35mm f1.8 AF-S DX in stock anywhere?

<p>Hi everyone, I want to purchase this lens again. (I brought it a while ago, but its AF was dead-on-arrival) But it seems that it's out of stock everywhere. The only place that seems to have the lens is cameta camera (via amazon); but they've apparently jacked up the lens' price to $350. </p>

<p>I just want to know which place currently has the lens stock (and priced at $200)?</p>

<p>Thanks</p>

<p>good luck, Nikon has been ratcheting down production (they laid off 1000 employees also). They produce lenses in batches, so usually everyone gets shipments at similar times. Your best bet is just to get on as many notify when in stock lists as you can at reputable dealers. You could also try locally smaller dealers might not have sold their initial stock yet. </p>

<p>You can buy in canada 257.00 in stock </p>

<p>If the price of that lens is now $350, the Sigma 30mm f1.4 instantly becomes a no-brainer. The Nikon is a consumer lens, the Sigma is a pro lens.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

<p>When I first recieved my 35 1.8 DX, I thought that the AF was DOA. After cleaning my electronic contacts on my camera, the 35 sprang to life. I remember it was funny because I had to hold down the trigger a little longer than I expected in order to get the AF to engage.<br>

That's not really related to the "where can I get one now" question (sorry). On the other hand - I hate to suggest that you returned a perfectly operating (if stubborn) lens the first time.</p>

<p>Ralph, here's the thread I started in response to the DOA incident...</p>

<p><a href="../nikon-camera-forum/00SmkS">http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00SmkS</a></p>

<p>You see, I have 2 DSLR bodies and 5 lenses. Any combination of them worked perfectly, but the 35 was "dead" when mounted on either bodies; and cleaning of the contacts didn't work neither. </p>

<p>Lots of complaints about not being able to find stock on lenses. May i take a wild guess the production is being consoloidated somewhere and they will get up to speed at some future point.</p>

<p>I am not sure how many people are desperate enough to pay $350 for a $200 lens, but the fact that some store jacks it up by that much is a pretty clear indication that it is very difficult to find. Generally speaking, I think Nikon has greatly underestimated demands during the recession and plenty of lenses are current out of stock.</p>

<p>I would suggest to wait 3 months to see whether supply catches up.</p>

<p>I would not pay more than $200 for this lens. As it is, I highly doubt it outperforms my 16-85mm at 35mm. All it offers is smaller size and faster aperture. Whoopie.</p>

Plenty of places here in Austria and in Germany have it. Maybe demand is lower here, maybe shops keep more in stock, but fact is: no shortage.

<p>I ordered mine from Amazon at the beginning of May. Just got an e-mail yesterday from them saying that it'll ship on Tuesday. Course, they might run out of shipment just fulfilling preorders like mine.</p>

<p>Just buy the 35/f2 AFD instead, and when you go up to FX, it will work beautifully.<br>

I've had a 35/2 in my bag since the early 80's in Ais and AFD forms. Great lenses. Every Nikon pro has one. The construction quality of the AF ones is not as good as the early all metal manual ones, with that low geared and smooth, accurate focus demanded by the news photogs of the day, but the optics are just as good or better. They have even tamed down the famous ghosting now. The 35/1.8DX will only ever work on DX so you are at a dead end. If you have a body screw focus motor on your Nikon, the AFD is the one to get.</p>

<p>Dave Lee writes "All it offers is smaller size and faster aperture. Whoopie." Both big deals a lot of the time, Dave.</p>

<p>I too am waiting for this lens with baited breath.</p>

<p>Shuo,<br>

friend of mine ordered that lens from Ritz Camera (local store- not online).They told her it's out of stock, but they fullfilled her order in about a week. So they may be getting small batched from Nikon, as the orders are placed, I guess. And at the $199.99 price.</p>

<p>I got a call last Friday from a local camera store here in the Seattle area that they got it in and would hold it for me if I called back. I didn't call back. I've found that with the DX format if I want to shoot with a fixed focal length lens, the 28mm focal length is preferred over 35mm for overall field of view. I have a Nikon 28mm f2.8 AIS as well as the Nikon 35mm f2 AI lens. I can manually focus quite well with the smaller DX viewfinder so I find no need for the DX AF-S version on my D200.</p>

