Is the Nikon 35-70mm 2.8D still worth getting?

[NikonKid]

I've been looking at buying a fixed aperture zoom lens and was thinking of getting the Nikon 35-70mm 2.8D. I'd LOVE to go for the 28-70 or 24-70 but unfortunately they're out of my price range right now.

I currently have an 85mm f/1.8 and 35mm f/1.8
I'm shooting with a D90 but plan on upgrading to an FX body eventually.
I mostly shoot portraits and the occasional event.

So back to my question; is this lens still worth getting?

Thanks in advance!

[DougC]

I own several lenses that are much newer than my 35-70 but I have no plans to sell/replace it. It has served me well since 1998 and I don't see that changing. The cons are slower AF speed, short zoom range and push-pull zooming. The pros are speed, reasonable macro capability, build quality, sharpness and image quality and they can be had at very reasonable prices. Go for it!

[PHOTO-DA]

If your doing portraits I would look for the 70-210 f 2.8 as your next zoom.

[DougC]

He already owns an 85 1.8, which is an excellent portrait lens.

[bgpro611]

I always enjoyed using my 35-70. It was sharp, had good color and contrast and was a lot lighter than my 24-70. I would have kept it but had too many lenses in that range. The push-pull aspect took a little getting used to but came to be second nature after awhile. It was a great lens for the price I paid (about what you're paying). Go for it.

[shnitz]

If you're shooting with a D90, the 35-70 range isn't going to be incredibly useful. You might as well just buy something like a Tamron 17-50 or Tokina 16-50 right now, and sell it when you eventually upgrade to FX.

Even the Tamron 28-75 would be a little bit too telephoto for a DX midrange zoom. The Nikon 24-70, on the other hand, gives the same range on a D90 as the 35-105, which was a popular zoom range in the film days, so while you'd still want another lens for wide angle, it goes decently wide for many situations.

[TheFantasticG]

I have to disagree, Ariel. If he is mostly shooting sports, he should be looking into the longer lenses as mentioned above.

[DougC]

Exactly where did the OP state he was shooting sports?

[texxter]

Originally Posted by NikonKid

I currently have an 85mm f/1.8 and 35mm f/1.8
I'm shooting with a D90 but plan on upgrading to an FX body eventually.
I mostly shoot portraits and the occasional event.

So back to my question; is this lens ( Nikon 35-70mm 2.8D) still worth getting?

I used this lens for a number of years before getting the 24-70mm for a full frame camera. I completely recommend the lens from the point of view of image quality, ruggedness and overall performance. It's a macro lens as well.

But I am not sure I would buy it if I were you. You've got a 35mm and an 85mm covering the normal and tele ranges, both good for portraits on a D90. If your main focus is portraiture you may consider looking at a pre-owned 80-200mm, pricier than the 35-70mm, but really great for portraits.

[TheFantasticG]

Originally Posted by DougC

Exactly where did the OP state he was shooting sports?

My bad. Read "sports" out of portraits somehow.