Which 35mm

[paul_loader]

I would appreciate some help again from the wealth of knowledge on

the forum regarding Nikon's 35mm fl lenses.

 

I will briefly close out the thread on the FM3a that many

contributed to recently first. I returned the FM3a I bought, it

simply felt decadent since I am still tuning in to the FM2N and I

treated it to a new K3 focusing screen instead. I am quietly

perusing F3 examples and I may well succumb and try one, until I do

I shall never know and all that...

 

As I think I said in the previous thread, my single-purpose with my

emerging style of shooting is capturing my daughter growing up who

is currently 5, almost 6. This means head and shoulders and other

classic stuff as time goes on but in these early years I have really

tried to look for different moods, surroundings and perspectives. I

really must get a scanner and share some, alas I can't post a number

of efforts that I have only on slide or framed. Nevertheless I

attach one from my current phase of head shots and B&W. Nikon FM2N,

105mm 2.5Ai (PC) and Kodak TMax400, f4 or f5.6 with shutter balanced

accordingly.

 

My current manual lenses follow one or more person's idea on the

which 5 best lenses. I use the aforementioned 105mm 2.5 PC, a 50mm

1.8Ai and I also picked an old 300mm 4.5. I love the 105, it is the

later design (Gauss I think) but is the solid metal type with lovely

scalloped focusing ring.

 

A 35mm has been my target for a while now for those occasions when

the 50mm is not wide enough and I have spotted one with the same

metal construction and focusing ring as my 105 in a shop window for

?95 I think it was. I'm going to check it out tomorrow as I know

nothing about condition as yet. Basic question, is this one to avoid

or is it good?

 

Sorry for rambling, I could have asked this question in a couple of

lines but I wanted to give some perspective on my type of shooting.

I'm not interested in shooting wide open or indeed at landscape

depth of field.

 

Also, I would welcome any other suggestions at different focal

lengths I might not have thought of which would suit my kind of

casual and planned portraiture. MY next target is a classic mf 180mm

2.8 of some description which will then basically be a full house

for my goals.

 

Oh, and this pic of my daughter set as my desktop exhibits a lovely

graininess and a quality that I did not detect when looking at the

small pic on the pc. I am intending to frame a large print from the

neg to exploit the classic look to the full. You might need to

expand and see what I mean in order to see what I'm trying to say.

 

Thanks in anticipation.

Paul<div></div>

[paul_loader]

Sorry Guys, I have immediately fallen foul of the pic size also rendering some of my message superfluous. If a mod can re-size then please feel free.

 

Paul

[jim_gifford]

You'd probably love a Nikkor 35/1.4 in either AI or AIS flavors. I do!

 

Be well,

[ShunCheung]

Sorry Paul, I can't change or resize your attached image. The only thing I can do is to delete your post, and since that is the very first one in this thread, that means the entire thread will be deleted. You can repost your question with a smaller image but Jim's response above will be lost.

[paul_loader]

May I ask why Jim? I know the 35mm 1.4 is reputed for the extra speed but does it have other general qualities lacking in f2 and f2.8 models?

 

Incidentally, I was intrigued to read about one Nikon shooter whose pal shoots Leica and they went out together shooting (their partners I think) and then compared. Both agreed that the Leica shots had classic qualities and flattered the female subjects. This is also a reason I am madly considering a Nikon S rangefinder with Zeiss 50mm lens! It's not an acquisition syndrome per se, my brain has been taking a back seat increasingly over the years and I find myself following the pure emotional impact of the results I get back or see from others and what other people of similar mind are drawn to in order to achieve this.

 

I guess there comes a point where we start to find our art and it's a great feeling. When I was younger friends would tease calling me 'label' for being a typical kid that follows specs and marketing bullshit and the perceived superiority of materialism. Now that I am older and greying (41) my friends tease calling me 'retro man' for the sheer pleasure I get in classic stuff, the hands-on experience (whether vinyl and valves or some other pastime) and in the case of photography the satisfaction of having produced results rather than clicked the button on a computer. Some work colleagues of typical Ipod, mobile phone and digital p&s/slr persuasion were stunned when I took in the FM2N and SQAi to show them but totally in tune with the results.

