Lusting after 35 f/2 ... or should I?

[alex_a]

Hey guys,

It's been awhile since I've gotten my 17-55. The lens is so good, that it rarely leaves the camera, and it quenched my lens lust for over half a year

Yet, somehow I end up wanting to get that 35 f/2. What do y'all think about this? Would it be just a redundant piece of glass in the bag, and I am better off spending $$$ somewhere else (180 f/2.8, 105 f/2.8 are definitely on the list), or do I really need it?

Oh, and to make matter more interesting, I see some posts here about Sigma 30/1.4 ... I'm not sure I like the samples posted as much as the ones from 35/2, though.

Cheers,
Alex

 

[spalding12]

buy the 35/2
you won't regret it
it isn't that expensive
the lens is wonderful... light/great focal length
uncle frank turned me on to this lens a long time ago.... glad he did

perfect for taking this picture of my dad from his last birthday

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

 

[Phillip Ino]

Do it. I've been kind of lusting over it too since that recent POLL. Maybe I can prolong my lust and live vicariously thru you.

 

[MikeG76]

I bought one recently. I like it a lot. The review on photozone.de I'm finding is very accurate. Especially the MTB values. The sharpness at f2 is noticably softer than at f2.8. F4 appears to be the sharpest, however, the gains are minimal over f2.8. You'd have to really zoom in at that point to notice it.

One thing I don't like is the HN-3 hood I bought for it. Its a screw in metalic type. I need to find a different one if possible. This one doesn't come out nearly as far as I'd like. So, just be wary of the hood you get for it, as I wasn't, lol.

I'm still learning this lense. Like a new car, you need to learn how each new lense handles. What it can and can't do, etc.

 

[alexf]

I like my 35 f/2 a lot. Great little lens.

 

[nykonian]

This is one of my favorite lenses until I turn into Canon. Yes, I still have it in case the price of the D700 drops below $2000.

 

[neimac]

I have been considering this very question myself. The sigma 30 1.4 is very very tempting but ill probably go with the 35/2 because I want as few DX lenses as possible.

 

[basharar]

I had the 17-55, sold it , got the 35mm, its very sharp and light, and blows the 17-55 in terms of sharpness at 2.8, also its a full frame lens.... I also had the sigma 30mm, great lens and sharp, but there is something mystical about the Nikon glass, the colors just look nicer than other lenses...but maybe I am weird in that way...I found zooms at short focal length boring.

 

[RickC]

The 35 f2 is a great "general" lens. I often use it at parties instead of my 17-55mm. The 35mm is small and doesn't seem to attract attention from your subjects as the 17-55mm sometimes does (if that makes sense?!?). Get this lens.

Here's a shot from a party earlier this year -sharp lens:

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

 

[Jonathan F/2]

I love the 35mm f/2. It's my favorite Nikkor prime. It doesn't have a tendency to back focus like other Nikon AF-D primes. I dumped my 50 1.4 after using the 35mm f/2, far more useful of a lens. Wide open it's a sharp sucker.

 

[gfx1]

Quick snapshot at f/2 and ISO1600 didn't want to use the flash.

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

 

[TVayos]

35F2 rocks, I use this lens all the time.

 

[scooptdoo]

buy the 35/2
you won't regret it
it isn't that expensive
the lens is wonderful... light/great focal length
uncle frank turned me on to this lens a long time ago.... glad he did

perfect for taking this picture of my dad from his last birthday

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

i hope you ment last birthday as in previous and not finale?he looks very vibrante in you most excellent picture!

 

[onemorelens]

The 35 f2 is a great "general" lens. I often use it at parties instead of my 17-55mm. The 35mm is small and doesn't seem to attract attention from your subjects as the 17-55mm sometimes does (if that makes sense?!?). Get this lens.

Totally agree. I loved it on DX and it took me a few weeks to get used to it on FX but now love it again. If I'm going out with my family for say brunch I walk out with the 35/2 on the D3. I just cant carry something as bulky as the 24-70 around.

 

[alex_a]

Sigh ... not a single voice of dissent ... I guess, I'll just have to buy it now :smile:

Seriously, though, thanks for all the opinions! Keep them coming

 

[Uncle Frank]

When I shoot a wedding, I'll use my 28-70/2.8 for the ceremony, but the 35/2 for the reception. It always delivers.

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

I team the 35/2 with an 85/1.4 for portrait sessions.

View attachment 219414

What's not to like? It does a great job at anything from closeups...

View attachment 219415

to scapes.

View attachment 219416

 

[Big Daddy]

I just got a 17-55/2.8 and already had the 35/2. I find them similarly sharp at f/2.8, though for me the 17-55/2.8 focuses faster on my D80 (YMMV will vary as the more advanced bodies have faster screw motors). Quieter, too. My 35/2 is a bit soft at f/2 so I try to avoid using that when possible.

I'm debating selling the 35/2 as it would help defray the cost of the 17-55/2.8. If budget wasn't an issue, though, I'd likely keep it. There's something enjoyable about walking around with a "normal" lens on a DX camera. It becomes very light and more compact, especially compared to the relatively heavy and bulky 17-55/2.8.

That said, I've not used my 35/2 in the couple of weeks since I got the 17-55/2.8. If that trend holds up after the initial honeymoon is over, I will sell the 35/2 since it'd be a waste of a good optic.

I believe that Edward Neal was in a similar position and the 35/2 was the only prime in the zoom range that he kept.

 

[Tom Young]

Yet, somehow I end up wanting to get that 35 f/2. What do y'all think about this? Would it be just a redundant piece of glass in the bag, and I am better off spending $$$ somewhere else (180 f/2.8, 105 f/2.8 are definitely on the list), or do I really need it?

It's a very versatile focal length, especially on a DX body. Though you can duplcate the fov with your 17-55, the f/2 prime is a heck of a lot smaller and lighter which adds a lot to the overall versatality. It's both sharp and has great color and contrast and can rival a dedicated macro lens for close focusing. It can be somewhat prone to flare, but with a DX body, it's possible to mount a 50mm lenshood with no vignetting which can help.

The "bokeh", while not bad, isn't exactly anything to write home about either as the standard aperture ring (and high contrast) can lead to somewhat harsh oof elements, particularly of backlit scenes. Personally, I don't mind this very much but if you're really picky about such things, the Zeiss MF 35 would be a good basis for comparison.

For events and general purpose uses, it's usually my first choice. There are some better 35's out there, but dollar for dollar and as AF models are concerned (even if not SWM based), the f/2 is a terrific lens and a great bargain.

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

View attachment 219419
View attachment 219420
View attachment 219421
View attachment 219422

 

[Nuteshack]

great lens but not fast enough or wide enough for me...;-)

d40/sig 30 1.4 @f2

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

same combo @1.4

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

on the d200 @1.4

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

and another on the d40 @1.4

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

again @2.2

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

:Love:

 

[jadog2]

alex_a,
I don't think you have given us a good reason for wanting the 35 f2 lens.

Do you find yourself wanting a faster lens in that focal range? Do you like the 35mm focal length? Do you miss your 50 1.8? (i think you sold yours?)

regards,
jason