Nikkor 35-70mm f2.8D
Nikkor 35-70mm f2.8 D lens
The Nikkor 35-70/f2.8D is a professional standard versatile lens with prime quality optical performance yet the ability to go closer (70mm) for a headshot or wide for a half body (35mm) without moving my feet.
The 35-70/2.8 was the original Nikon workhorse lens of a professional wedding photographer before Nikon released the 28-70/2.8D and then it’s replacement, the current model, Nikkor 24-70mm f2.8.
In comparison the 35-70/2.8 is an absolute bargain and I rather have this lens and a seperate wide angle prime lens and spend less money. I find it is not often that I use a 24mm focal length. 28mm is a much more useful focal length especially for work such as documentary wedding photography in small spaces.
The Nikkor 35-70 has quickly become my one lens setup for my Nikon D800 for both studio portraits and wedding photography.
Nikkor 35-70mm f2.8 Sample photos
Here are a few more Nikon D800 + 35-70/2.8 D examples –
Although I love my Leica M9 rangefinder there is occasions where it is just so nice to pickup a do-everything super easy to use DSLR, especially on a plain backdrop as here. Even using the D800 in manual mode as I do and mostly with manual lenses a DSLR is just so easy. Using the Leica M9 has made me slow down my DSLR shooting and I think I take more time considering and composing each of my images as a result of using a Leica camera m0st of the time.
Keep an eye out for my latest addition to my camera bag also – the Lumix G3!
Thanks for this great review and for all the wonderfully informative videos you make, Matt! I know that you also rate the Leica Vario-Elmar-R 35-70mm f/4 highly and have often used this Leica zoom on your Leica R SLRs instead of carrying a few Leica R primes in this focal range instead. I’m leading up to a question about the optical differences between 1) the Leica Vario-Elmar-R 35-70mm f/4 and 2) the Nikkor 35-70mm f/2.8D: what are the *optical* differences between the two / relative strengths in your opinion? I.e., ignoring differences in size / weight, cost, filter size, AF vs. MF and the Nikon having a faster max aperture by one stop: how do they compare in terms of sharpness, contrast, distortion and rendering (I.e. character) etc.? The origin of my question is because I’m considering the Leica above and converting it to F-mount, or keeping it simple and more cost-effective and getting the aforementioned Nikon… So my question’s around the image quality differences between them. Thanks again Matt and keep up the good work! Rich L
Hi Rich, thanks for your kind words! Hmm, sadly i’m not sure I can give you the answer you want. In my mind the Leica is better in most regards and the image quality beats fast primes at the same f stops. I had the Nikon in my early days and it worked great for my needs but i’m not sure if quite as good as the Leica.