 

Paul

[david_h._hartman]

The 35/2.0 AI or AIS is a good lens but everything I read

indicates that the 35/1.4 AI or AIS is better. My 35/2.0 AI needs

a bit more stopping down than a number of other prime Nikkors I

own. The 35/1.4 AIS is said to provide superb quality from f/2.8

to f/8.0. Im sure its better than my 35/2.0 AI at f/2.0.

For people photos Id get the AIS version for the faster,

smoother focus. If I buy any more manual focus lenses the 35/1.4

AIS will be my first choice.<br>

<br>

You didnt ask but the 28/2.0 AIS is a wonderful lens for

candid photos of people. Its have very low flare and its

difficult to get it to flare even pointed towards the sun.<br>

<br>

If you buy a new lens you will most likely get Super IC coatings.

I have two 28/2.0 AIS(s), one with Super-IC one with the regular

old time multi-coatings. I also have a 135/2.8 AIS that has Super-IC

coatings.<br>

<br>

Here are some link you may find helpful...<br>

<br>

<a href="http://www.naturfotograf.com/lens_wide.html"

target="_new"><u>http://www.naturfotograf.com/lens_wide.html</u></a>

<br>

<br>

<a href="http://www.naturfotograf.com/bestof.html" target="_new"><u>http://www.naturfotograf.com/bestof.html</u></a>

<br>

<br>

<a href="http://www.naturfotograf.com" target="_new"><u>http://www.naturfotograf.com</u></a>

<br>

<br>

Regards,<br>

<br>

Dave Hartman.

[lee hamiel]

You may want to consider the 28mm f/2.0 as it's a great lens & often overlooked by many - I had one a few years ago & used it a lot with my "kid" shots. It's with my son now but I do miss it.

 

You also might enjoy getting a PN-11 tube as it will allow you to do close up shots with your 105 along with your eventual 180.

 

As a sidenote - I had a 180 ED-IF & sold it - missed it & bought a late pre-ED lens that is as good as the previous lens I had - Moose Peterson speculated that Nikon did not label the later pre-ED versions as ED since this was before they realized there was a marketing bonanza to be had - I bought the "new" one for half of what I sold the "ED" version for. I am very pleased with this lens.

 

Sorry I rambled off the 35mm aspect.

 

Good Luck

[mattalofs]

Before I switched to rangefinders I really liked the pre ai version of the 35 F2. I bought one from KEH that had been converted to AI. It was really solidly built and had a different look than more modern nikon optics.

[lee hamiel]

Paul:

 

While I was typing you had posted the Leica/Nikon S item - I also have a Leica M6 & latest version of the Summicron 50mm f/2.0 & yes - great lens - but my son has a Nikon S2 with the 50 f/1.4 & it is an incredible lens with a look - may want to consider before plunking down the Leica/Zeiss money although the S2's & up are bringing a bit of money as well. Conversely - I had a Nikkor 105 f/2.0 DC lens that gave me the same look & allows for adjusting the focus zones - could also consider

[jim_gifford]

<<May I ask why Jim? I know the 35mm 1.4 is reputed for the extra speed but does it have other general qualities lacking in f2 and f2.8 models? >>

 

I just love the look of the shots with the 35/1.4 Nikkor. If I use the wide-open aperture I get nice shallow depth of field. Wide angles with narrow depth of field? What a concept! Stopped down to f/2.8, f/4 or f/5.6 the lens is fabulously sharp. Finally, I can get pretty substantial depth of field for landscapes by selecting f/8 or f/11. If I want the lens to give me pictures just like any garden-variety cheap glass, I can shoot at f/16 and let the itty bitty aperture do its thing.

