Nikon 35mm 1.8

R-NAGE Photography · Apr 5, 2009

I was thinking about picking this lens up.
Just wanted some thoughts and feedback if anyone has this already.
Thanks,
Ryan

photogincollege · Apr 5, 2009

Look like a pretty good lens. For 200 bucks you really cant go wrong.

elemental · Apr 6, 2009

They're reviewed pretty well, and at $200 they're hard to argue with. This will almost definitely be my next lens. They are still a little tricky to find though.

schumionbike · Apr 6, 2009

Does anyone have the old 35 mm F2.0 AF from Nikon??? How does this new lens compare to it? I got a chance to borrow the F2.0 and it's pretty cool but I have a D40 so I have to manual focus. Manual focus at F2.0 is a pain but the focus ring on this lens help a bit with the distant scale. I might get this lens instead of the sb-600

JerryPH · Apr 6, 2009

My dad had one on his F2a ( a 35mm f/2.0) and sold it for the 35mm F/2.8. Apparently it was not very good and it was way too soft. He said his 35 F/2.8 blew it out of the water. It is remotely possible he had a bad copy, but I kinda doubt that.

Ken Rockwell posted daisies about this lens, so it has to be incredible, right? :lol:

schumionbike · Apr 6, 2009

I don't mean to hijack the thread but here are some shots from 35mm F2.0 AF that Nikon make a while back. All of thise were shot on Nikon D40, manual focus. All at F2.0, shot on jpeg, haven't process the raw and probably won't, just test shot anyway. The fist 2 were taken at 400 ISO, the last two at 1600 ISO for the heck of it.

1.

2.

3.

4.

tirediron · Apr 6, 2009

JerryPH said:
My dad had one on his F2a ( a 35mm f/2.0) and sold it for the 35mm F/2.8. Apparently it was not very good and it was way too soft. He said his 35 F/2.8 blew it out of the water. It is remotely possible he had a bad copy, but I kinda doubt that.

Ken Rockwell posted daisies about this lens, so it has to be incredible, right?

Hmm... I really like my 35 f2; I don't have any images handy for posting, but I've never observed any softness issues with it.

Sw1tchFX · Apr 7, 2009

For $200, buy it. You'll love it.

amba · Apr 7, 2009

I have the Nikkor 35mm f/2.0D which I love (actually bought it for a D1 at the time). True the downside of it is lack of AF with D40 and D60.

See dpreview.com summary for the AF-S 35mm f/1.8 DX here. (generally favorable, with one or two weaknesses)

For a collection of links to reviews (for both lenses, and some other 35mm's) click here.

Again, take dpreview's "cons" list with a grain of salt - for a $200 lens, at this focal length you can't find any better. The only lens IMO that has better optical performance and costs less is Nikon's 50mm f/1.8D, but I don't like the narrow view angle on DX cameras, and, it too won't AF on a D40...

BTW - I was tempted to by the Sigma HSM 30mm f/1.4, I absolutely hate it: it cost more than $500 and is useless at f/1.4 due to autofocus errors (to add insult to injury, it's also physically large and heavy...)
I ended up ditching the Sigma, and had to stick to the good old Nikkor 35mm f/2.0D - MUCH better, and more convenient to carry.

epp_b · Apr 7, 2009

Some samples from the 35mm f/1.8 DX:

R-NAGE Photography · Apr 8, 2009

Thanks to all.....looks like I need to hunt down this lens!!!

JerryPH · Apr 8, 2009

amba said:
BTW - I was tempted to by the Sigma HSM 30mm f/1.4, I absolutely hate it: it cost more than $500 and is useless at f/1.4 due to autofocus errors (to add insult to injury, it's also physically large and heavy...)

Nothing wrong with the Sigma 30mm F/1.4. Mine focuses very fast, is sharp as a tack and is a known excellent lens. Sure it is bigger, but it is a FAST lens at F/1.4! It is also rated "pro quality" by many reviews.

Maybe you just got a bad copy?