35mm f2.0 AFD

[erik_van_bogaert]

Is this a good lens, i want to use it for general photography and journalism,

also i would use it with a digital camera that has the 1,5 x factor , so

therefore i would not use a 50mm lens , also waht is best for photo journalism

[bwcombs]

This lens on a DSLR is very close to a "normal" lens (50mm).

 

It is a relatively fast, sharp lens that is compact and a joy to use. (I have used it on film and

digital).

 

Typically, it is not wide enough for my needs on a DSLR for street or architectural

photography. It is ideal for shooting general, copy work and some portraits. Also, it can

focus close to your subject, so that is a plus.

 

Here are a couple of samples shot with a D70 and D200.<div></div>

[bwcombs]

Here is the 35mm f/2 on the D200. ND4 filter.<div></div>

[michaelschrag]

Erik,

 

Its a good lens. Follow this link:http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/nikkor_35_2/index.htm

[arthuryeo]

This lens is OK for normal use but don't expect it to yield high res images at f2. Wide opened, it is a little soft for my taste. For general purpose usage, I am more inclined to use the 17-55DX because of the higher resolution.

 

<p>

Shot with Nikkor 35mm/2 AFD at f2; ISO=H0.3 on a D2X ... are you as puzzled as him now? :)

<img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/5120387-md.jpg">

[aaron l]

Here is a link to the performance of the 35mm vs the 18-70mm and the 18-35mm lenses.

 

http://aaronlinsdau.com/gear/articles/lens_comparison35.html

 

I love my 35mm. It would be nicer to have the f1.4 but I couldn't justify the cost at the time.

[mark_crown2]

Erik

 

The Nikkor 35mm f2 AF is a very nice lens. Earlier versions suffered from the infamous 'oil on the shutter blades' problem which was later rectified by Nikon. I use my AFN (early version of which I've had no problems) with film and I find it perfectly useable wide open. It has a good coating on the lens that deals with flare very well. It has slight barrel distortion but nothing too radical. Reviews I've seen (try Photozone) speak well of it on digital.

 

I would have got an AIS F2 but the ones I saw were tired and too expensive in the UK. The 35mm 1.4 is well out of my league price wise (my AF 35mm F2 was second hand). Unlike a lot of modern lenses, it has depth of field markings for hyperfocal focussing.

 

If you got a good sample, I do not think you would be disappointed.

 

It also has a very good close focussing capability which on digital could be really useful.

 

All the best,

 

Mark

[michaelschrag]

Aaron,

 

Excellent link. Nice to see some real tests posted, rather than meaningless snap shots.

[bwcombs]

Sorry I posted meaningless snapshots. I guess using the lens really doesn't qualify me or

others to give their opinions.

[michaelschrag]

Low res photos posted on the web don't really show anything unless they are roughly 100% crops. The pictures posted above could have been taken with a 35mm fixed Nikkor lens, or a Tamron 18-200mm. Who could tell the difference? If you can't tell the difference what's the point? That's what I'm trying to say, but should have stated it differently.

[aaron l]

Funny, I prefer BW's nice fishing shot to my meaningless brick wall shots. Hahaha. Mine are 100% crops, however, they don't give you feel for the perspective of the lens. Only center field sharpness is available in mine. But don't we just take shots of brick walls to determine sharpness rather than something we would enjoy?