 

On the downside: It is heavier and bulkier than the f/2 or f/2.8 cousins. Also, it costs a LOT of money. But I don't mind the weight, and I have forgotten the sting of the expense.

 

It's a wonderful lens.

 

Having said all that, I need to point out that I can still take lousy photos with it. It is not magic. It's just a lens. The Nikkor 35/1.4 is capable of wonderful results when used intelligently. Alas, it does not have a "No, no, you fool!" setting. It just lets the light in, even when I have messed up a camera setting, or failed to look all around the viewfinder, or otherwise engaged the shutter button before engaging my brain.

 

Be well,

[Robert_Lai]

Paul,<p>I'm sorry to tell you. You've developed a terminal case of Nikon Acquisition Syndrome (NAS). You're in denial right now, but all your statements point to it. Symptoms include fantasizing about yet another lens and how that would revolutionize your photographic vision. Wondering whether an FM3a or an F3 is a good second body. There's just too much evidence that the diagnosis is unmistakable. Usually this type of addiction is cured by:<p>1) running out of money <p> 2) Wife runs out of patience.<p>You may also oscillate between guilt-ridden selling (NLS = Nikon Liquidation Syndrome) and secretive buying binges. I can see all the symptoms in you because I can see myself in you.<p>Now, from my vast NAS experience, I will give you the following rundown on 35mm Nikkors.<p>35mm f/2.8 AIS - I hate this lens. Always fuzzy at all apertures. If this is what's for sale at 95 pounds, keep your money. Small, but useless.<p>35 f/2 AIS. A nice, compact lens. When I had it, I used it as a normal lens. It does have barrel distortion when focused up close, and it is a softer at minimum focus wide open due to its lack of CRC. When I had it, I neglected the 50 f/1.8 as the apertures are virtually identical (1/3 stop difference). For that reason alone, you may wish to consider the ultimate manual focusing 35mm, which is the 35 f/1.4. Still, if you can pick up the 35 f/2 for about $100 - 125 in good shape, then you'll do well.<p>35 f/1.4 AI/AIS. The same optical formula through the ages. It's on the bulky side, especially compared to the f/2 lens. You should get a hood for it, as high speed lenses are more at risk for flare. I would try to get a newer vs older lens, or at least one that wasn't owned by a photojournalist. PJs never cap their lenses, as they make money by shooting rapidly. They don't want a lens change slowed down by such niceties as lens caps. The rear of this lens easily exposes the innards when you're not set at infinity focus, and many old PJ lenses are full of dust. The first 35 1.4 I bought was from a former newspaperman. It was great at imaging, but it was very dusty. I finally couldn't stand it anymore psychologically, and bought a virtually new one from Roland Vink.<p>Wide open and up close, there is some loss of contrast. However, by f/2 and onwards, this lens is razor blade sharp. You can focus down to 12 inches (subject to film distance) with this lens. There is CRC to maximize closeup image quality. There is significant barrel distortion and curvature of field when you do this, so be warned. There is a bit of vignetting (light fall-off) which disappears by f/2.8. From about f/2 to f/8, this lens is unrivalled. Yes, it's costly, but it will be a very satisfying purchase for a lifetime. It will also give you that extra speed (2/3 stop) over the 50mm f/1.8 when you're shooting in low light situations.<p>35 PC Nikkor - sorry, no information about this one.<p>Final word - the 50 f/1.8 AI is a beautiful wallflower of a lens. It doesn't draw any attention to itself physically, but the results are really heavyweight. I have this one, as well as the 180 f/2.8 ED AIS. Those are good choices.

[david_kelly1]

Mike Johnston, who writes the "Sunday Morning Photographer" column at photo.net and publishes the "37th Frame" newsletter contibuted a mini review of the 35mm f2 AFD to photographyreview.com that might make you want to consider it. His opinion:

 

"I made a detailed comparison between this lens and the 35/1.4 AIS and this is a better lens overall. The best 35mm-focal-length lens Nikon's ever made for SLRs."

