only repaired (opacity duet post.), backlight Opinion: Hard to tell if you're dealing with an "opaque" optics... if you are not practical it is better to let it go... or only turn to repaired optics with LTR bill. Once you find the right optics... excellent construction and very comfortable the "pump" movement... pastel colors and excellent already at TA... in The Matrix tends to overexpose a little bit. Also repaired (suffers from 2 problems: in addition to the opacity of the post duet. the other lenses go clean CMQ) in the backlight suffers. Price x a model "D" in excellent condition with repair invoice between 300/350€ if complete with everything... not even half as much as his successors. Lampshed replaced with screw and metal HN-22... with a mounted polarizer is very + comfortable. |
 | sent on January 28, 2014 Pros: optics that despite the years is still very valid, I personally use with the D300 and D90, have a yield on colors for my taste ottimale.Costruzione massive Nikon volta.Ottimo in a fuzzy Cons: autofocus slow compared to the new generations, as zoom pump all the problems connesse.Una good review does not cost much and does it well. Opinion: using it in DX I have a 52-105 lens, which combined with the 10-24 on another body, allows me to spazziare the focal for me the most utilizzo.rnHo used this lens in the 90 F3 and F4, then venduto.Ritrovato has lately really ottimo.rnSe found in used to figure affordable (150/200 € for review if 300/350 €), if revised, better if the D version, it is definitely a purchase you will not regret. |
  | sent on March 26, 2013 Pros: Color rendition, sharpness, blur, portability, construction. Cons: Opacification of the doublet rear AF fast (depends on the motor reflex) and non-domestic, lack of chip "D" for information on the distance to the subject. Possible problems of F / B focus. Opinion: Despite his age, a view is amazing, that has little to envy to the current zoom focal length comparable. It 's beautiful color rendering, faithful and saturated just right, thanks to the fact that the lens is not as opposed to the latest optic "yellow black". The sharpness is excellent already at room temperature, even at the edges. Excellent also the blurred and, thanks to the mode "macro", ie the possibility, the focal length of 35mm and only in manual, to unlock the range of MAF and bring it up to the minimum distance of 28cm, allows to obtain bokeh beautiful. Too bad that, since IF (the front lens rotates during MAF) is impossible to use polarizing filters and sloping neutral. Moreover, the lack of chip "D" is a bit 'damn when used with the flash indoors. Compared to the newer 24-70mm f/2.8 has a greater portability with the compact footprint and weight quite content, but it has a metal barrel and totally resistant. The major issue that hampers nearly all nell'acquist3B dated and exploited is likely to have problems with F / B focus, which is easily solved on reflex that offer fine tuning AF, less on the entry level. |
 | sent on March 26, 2013 Pros: Image quality, blur, sharpen, construction and solidity, ring diaphragms. Cons: Some specimens suffer from opacified lenses, which must be replaced in assistance to avoid a drastic loss of quality, AF not ultrasonic and slightly noisy, lack of tropicalization. Opinion: Really good lens, the quality is comparable to the 24-70 of oggi.rnSi is a professional lens, with excellent clarity and a blurred: the focal length using the pump system, which I personally prefer the traditional prayers, but that someone else might not piacere.rnAnche wide open sharpness is excellent, although you have to pay attention to the phenomenon of opacified lenses, which afflicts 35-70: in this case, it is necessary to replace the lens opaque (I think at a price of approximately 200 €), in order to avoid a large loss of nitidezza.rnrnGli only flaws are of course the lack of sealing and the stabilizer, in addition to AF does not last generazione.rn |
JuzaPhoto contains affiliate links from Amazon and Ebay and JuzaPhoto earn a commission in case of purchase through affiliate links.May Beauty Be Everywhere Around Me
