Railfan Technology > Nikon 35-70 f/2.8 Problem and Potential Replacement

I have a Nikon 35-70mm f/2.8 that produces “dingy” images in low light.  It’s easy to pick out the lens in thumbnails.  It’s fine with flash or sunlight.
 
Looking through the wide-open lens against a flashlight, there appears to be nothing but small amounts of dust.  There’s no fungus.  There’s also none of the “clunk” you get from delaminated balsa.
 
I’m thinking this may be condensation of lubricant or adhesive.  How can you confirm this?  Has anyone else had this problem with this lens? 
 
I’m looking at replacing it with a Nikon 28-105mm AF or 35-70mm f/3.5 MF.  Does anyone have experience with these?
 
Thanks,
 
Neil
 

Are you sure you are getting the expected aperture when it's on the camera?  Or are you seeing something that does not look like just underexposure?

sf1010 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Are you sure you are getting the expected aperture
> when it's on the camera?  Or are you seeing
> something that does not look like just
> underexposure?

I would ask that too. And I would judge by looking at a full frame image, not at a thumbnail. And I would agree to do the "flashlight test" if you can when stopping down the aperture. You should be able to do that manually. I had a different Nikon zoom lens die when the aperture leaves stopped working due to the zoom racking mechanism failing, and somehow messing up other internals in the lens. I got the lens to rack again (that is, zoom in and out) for the range of focal lengths. But exposures were dark. I did the "flashlight test" and sure enough the aperture leaves were not properly opening and closing.

This was an older zoom, something like a 32 -200 (don't quote me on the focal lengths, just a recollection), and I decided against repair and retired it from use. I kept my 18-55 wide-angle-to-normal (which I adore and use constantly). And instead of buying a comparable new wide angle-to-telephoto to replace the lens that died, I bought a 55 - 200 normal-to-telephoto, which is just fine - excellent lens. The thinking was that I'd cover the whole focal length range that I shoot in (I have almost never gone beyond 200mm) between the two lenses.

Huge mistake! The new lens was just fine. But now I had to do a lens change whenever I wanted to do anything even slightly telephoto, whereas with the lens that died I had an excellent "walk-around lens" that worked through 98 percent of my work - and I rarely had to do a lens change. I've regretted my decision ever since. All because I was less than thrilled with wide angle performance on the zoom that died, even though any minor aberrations were always readily correctable in Photoshop.The 18-55 is definitely better at the really wide angles, with a flatter field overall, and less occasional slight vignetting in the corners.

So if you verify that your lens is working correctly after all, and decide to buy another, think very, very carefully about your choice. Likewise if you decide to replace it. I learned to love having that wide-to-tele lens and its all-purpose versatility. I seldom took it off the camera, and got a lot of great shots from it. It was as truly all-purpose as anything I've ever owned, except in low light (max aperture was f 5.6 as I recall). Shoulda bought another one, as much as I like that sweet little 18-55.

By the way, all comments refer to AF-S DX Nikkor VR lenses. My camera is a Nikon D5000. I have been as pleased as can be with these and other Nikon products since I went with Nikon when I went digital. And I was a former die-hard Canon guy back in film days. When all of my friends shot with Nikons, and looked at me like I had three heads for using a Canon. Oh well.

MC



Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 04/02/23 10:55 by ironmtn.

How do your histograms look?

Steve Sloan