[paul_loader]

I really appreciate the replies and I particularly chuckled at Robert's comments. Do I have NAS, well, yeess, kind of (shuffling uneasily) but it's not the materialism, nor the latest and greatest. It's not like that. I've looked at the brochures and comments on the F6, I don't lust for one, wasted on me. I don't lust for 80-200 or 80-400 zooms nor for VR, not 13megapixels nor for a 6x6 21mb digital back for mdium format etc. I'm sure you get my drift.

 

I lust after the body that disappears between hand and eye better than any other. I accept that all are compromises and that this can mean more than one for different purposes. The FM2N makes a good stab at it although a little small for my hands, eye relief a bit small, shutter a bit noisy and clunky. Hence the possibility of adding an F3. The quietness of a Nikon RF may just have that subliminal effect too, especially if the lenses produce something more along the mntal images I have. The lenses are simply a case of wanting focal lengths that work for me (or that I learn to work with!) and wanting as few as possible that cover the bases but giving I guess a certain quality of image that I struggle to put into words. It's that wispy classic french café look, the timeliness of grainy shots that simply look beautiful, that have a nostalgia of a bygone era I guess. At the same time when shooting colur portrait slide I look for crispness, vibrant colours and I suppose a real richness. Two very different styles in my mind but of the huge world of subjects, styles and photographic passions, these two very narrow areas just hit an emotional chord with me and obviously totally geared towards my own daughter. Without them I probably would not have found that passion coming out that feels it's simply blossoming out more generally with portraiture and candids. I guess my daughter is my apprenticeship as it were.

 

Certainly, I'm bloody-minded when I have a goal and a natural goal seems to develop more clearly with every film I receive back. I'm a firm believe in the philosophy that says a great artist or practitioner of something will simply use the tools, not be a servant to them. Also, taking another example, that a great martial artist who has perfected one punch and one kick has a deep understanding that a mutli-technique practitioner simply does not need. In other words, I may be in denial with NAS but (I'm telling myself that) I am looking purely for the tools best suited to my goals.

 

I have created a mini album in my yahoo broadband service by the way and I am just trying to work out how to let anyone interested take a look. Presumably via an URL which I will post when the help support answers the email I sent off to them. The pics are nothing special but show how I shoot and this is all a bit 2-dimensional without pics.

[mark_crown2]

As I've said in other posts I've got a second hand AFN 35mm f2 because the 35mm 1.4 is very expensive, and the F2 AIS is prone to flare and also expensive. All I can say is that I'm very happy with it indeed - it's sharp, contrasty and works well on my FM3a. It also focuses down to 0.25 m. The modern coating on the lens does an excellent job.

[david_kelly1]

I certainly sympathize with your desire to have the camera "disappear." That's probably mostly a function of familiarity, or, as *Life* photographer Gjon Mili famously put it "The camera you know is the camera you like." Until recently, for me the least intrusive camera would have been a zone-focused Leica M. Now, though, I have a camera that, after a brief learning curve, disappears from my consciousness even more completely: the Nikon F100. It's uncanny but after a while you don't think about it at all, except to switch to the spot meter for very heavily backlit subjects.

[jay_blocksom]

<BLOCKQUOTE><I><B>Paul Loader, jul 21, 2005; 03:47 p.m.</B>

<br>

Oh, and this pic of my daughter set as my desktop exhibits a lovely graininess and a quality that I did not detect when looking at the small pic on the pc. I am intending to frame a large print from the neg to exploit the classic look to the full. You might need to expand and see what I mean in order to see what I'm trying to say.

</I></BLOCKQUOTE>

 

Man, that is one weird pic...  The highlights are simultaneously blown out and yet never really white; *and* the shadows (eyes, upper part of ponytail, etc.) are completely blocked up.  Now, this could all be OK, if the mid-tones were really "there"; but alas, what detail there is (especially in her skin and the fabric of her sweater) is just flat-out killed by the grain.