<p>Dave, That 35 AF-S will be SWEET on a camera that doesn't meter with AI lenses though. Years ago, when I shot film, I preferred my 50mm focal length most of the time (28mm was a close second... but I had nothing wider than that at the time) so I'm looking forward to getting this lens.</p>

<p>Dave- Small size: good. Faster aperture: very good. Important, even.</p>

<p>Stephen- Where do people get this idea that everybody and their grandmother will be buying FX cameras? The huge installed base and number of lenses being released indicated DX is here to stay in the foreseeable future. Personally I'll be riding the DX train for years to come - the cameras and lenses will always be smaller, lighter, less expensive, and more than good enough.</p>

<p>I completely agree. Note the current thread about switching to FX for bird photography (summary: DON'T!) I think people are making a mistake when they assume an eventual upgrade to FX and consequently miss out on using the best lenses for DX, now. I have found the color rendition of the 35/1.8 to be significantly contrastier than the 35/2D.</p>

<p>I do like the 35/1.8 a lot - but I rarely use it. Usually the convenience of the 16-85 makes it better, and in low light the VR often makes it better, too. And if it weren't available and I wanted a ~35mm prime, I would think seriously about the Sigma - for one thing, I would personally prefer the 30mm focal length; 35mm is often just a bit longer than I want for a "normal" perspective. Over this past weekend we went camping and the 35mm was the only lens that I took and did not use.</p>

<p>I have decided to "live today" - IF I feel an urge to upgrade to FX tommorow, I will take stock and decide which equipment to keep then. When a D900x comes along, maybe the "top-of-the line of today" FX lenses will be bad for that camera?</p>

<p>One reason for why I prefer the 35 f/1.8 DX over the old 35 AF-D is that it can AF on my D40. I think this normal FL lens should be perfect on the small bodies for snapshooting; and it's light and compact enough for me to take anywhere.<br>

I also fear that the 35 AF-D's aperture ring might act up like the one on my 50 f/1.8. I missed many shots because of that...</p>

<p>So are you saying that you don't believe you will get an FX lens in the equivalent of a D40 in a couple of years? You don't think that will happen? I guarantee that all DSLRs will come with an FX sensor as the manufacturing price comes down. We already have the current price point: Sony a900 FX at about $3k. Just a year ago any FX DSLR was twice this amount minimum. FX will be in DSLRs, and DX will be in P&S. Of course, I can hardly wait, so I can use all my FX lenses properly. My $1500 second hand D700 is a 2010 reality. Thats why I think DX is a dead end for me. And I'm not talking about equivalency in image production, but investment protection. I want to be able to buy a prosumer Nikon again that is not redundant in 18 months.</p>

<p>Stephen, there are several significant advantages to a smaller sensor. That is the fundamental reason, though there are many practical reasons, why I stongly believe DX will remain a viable and vibrant format indefinitely. It's not merely a matter of cost - although on that count I would still disagree, as everything about an FX camera is going to remain more expensive to manufacture than for DX.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Stephen, it's true that the prices of DSLRs will come down. But the point is that when FX bodies become cheaper, DX bodies will too; and there will still be demands for them due to their advantages. Perhaps when the FX D40 like camera comes around (priced at $450), the entry level DX body would go for as little as $200. Now that's a bargain; and a real alternative to most P&S cameras...</p>

<p>Well now this has fully devolved into one of the usual topics (FX or DX comes in right behind Nikon or Canon and film or digital) but Shun's got the answer.</p>

<p>Demand is high, which surprised Nikon - demand is ahead of supply on a bunch of Nikon models - so you can put in a backorder at whatever web site will take one at normal price, or wait it out. I got mine in the first batch at $199. It's a great lens at $199 but I wouldn't spend much more on it.</p>

<p>I'd like to remind everybody that this is Shuo's thread about looking for the 35mm/f1.8 AF-S DX. Please stay on topic with the discussion and not drag it into another totally meaningless and off-topic "DX is a dead end" debate.</p>