35 f/2D vs 35 1.8G FX

Discussion in 'Nikon Lenses' started by nerwin, Jul 20, 2017.

  1. nerwin

    nerwin Been spending a lot of time on here!

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2015
    Messages:
    3,044
    Likes Received:
    994
    Location:
    Vermont
    Anyone here at TPF who has owned both the 35 f/2D and the new 35 1.8G FX would be kind enough to share your thoughts on these two lenses and how they compare to each other?

    The reason being, I've been looking through my LR library and noticed that my "best" work has been around the 35mm focal length (or 35mm equivalent when I shot crop) so obviously there is something about that focal length I really enjoy, so I'm thinking about picking one up again and ditching my 50mm because let's face it, 50mm primes are really, really over used. It's just a standard lens and it's just getting boring.

    While I have 35mm covered on my 16-35, it's not all the great being f/4 and I love the sort of 3D effect you can get shooting wide open on a fast 1.4, 1.8 or f/2 with a 35mm lens. It just has a unique style that's different than 50mm and maybe that's why I tend to gravitate to that focal length, even when using a slow zoom.

    I previously owned the 35 f/2D and I also felt bad selling that lens. I had no complaints, it wasn't perfect optically like the new modern optics, I mean it is showing its age. I sold the lens before the 35 1.8G FX came out and from what I understand the new one is pretty tack sharp. I was considering getting a Sigma 35 1.4, but I don't want to size or weight of the lens. Even though the 35 1.8G FX is little bigger than the 50 1.8G, it's not horrible and it's quite light.

    The only thing I like about the older 35 f/2D is the compactness of it. But I can look pass it if the optics of the new 35 1.8G FX is significantly better.


     
  2. benhasajeep

    benhasajeep No longer a newbie, moving up!

    Joined:
    May 4, 2006
    Messages:
    3,561
    Likes Received:
    396
    Location:
    Eddington, ME
    I still have my 35mm f/2.0 af-d. I did read some reviews on the new full frame 35mm. And all basically said it's a little better. But not worth trading in for. Unless you need faster AF and 1/3 more stop of light. It does have the newest, latest, greatest coatings. I guess it really depends on how much you pixel peep. Is it better yes. Is it worth the price difference? That depends on you and your situation.

    I have not used my 35 as much since going FX. I tend to keep a 50f/1.4 on it. The D300 though, the 35mm was on it most of the time for walk around shots.
     
  3. nerwin

    nerwin Been spending a lot of time on here!

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2015
    Messages:
    3,044
    Likes Received:
    994
    Location:
    Vermont
    When I had the 35 f/2D, I found it really awful wide open. From my research the new 35 1.8G FX is pretty sharp wide open.

    Don't get me wrong, I like 50mm focal length but I often find that it's just not wide enough for my liking. I had the 28 1.8G, fantastic lens but a bit too wide at times lol. 35mm seems to be a happy medium haha.
     
  4. goodguy

    goodguy Been spending a lot of time on here!

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2012
    Messages:
    5,518
    Likes Received:
    1,108
    Location:
    Toronto Canada
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos OK to edit
    Wish I could help you in comparing these two interesting lenses but I cant.
    I can share my thoughts thought, when I was in the process of buying my Nikon 35mm 1.8G FX lens I was looking at all the options in the market, and I found it makes most sense to buy it.
    I love it, I don't use it too much but at the times that I do use it I am always amazed how sharp it is especially at f1.8 and it is indeed very light even though not super tiny.
    I say get it, you get the modern technology and its worth the extra cash, bought mine used form a local camera store, its awesome! :)
     
    • Like Like x 1
  5. nerwin

    nerwin Been spending a lot of time on here!

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2015
    Messages:
    3,044
    Likes Received:
    994
    Location:
    Vermont
    How much did you pay for yours?
     
  6. goodguy

    goodguy Been spending a lot of time on here!

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2012
    Messages:
    5,518
    Likes Received:
    1,108
    Location:
    Toronto Canada
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos OK to edit
    Remember I live in Canada
     
  7. goodguy

    goodguy Been spending a lot of time on here!

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2012
    Messages:
    5,518
    Likes Received:
    1,108
    Location:
    Toronto Canada
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos OK to edit
    Converting to USD I paid 300$ USD
     
  8. nerwin

    nerwin Been spending a lot of time on here!

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2015
    Messages:
    3,044
    Likes Received:
    994
    Location:
    Vermont
    Woah. That's a good deal. B&H sells one used for $470 shipped.
     
  9. goodguy

    goodguy Been spending a lot of time on here!

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2012
    Messages:
    5,518
    Likes Received:
    1,108
    Location:
    Toronto Canada
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos OK to edit
    Yes, I got a sweet deal, which for me is very uncommon, usually I pay through my nose for second hand stuff :(
     
  10. nerwin

    nerwin Been spending a lot of time on here!

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2015
    Messages:
    3,044
    Likes Received:
    994
    Location:
    Vermont
    I've been hesitant on buying a 35mm prime because I already have that focal length covered in the 16-35 BUT..that's an f/4 lens. f/4 vs 1.8 is quite a bit different and in my opinion for different purpose. I have a feeling, I'd most likely end up using the 35 1.8 most of the time.
     
  11. goodguy

    goodguy Been spending a lot of time on here!

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2012
    Messages:
    5,518
    Likes Received:
    1,108
    Location:
    Toronto Canada
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos OK to edit
    I have 24-70mm 2.8 and you could argue I have even less of a reason to get or keep the 35mm 1.8, I think its perfect for what it does, I don't use any of my primes much, to me in general primes are too limiting but the fact they deliver so much light and blur background so nicely means its a valuable tool for my weddings.
     
  12. nerwin

    nerwin Been spending a lot of time on here!

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2015
    Messages:
    3,044
    Likes Received:
    994
    Location:
    Vermont


    Understandable. I love the 24-70 2.8, I just can't stand the size and weight for the type of photography I like doing. Haha. If I was someone like you who does shoot events and weddings, then I would totally invest in one, no question. But I don't and until that day comes I don't see the point in buying one. I had the 24-120 f/4 VR, Great all around zoom lens, but again..that lens made me go meh most of the time.

    I don't know, it's a tough decision. The 16-35 is just not a practical walkaround general purpose lens, it's an ultra wide angle landscape lens and that's when it comes alive. But not EVERYTHING should be shot ultra wide. The 50mm is also a nice general lens but I believe its overused way too much and just gets boring. When I use it, I either want it just a little wider or I want to focus a little closer and it's just not possible whereas the 35mm is in my opinion one of the most versatile prime lens. It's wide, but not TOO wide. It can focus close and get excellent shallow depth of field.

    I guess I keep leaning toward prime lenses because they are simple to me. One focal length, less decision making. I just shoot and make it work. I love that about prime lenses, it's kind of challenging in a way and makes things interesting. But it isn't for everyone. Though one exception, love my 70-200 f/4 VR, don't think I could trade that for a prime, the VR is just outstanding.
     

Share This Page