<br>

<br>

This is what you're <B>aiming for</B>, in terms of the finished results?!?

<br>

<br>

Perhaps something major got "lost in the translation" through the JPEG-conversion/upload process; but back when I was shooting B&W film, I would have called this "newspaper quality" -- i.e., adequate to document the event, but not something I'd put on my wall unless the moment I'd captured was *so* striking and monumentally important that it overwhelmed all other considerations -- I'm talking about images like Nick Ut's <A HREF="http://www.gallerym.com/pixs/photogs/pulitzer/pages/vietnam_napalm.htm">Napalm Girl</A> and Eddie Adams's <A HREF="http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2004/09/19/obituaries/20eddie_slide01.html">Saigon Execution</A>.

<br>

<br>

If this really is what you're aiming for, I have a hard time imagining how lens sharpness, per se, could even become an issue.

<br>

<br>

You also said you don't like shooting wide-open; yet the DOF is shallow enough that her fingernail (on the fence rail) is obviously out-of-focus, vis-a-vis her face and hair clip, just a couple of feet further back -- given that this was taken outdoors (apparently in full daylight) on ISO 400 film, you you *must* have been using a very large (if not completely wide-open) aperture, and a correspondingly astronomical shutter speed.

 

<br>

<br>

Given that, and assuming that this sort of thing *is* what you're aiming for, I would suggest you look at lenses like the <A HREF="http://www.nikonusa.com/template.php?cat=1&grp=5&productNr=1932">105mm f/2D AF DC-Nikkor</A> and/or the <A HREF="http://www.nikonusa.com/template.php?cat=1&grp=5&productNr=1935">135mm f/2D AF DC-Nikkor</A>.  Yes, these are both AF lenses; but they have nice wide focus rings and should work fine on your MF body.  More importantly, the "Defocus Control" will allow you somewhat more control over foreground/background OOF areas, so that you can stop down a bit more and keep your main subject fully in focus.  However, I don't know of anything similar to these in the ~35mm focal-length range (but then, 35mm would given you a lot more DOF to work with anyway, so...).

<br>

<br>

And one final note:  Please don't take anything I've said here personally.  I *may* be completely missing the point of whatever it is you're trying to do.  My comments above simply represent how I reacted to this particular image.

<br>

<br>

[paul_loader]

Jay, thanks for the feedback. I take your comments in the spirit that they are intended. The image as posted is poor simply being a low resolution CD that I obtained at the same time as I had the film developed. I have not had time to check the neg with my loupe yet but even the print is quite different to the electronic image. I'm sure the basics of in and out of focus will remain the same.

 

I do not pretend to be a pro or an expert amateur, what I have tried to convey is that in looking for a lens wider than my 50mm this is the kind of style naturallt developing, a classic surrealism. An awful lot of practise and competence is still to come, no doubt of that. Incidentally I would certainly crop this to more of a head and shoulders shot with the eyes central along the top 'third' as it were and the hand and park bench excluded.

 

As a general comment, we all see things differently of course. I see a lot of snapshots and a lot of studio portraiture which leaves me cold, however tehcnically accomplished it is. I just can't connect with it and I guess I've unwittingly taken a few unsteady steps down the path of envinronmental portraiture and something has connected.

 

I'm still at the excited point of having uncovered what it is that really interests me rather than blanket bombing across different types of shooting.

