nikon 35mm f2 D

Great little lens - pic @ f/2

AW5_9232.jpg
 
Last edited:
It's a no brainer... very good wide open, very nice close focus distance, small, lightweight and quite inexpensive... I'm in a big dilemma if I shall be happy with it or I have to replace with the much expensive 35/1.4 G...
 
treeman said:
Any one got any experience of this lens?

I'm particularly interested in how it looks wide open :shrug:
Click to expand...

I tried it (on an FX camera) and didnt think it as good as the 24-70 F2.8 at 35mm@F2.8, so I didn't bother. I think its a better prospect on DX.
 
awp said:
Great little lens - pic @ f/2
Click to expand...

Thanks Andrew :thumbs:

ShawWellPete said:
Here you go Mark, at F2 no DC
Click to expand...

Nice shot Pete, but yes, it was the 35mm I was referring to :)

mishu said:
It's a no brainer... very good wide open, very nice close focus distance, small, lightweight and quite inexpensive... I'm in a big dilemma if I shall be happy with it or I have to replace with the much expensive 35/1.4 G...
Click to expand...

I'm hoping that the difference is only subtle and not worth an extra £1400 !

Critical I said:
I tried it (on an FX camera) and didnt think it as good as the 24-70 F2.8 at 35mm@F2.8, so I didn't bother. I think its a better prospect on DX.
Click to expand...

I'd heard something similar, but was hoping the shallower DOF but do it for me.
 
These are all on a 35mm F2 (albeit on my F80 film camera). Couldn't tell you if they were wide open or not. While it may not be as sharp as my 28-70, it's much lighter and more compact. I've not yet used it on my D700, might be a bit unbalanced on a large camera maybe?

http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=275276
 
Last edited:
I've got one and use it as my preferred lens for 'walkabout' on my D3. It's also sharp enough compared to my 24-70 f/2.8 @ 35mm, considering it's only about £200...

Closed-down beyond f/4 and the images are almost indistinguishable in most lighting conditions. It will struggle with excessive contrast due to the lack of nano-crystal coating which the 24-70 has, but that's to be expected.

If you really need 24-70 performance at the wider apertures, then you'll have to pony-up £1500-ish for the f/1.4 version.
I don't, so I won't. This lens is more than good enough.
 
Sorry for going slightly off topic but how is this lens compared to the 35 F1.8 AF-S :shrug:

Many thanks

Nick
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top