Nikon AF 35-70mm f/3.3-4.5 : Specifications and Opinions

Reviews

What do you think?

Do you want add your opinion? You do it by joining JuzaPhoto, it is easy and free!

There is more: by registering you can create your personal page, publish photos, receive comments, join discussions and you can use all the features of JuzaPhoto. With more than 259000 members, there is space for everyone, from the beginner to the professional.

S.Olivier

sent on 05 Ottobre 2019

Pros: Image quality (incredible warm and right colors). Fastest and precise AF. Compactness. Universality. Price!!

Cons: Sometimes, perhaps, sharpness... But it's ambiguous. In practice, there are many factors that affect. Remember, it is old and it does not have an image stabilization. It can give a very good sharpness in many situations. Just look at shots, presented here, to see the differences, indeed.

Opinion: Absolutely strong! Totally one of the best from Nikon, at least by price/quality. 'Gray horse' that still wins after all'. There is some stable confusion about it: many voices talk about the 'worst Nikon's lens', 'bad reputation', etc. You should understand the differences between versions of AF 35-70, 3.3-4.5 (their about five - mkI, mkll, mkIII ... ). First (1986-1989, all made in Japan, narrow focus ring) is the best version, and is a 'sky and earth', relatively to all subsequent, on many characteristics.

The following opinions have been automatically translated with Google Translate.

Renzo Tramaglino

sent on 19 Giugno 2025

Pros: Compactness, balanced performance, parfocal optics.

Cons: No one in particular.

Opinion: Taken to combine it with an F55 that was given to me with the AF out of order so I replaced the focus slide with one with a broken image and microprisms. In practice now I have a very compact full program but MF, too bad for the bad mirror pentaprism. The lens, mkII version with a more manageable AF ring, is really pleasant to use. The contrast is not high, I don't find any particular merits but not even defects, a good all-rounder without infamy and without praise but much better than what you read on the net. The lens is (or seems?) parfocal, focusing on 70mm you can open up to 35 mm and both with the broken image and with the AF (tested on various camera bodies) the AF ring remains fixed at the point. This technique can help a lot in low light the accuracy of focusing. Actually after a few more tests with the autofocus in live view (D750 and D7200) on the wide angle the focus is shifted to an imperceptibly shorter distance, and I must say that he is right, with the aperture open the point of focus is sharper ... with the broken image (tested on various bodies, FM2, FG) this is hardly appreciable. In any case, I recommend it without any limitations, I also prefer it to the 28-70 AFD f3.5-4.5, perhaps slightly less contrasted but more uniform in terms of performance.

Simone Rota

sent on 27 Luglio 2024

Pros: Small and light zoom that in some cases can be convenient

Cons: Many specimens suffer from a blocked diaphragm

Opinion: Let's take a look at this goal: 35...............70,..... focal range is limited. 3,3......4,5,.... even the brightness is not great. What if it were just this, that is, basically a normal, ranging from the light wide angle to the light tele, everything we need? ... well then it is certainly to be considered, given the very low cost, the reduced weight and size. From an optical point of view it inherits the scheme of the predecessor ai-s, so you can rest assured, the defects are limited, just don't go looking for them and we won't see them. The apparent sharpness is good, it was sold in kit with the first af bodies and the new nikon customers had to be loyal, they could not be disappointed. Natural rendering and good color, it has few lenses. Of course, it is not a fixed or a professional zoom. If it was expensive and costs so little, I think the reason lies in the modest construction. The second version has a slightly easier maf ring but gives the impression of being even more fragile than the 1st version. The only real flaw shown over time are the aperture blades that become lazy or even blocked, typically at CT. It can be repaired but the repair costs more than the lens, so you need luck / patience to find a good specimen. Unless you are a little photo repairer and get your hands on it.