 

Thanks again,

 

Paul

[albert_smith]

<I>A 35mm has been my target for a while now...</I><P>

 

This question (Which 35mm Nikkor?) has come up often. I put together some links from previous threads as not to replicate information that has been presented before. In some of these threads are example photos to show the various 35mm lenses in use.<P>

 

<a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00Alm5">Link 1 </a>, <a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=007aS9">Link 2 </a>, <a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=009xo4">Link 3 </a>, <a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00A1NM">Link 4 </a>, <a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00C2WO">Link 5 </a>

[jay_blocksom]

<BLOCKQUOTE><I><B>Paul Loader, jul 22, 2005; 07:55 a.m.</B>

<br>

Jay, thanks for the feedback. I take your comments in the spirit that they are intended. The image as posted is poor simply being a low resolution CD that I obtained at the same time as I had the film developed. I have not had time to check the neg with my loupe yet but even the print is quite different to the electronic image.

</I></BLOCKQUOTE>

 

That no doubt explains part of it; but probably not all of it.

<br>

<br>

In your earlier post, you used the term, "a lovely graininess".  This is probably the key area where our views -- and hence, how we react to this image -- differ.

<br>

<br>

While prominent grain can sometimes be used to good artistic effect, I just don't think this is one of those times.  To *me*, anyway, this shot would have been *MUCH* better had you used a truly fine-grain film like AgfaPan APX (ISO 25) or Ilford Pan F Plus (ISO 50) -- or maybe even Kodak Plus-X (ISO 125) -- with careful attention paid to both the initial exposure and the developing process to maintain both the fine grain and the dynamic range these films are capable of.  Let your daughter's natural beauty, pose and facial expression make the statement.

<br>

<br>

If, with this sort of "clean base" as a starting point, you thought the image still needed to be "punched up", some after-the-fact sharpening in Photoshop or similar could presumably provide some additional contrast (i.e., really black blacks *and* really white whites, hopefully well-distributed throughout at least the main subject portion of the image) while not destroying the mid-tone detail.  And if, after all this, you still really do want "in your face, hit you over the head" grain, that effect too can be added in post-processing.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE><I>

I do not pretend to be a pro or an expert amateur, what I have tried to convey is that in looking for a lens wider than my 50mm this is the kind of style naturallt developing, a classic surrealism.

</I></BLOCKQUOTE>

 

That is all well and good, BUT...  You also said earlier that (I'm paraphrasing here) one of your main purposes in pursuing photography was to document your daughter growing up.  As someone who has probably exposed more frames since the birth of First Granddaughter 15 months ago than I did over the 15 years leading up to that event, I *do* understand.  And given that, I urge you to consider whether your current fascination with such a severe "photographic style" will serve you well when you look back on these images 10, 20, or 30 years from now.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE><I>

Incidentally I would certainly crop this to more of a head and shoulders shot with the eyes central along the top 'third' as it were and the hand and park bench excluded.

<br>

<br>

As a general comment, we all see things differently of course. I see a lot of snapshots and a lot of studio portraiture which leaves me cold, however tehcnically accomplished it is. I just can't connect with it and I guess I've unwittingly taken a few unsteady steps down the path of envinronmental portraiture and something has connected.

</I></BLOCKQUOTE>

 

These two paragraphs strike me as forming an inherent contradiction.

<br>

<br>

While I agree that a little judicious cropping would likely improve this image, a tight crop would be the very antithesis of "environmental portraiture" (a term that I really rather dislike, mostly because of it's "trendyness"; but let's ignore that), which to me means simply a "normal" portrait where the pose and (especially) the setting add significantly to the statement being made about the subject.  It has nothing whatsoever to do with "artsy" effects, sledge-hammer grain, etc.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE><I>

I'm still at the excited point of having uncovered what it is that really interests me rather than blanket bombing across different types of shooting.

</I></BLOCKQUOTE>

 

That's cool.  And do not let anything I've said dissuade you from pursuing your "vision", if you're sure that's really what it is.  The "bottom line" is, you have to be happy with what you do.  I just think that, just maybe, you're getting hung up on one of the small "side trips" we all sometimes take in our artistic evolution, to the possible detriment of your long-term satisfaction.

