cliff_gallup Posted June 7, 2006 Share Posted June 7, 2006 Has anyone compared this lens with the 18-70mm kit lens set to an equivalent focal length? Most of my photography has been with a film camera and a 50mm lens. I recently got a D200 with an 18-70 kit lens, and am wondering if image quality would be noticeably different with a 35mm prime lens. I have read mixed reviews of the 35, with some claiming that it is inferior to its AIS counterpart. Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leslie_cheung Posted June 7, 2006 Share Posted June 7, 2006 I can't recall any negative review of the 35mm f2 AFD here. It is a great lens, probably one of the best inexpensive nikon lens ever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
errol Posted June 7, 2006 Share Posted June 7, 2006 The 18-70 is a great lens considering how versitile. Sounds like the 18-200 is as well. Errol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.th Posted June 7, 2006 Share Posted June 7, 2006 one thing about the 35, you'd not have to worry about the zoom ring all the time (and i mean that seriously). another thing is f2, if i'm not mistaken the 18-70 has a max aperture of 4.5 already at 35mm (don't have it mounted at the moment, but maybe you know already), at least it's not excactly shallow dof if you're into that. having said that, i'm happy with the 18-70, for what it's good for. i'm also happy with the 28/1.8 sigma i have (except for the size, too bad it's huge), probably not the sharpest thing around, but i like it. but imo, a photographer has to be pretty good if the 18-70 is going to make him/her look bad.... best of luck with it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
klix Posted June 7, 2006 Share Posted June 7, 2006 The nice thing about the D200 is that it opens up possibilities with AI/AIS lenses. The 35/2.0 AFD is a nice lens, and at equal prices, I would opt for one over its AIS counterpart. But the prices are NOT the same. So, assuming you don't need AF, the question becomes: does it have a better price/performance ratio that its AIS counterpart. IMO, the answer is NO. Compared to the 18-70mm AT THE SAME FL, the prime wins out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lex_jenkins Posted June 7, 2006 Share Posted June 7, 2006 If you're comparing in terms of price only, which is fair, the 18-70 DX would seem to be the better choice for a dSLR *unless* your photography involves a lot of low available light shooting without flash. If you're more of an available light photographer, the 35/2 would be the better choice. It's really that simple, in my opinion. I haven't tried the 35/2D AF Nikkor. Doesn't matter. I've owned and used the 18-70/3.5-4.5 DX for more than a year. I doubt the 35/2 could be any worse. That's not to say the 18-70 DX is a bad lens. It isn't. But it's overrated, IMO. I've written why so many times before on this forum I'll skip the details. The problem is that the 18-70 DX is *not* a good available light lens. That's it. When I've used it in dimly lit interiors, such as hospitals, I've had to crank the ISO up to 1600 or beyond and still had trouble finding a shutter speed fast enough for me to handhold steadily. The 35/2D AF Nikkor is a better choice for that sort of thing and it's close to the field of view of the traditional "normal" lens (given the 35mm paradigm). I'm comfortable with that and seldom find it restricting. Otherwise, for the money, get the 18-70 DX. It's not a bad zoom. Very good focal range for a 1.5x dSLR. Very good apparent sharpness (that's a tricky phrase). Very good resistance to flare, quite an accomplishment for any zoom. Be prepared to crank up the ISO more often or use flash when might have preferred available light. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rcoder Posted June 7, 2006 Share Posted June 7, 2006 I have to agree with those who say that the 18-70mm kit lens, while a fairly nice piece of glass for well-lit (meaning outdoor, daytime) shots, is fairly useless for indoor and nighttime work. Until I picked up an SB-600 and learned how to use it, the 18-70 mostly just sat in the cupboard, since a large portion of the shots I take are indoors *and* at night. However, the zoom still spends a lot less time on my D70 than my 85mm f/1.8D. In general, I think you'll find that primes designed for full-frame film bodies do a *great* job on the Nikon digital bodies, since they only utilize the "sweet spot" in the middle of the original coverage area where shots tend to be sharpest and brightest. The move from f/4 to f/2 will make a huge difference, too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akira Posted June 7, 2006 Share Posted June 7, 2006 Hi, Cliff, I use 35mm f2.0 AF-D for my D2H and love it. Actually this is my only AF lens for D2H. Like you, I used to use only 50mm or equivalents on film cameras and still I'm not really interested in other angle of view yet. The additional advantage of 35mm AF-D over 18-70 zoom is that you can focus to 25cm. You could call it "semi-micro-Nikkor". FWIW, there is a test report of this lens you may want to refer to: http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/nikkor_35_2/index.htm Hope this helps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
msitaraman Posted June 7, 2006 Share Posted June 7, 2006 Yes, I have both and use both regularly. At F4 and up to about F8 its no contest at all, the prime yields significantly better looking snaps (more contrast, color saturation etc. etc.). This makes it a better lens in situations (indoors, close quarters, in the shade) where you could use either. Whether the difference in quality (and handling-the 35mm is small) justifies the total variance in versatility (one's a zoom, the other fixed at 35mm, a near short-telephoto 50mm equivalent length in DSLR terms) is really for you, and your shooting style, to decide. If you have the coin, give it a try-I'm pretty sure you will like its image quality... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hajo Posted June 8, 2006 Share Posted June 8, 2006 Cliff, I'm not into digital and have only played with a friend's 18-70, but I have come to love my fast primes. The 35/2 AFD has received excellent reviews throughout and should make for a wonderful standard lens on a digital body. However, make sure that you buy new. Earlier versions of this lens have been reported to accumulate oil on the aperture blades. I'm just experiencing the same with my 55 AIS micro and it's a pain. Nikon claims to have this solved with the newer versions. As KL IX has mentioned, you may want to look into older MF lenses. For less than the price of a new 35/2 AFD you can probably pick up a used 35/1.4 or 28/2.0 AI(S) which are both phantastic lenses. (I use the 28/2 and it has become my favourite lens). For wideangle and normal, you don't really need AF, instead the DOF scales on the primes can be really helpful for setting hyperfocal distance (and they are a lot better on the AIS and especially AI primes which show DOF for F4, 8, 11 and 16). You would have to ask others how these lenses perform on a digital body, but they are definitely worth considering. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hash Posted June 8, 2006 Share Posted June 8, 2006 I asked here some time ago about the Nikkor 35/2 vs the Sigma 30/1.4. I ended up buying the Sigma, mainly because it is faster by a whole stop, has a HSM motor (like Nikon's AFS) and the Nikkor seemed to have a ghosting problem in night shots. http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00EQAA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
photo5 Posted June 10, 2006 Share Posted June 10, 2006 The AIS 35 f2 is better. Dave Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now