Instruction: Answer the given question by extracting information from the supporting document.

Input:
Question: how does this nikon lens, differ from the previous nikon 35-70 2.8 macro version, and does this newer entry have macro as well??
Document: I bought this after purchasing the 70-200mm f/2.8 and use both on my d90, and will be purchasing the d700 soon. This lens makes a dramatic difference to the quality of the images that I have taken ever since my purchase. I definitely have no regrets about forking out the money on this item. The telling thing for me about quality lenses like this are they rarely decrease in price without a newer version being made. Camera bodies on the other hand decrease over time as the technology continues to advance, but you can only let in so much light.
Basically any fairly stationary subjects that I want to highlight the details and intentional imperfections/wrinkles, etc. I sometimes wonder if I should use this all the time instead of my 50mm but I find the 50mm better at non-macro shots because it focus faster and lets in 4 times more light. * AF-S 85mm f/1.8 : I use this most of the time for adult portraits and it has very good low light performance as well. I choose this over the f/1.4 version because the other reviews I've read on the web did not justify the extra $1000 spend for marginal performance improvement and unless I am getting paid to take pictures all the time, I don't see the need to pay the extra cost for the f/1.4.
Also, for this price I'd expect image stabilization built in. It would really help with videos.Now, to the reason I love the lens and I'm glad I bought it:The focus is super fast. The pics are very sharp at 2.8. I had 2 Tamron's before this. One was the old version and one was the newer version with image stabilization. Both were very soft at 2.8. I resigned myself to stopping it down to at least 3.5 or 4 to take a sharp pic.
Well, for nearly $2000, it would be nice to have VR on it. I really gave the Tamron 24-70 VC a close look because of that, but the tests that I saw showed the Nikkor to have better bokeh, sharper images, less distortion, and faster focus. And being a Nikkor, the resell value would be higher in case they ever do come out with a VR version and I want to upgrade. Granted for most shooting, especially coupled with a D600, D800, D4, D3s, etc, f/2.8 is and high ISO is enough to not miss VR, but your pictures can never be too stable and with video, VR would be very nice.Another thing is I saw first hand with my 14-24mm how fragile these lenses are.
Well, after owning this lens for two weeks the $1600 question is : Is it worth it?The answer is 100% YES! !This lens is sharp at all f-stops and has fantastic contrast and color characteristics.My nikon 35-70 f2.8, that I use for portraits, is not even in the same class. I find skin tones are more natural and colors more vivid with this lens. I have found my new walk around lens.It's expensive but well worth it.
My Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 (which despite many positive characteristics can turn grass and foliage quite nuclear/psychedelic) sadly doesn't hold up.I'm entirely satisfied except for the fact that this lens, as pricey as it is, has no VR (vibration reduction). I'll be a bit miffed if Nikon introduces a VR version next year at close to the same price. But by then I will have put this lens to fantastic use for tens of thousands of shots, so I'll live...
You can do just about everything excluding telephoto and macro photography with this lens. With 24mm on FX you get great wide-angle views, while 70mm is suitable for portraits and moderate zoom. It can't do macro focusing but it can get pretty close and with a constant f/2.8 you can work in a wide range of lighting situations.This is my most used lens by a large margin and it works just as well on a DX camera as it does on FX, except that on DX it will give you 38-112mm effective focal range.
The Nikon 24-70mm f2.8 is a great and very sharp lens. The wide angle  range fits well on a full frame Nikon D700. It is very sharp. The contrast is excellent. Distortion is very minimal and it does not bother me. The weight and size is my only concern. It is big, heavy and bulky. A lighter version would have make this an ideal walk around/travel lens.
I am a Nikon shooter for over 25yrs and this is hands down the best lens I've ever had. Yes it's very expensive, but it's well worth it. The sharpness and the low light capability is astounding. I have a D700 and the combo is incredible. It is a heavy lens, especially combined with the D700 it can be tiring if shooting all day. The results make up for it though. Get a good camera strap (I bought a Tamrac one) and that helps. Also suggest B+W MRC UV filter(they are the best) for protection.other lenses: 50 1.4f AFS, 85 1.4f, 80-200 2.8f, 35 2f.
I hope you find it helpful.Outstanding. Short and sweet. This lens hasn't come off my D700. Truly amazing and sharp. It's heavy, but very well balanced on my D700 and the battery grip. The lens shade actually clicks and locks on. I also own the fabulous 16-35 f4 VR, had it about a year and have already lost the lens hood.Everything about this lens has already been said. So I will just say that if you've been waiting to get one just do it. I was on the fence as I own as I've said the 16-35 and the Nikon 70-300vr zoom but this lens fills an excellent void in the gap between the 35mm and the 70.All in all I'm very happy with my purchase and can't wait to go shooting with it again.
Answer: The 35-70 and 24-70 are entirely different animals, both good in their own right. The 24-70 is much larger and uses standard 77mm filters on a non-rotating front element which is good for graduated and polarizing filters. The optics are more modern and using coatings that tame the flare that the 35-70 is prone to.  The 35-70 is built very nicely with no plastic, all metal and glass. Its minimum focusing distance is not very short for a Macro, about 21 inches. I have the 24-70 and have used the 35-70 and think both are good and suitable or a wide range of subjects. Some people have a love-hate relationship with the Push-Pull zooming but you can get used to in an hour. Being a macro and D type AF lens, it does send distance info to the camera which is good but being D also means it is a bit of a slug for AF speed. Its filter diameter is 62mm so will probably require step adapter or buy new filters just for it. As with all macros, it is sharp, has very little distortion and very little field curvature of the focal plane. The best part is that a pro level lens that works well with modern DSLRs that have focus motors built in can be had for around $300.Will the 24-70 out perform it? Yes, for flare control, bokeh, a bit of an edge in optics quality,  more useful zoom range. But it IS $1500 cheaper, smaller and has more magnification for use as a macro.If you find a good 35-70 2.8 cheap, grab it even if you plan to get a 24-70 which is probably what you really want.  If I had a 35-70 now, I would use it in the same bag as a 24-70, they are that much different.The main deciding factor is whether you need the wider end, and if you have a focusing motor in your camera. You can still use it without the motor but only in manual focus mode, which is the preferred method with macro. It is a good short macro, an excellent portrait lens, and a lighter pro level fast zoom that does not take up as much room in the bag or appear so large in candid street photography.  Another note, the hood is needed due to the flare but it is a little too deep offset to use on the lens at the widest focal lengths unless you crop out the shadows in the extreme outside of the frame at 35mm.