<br>

<br>

[Robert_Lai]

Paul,<p>From what you have written, I understand that you wish to finalize your kit so that you can start learning what each piece of gear will do for you. In that way, the equipment ceases to be the fascination, and becomes a tool that you can use to realize a visual concept in your mind.<p>Getting too much gear at the beginning of your learning phase can slow down your progress significantly. It takes me a while to learn what each new lens can do. Eventually, with enough practice, I can previsualize the effect of each lens, and I can select amongst them. Before you purchase too many more lenses, I suggest that you spend a roll of film with each lens that you currently own. That is, put the 50 1.8 on the camera, and force yourself to use the entire roll of film only with that lens. Take photos that focus up close, photos at portrait ranges from 1-2 m away, landscapes at infinity. Do this in the early morning, late evening at sunset, and at other times in between. Do this when the sun is bright, and during a cloudy day when the light is diffuse. Shoot with your daughter front lit, side lit, and backlighted (shooting into the light). Try using a flash for fill lighting when shooting backlit portraits. Bring along a small notepad and pen, and write down all the conditions for each frame: light, aperture, shutter speed, your intention. Once you review the final images, you'll get an idea of what works well and what doesn't and how the lens views the world. Then, repeat this process for every lens that you own.<p>It helps to stick to one camera when you're going through this process. As it is the constant, your fingers soon learn where they need to move to adjust the shutter speed, aperture, and focus. Then, you'll find after a while that the camera adjustments come naturally to you. That's why I suggested in another thread that you stick with your FM2n. I've stuck with my F3 for over 2 decades, and it's still my only 35mm SLR camera (after a sad flirtation with an FG).<p>After a while, you'll notice that you have a certain preferred way of looking at things. That'll be your "style". If others don't like it, but it satisfies you, then keep doing what makes you feel good.

[ShunCheung]

Hi Jay, could you please update your e-mail address registered in photo.net? The address you have provided is not working (and was also not working when I last checked a couple of weeks ago).

 

I agree with Robert that you are better off starting with maybe 2 or 3 lenses, perhaps one wide and one tele. It is unnecessary to get too many lenses at once. Later on, fill in the "natural gaps" in terms of focal length as your photography style developes. Sometimes it is hard to predict ahead of time in which directions your photography will evolove.

[jay_blocksom]

<BLOCKQUOTE><I><B>Shun Cheung, jul 22, 2005; 10:17 a.m.</B>

<br>

Hi Jay, could you please update your e-mail address registered in photo.net? The address you have provided is not working (and was also not working when I last checked a couple of weeks ago).

</I></BLOCKQUOTE>

 

Check your e-mail.

<br>

<br>

[steve_ql]

I'm with David Kelly and Mike Johnson.

If the final overall picture is most important

to you, the 35 AFD is the best 35mm from Nikon.

 

It's just too bad that many people cannot deal with

the manual focus feel. It's flare/ghosting

control, lower weight, lower distortion, and closer focusing seems to

always be secondary to the 35 f/1.4's better manual

focus feel. How sad.

[albert_smith]

Regarding the 35mm f/2.0 AF, <I>It's flare/ghosting control, lower weight, lower distortion, and closer focusing seems to always be secondary to the 35 f/1.4's <B>better manual focus feel</B>. How sad.</I><P>

 

Not to me. What put my 35mm f/1.4 AIS ahead of the 35mm f/2.0 AF was not "feel", but that my auto-focus lens failed in a very short period of use. While it was working, it was a great lens. If it had not stopped functioning, it would still be my 35mm Nikkor of choice (and I have used them all). If you change "better manual feel" to "expected longevity based on real world use", then yes... I pick the f/1.4 manual focus lens over the terrific 35mm f/2.0 AF.

[david_kelly1]

Albert: the problem with leaking oil on the diaphragm blades of early examples of the 35 AFD were fixed as of the 2001 production run and the lens now comes with a 5-year USA warrantee. There's also a mail-in discount right now that brings the net cost to about $260, so if you were still worried about failure in the field you could just carry a spare!