Erwin

sent on 12 Luglio 2022

Pros: Versatility, always precise maf, high sharpness

Cons: Ring that rotates during the maf limiting the use of filters (oh yes ..... I play to be a photographer in the environment and I hate spending time at the PC messing up the photos) Slight vignetting on fx below f4.5

Opinion: It is an unfairly mistreated optician.... Very versatile and light excellent for portraits and "reportage" (always talking about amateur level without professional pretensions). I use it on nikon d300 and it does not miss a focus. Excellent sharpness and, even cropped up, remains high... The only flaw, vignette slightly on fx ..... used with open diaphragm, under f4.5 vignetting is present but not excessively annoying (who wants to understand means).... You can find it with 2 years warranty on RCE at ridiculously low prices.... 9 full and highly recommended

Immaginidiluca

sent on 27 Febbraio 2020

Pros: Can be small and comfortable

Cons: Doesn't take nice pictures

Opinion: I was very disappointed by this view: it does not have the quality they say, compared to the brothers of the same years is poor. It should not cost more than 30 euros because it is not worth more. If you are looking for the quality of those years the real jump is the 28-105 af macro. For an absolute performance I recommend the fixed 50mm of the 80s or early 90s, with that you will have three times the resolution and a nice bokeh.

Jacopo Pasqualotto

sent on 16 Gennaio 2019

Pros: Nice to see and use, compact, has the aperture ring, you do a bit ' of everything, possesses the quiet rendition and beautiful colors of the AF-D, plastic construction but very solid, manual focus beautiful fluid.

Cons: Eye to the slow diaphragm x old oil.

Opinion: I do not feel to criticize him: Nice to use and see (for me) is in the pocket of the jacket and is convenient for transport, just do not rub the sun in his face and does his job, at most you put a polarizer. A machine with the AF motor is mandatory. Thanks to his bad reputation they pull him around for two bucks, and if you break it..... Take another one now, however it is easy to disassemble. Note: It has a known defect that consists of the slow return of the diaphragm from 32 to 3.3, this implies a constant overexposure if you use closed. It easily resolves by dismantling and cleaning the diaphragm with pure IPA, or by hacking the diaphragm lever for 5 minutes by opening and closing the blades. It should be enough to restore fluidity to the old oil permanently.

Gsabbio

sent on 07 Febbraio 2018

Pros: compactness

Cons: contrast and sharpness, in practice everything

Opinion: It was only temporarily my basic lens when I made the switch from Olympus to Nikon AF. It was winter and the lights of the Po Valley at that time are not the best to see how it goes, because they already lack contrast for natural weather conditions. The fact is that the comparison with my old fixed optics OM, moreover selected for their quality, was disastrous (and we would miss ...); the funny aspect is that, due to known psychological mechanisms, infatuated by the novelty of autofocus I spoke with full satisfaction and absolute lack of objectivity. Actually, not long afterwards, I was able to re-establish myself and realized how the images were generally flat and dull; then I was handed the 35-70 f2.8 that I had ordered and life changed immediately. Of course, as a comparison it was not correct, but the differences were abysmal. Wasted pictures and film; an experience to forget, finally I defined an expensive cap for the camera body. The ridiculous thing & eserious; that was the optics supplied for those who then bought a Nikon AF (F801), as if it were possible to retain a photo amateur by proposing optics of this kind is still a mystery hidden in the head of the marketing staff of Nikon. Rating 4

Buenavida

sent on 17 Gennaio 2018

Pros: Compact, it looks like a 50mm, af precise, little vignetting, 52mm filters, all in metal. Very low price.

Cons: Reduced focal excursion, not excellent sharpness, built by Cosina and Nikon license plate, discrete but not sublime boken at full aperture.

Opinion: Purchased for very little out of curiosity, I wanted to have at least one of the ten worst Nikons of all time according to the personal ranking of Ken Rockwell. It does not deserve to end there, but the 43-86 that I used thirty years ago was infinitely worse, at least this is well built. Does not suffer from vignetting from f4.5 onwards, on Fx. RnMontato on the right becomes a portrait optics, a 50-105 that covers all normal focal lengths for portraits. With the D500 does not lose a focus, with the D610 every so often you "svaga" ie turn empty before finding the focus. In exchange it is fast enough, better than 35-105 but less than 28-200 which is more or less the same period. I will post a gallery of portraits dedicated to this view. The colors are not fired, the shadows do not close them, in full line with 28-105 and the 50 D is 1.8 and 1.4. It was no coincidence that they were considered optical save-errors, keep one in the pocket in the event of strong contrasts - internal, behind the theatrical scenes, the dressing rooms and the like - saves situations where you can not use flash for asoften and lighten.