Nikon 35mm

R

Removed User 3

Guest
Now that I am back to normal today.....

Whats the opinion on the Nikon 35mm f 2.0 ?

Why better than 50mm ?

Expect this to stir up a few.

I knew that lens lusting disease would return so I am not cured yet.
 
R

Removed User 3

Guest
I like 35mm better because for indoors, 50mm was too close for my taste.
I also like the closer focusing distance on the 35mm.
Thanks Jimmy. I didnt like the 50mm for that reason too. Prefer to use the 17/55 f 2.8 as dont have 35mm.
 
Joined
Jan 8, 2007
Messages
904
Location
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
That 17-55 sure is a beauty. I'd probably use it quite often as well if I had it but I don't.
The 35mm is so small and light, it makes for a very nice lens to have on the camera just walking around. There are times I would love to have extra reach but then, I just move my lazy rear closer :tongue:
 
Joined
Jun 4, 2007
Messages
6,530
Location
Rockville, MD
I love my 35/2. For indoor shooting, 50mm is just too long. The 35/2 is 1/4th the weight, size, and price of the 17-55 f/2.8 and it also handles way better obviously. I also like the close focusing on the 35/2. I posted some samples here.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Joined
Sep 4, 2006
Messages
623
Location
South of Chicago
I just sold my 50mm F1.4. For film it is fine but I am now using the 35mm F2 with the 20mm F2.8 and the 85mm F1.8 mostly on digital now.
The 35 and 85 lens combination is great on digital for the way that I shoot weddings and can be used on film too.
 
Joined
May 2, 2007
Messages
1,210
Location
London, Ontario, Canada
The way I look at it is the 35 is really equivalent to the old "standard" 50 when you take into account the 1.5 crop factor. Similarly the 50mm is really a 75mm, which traditionally is an odd focal length. Of course it all comes down to person usage. I use the 35 for miscellaneous shooting in low light (and close focus shots) and I like the focal length, but for the life of me I just can't find a reason to buy the 50mm - which is too bad because they represent fantastic value.
 
Joined
Jun 4, 2007
Messages
6,530
Location
Rockville, MD
I'm keeping my 50 around for when my 2 month old starts crawling/walking/toddling around, and for outdoor stuff or portrait type work. In those cases the little bit of extra reach will come in handy. If it doesn't get much use or the focal length still isn't quite right after that then I'll just let it go. The main reason I got it was just to play with it and see if I'd like a large aperture lens. I do! :biggrin: Great little lens for $100. :smile:
 
Joined
Jun 3, 2007
Messages
20
Location
California
I was considering the 50mm f1.4 or f1.8. Between feedback I got on my question and yours I think I'm leaning to the 35mm f2.
 
P

patrickh41

Guest
Tried the 45? It's grossly over-priced but a beatiful gem of a lens and can rival anything the 35 does. If you done mind manual operation the 28/2.8 AIS is a lovely competitor too.
 
R

Removed User 3

Guest
Okay – what do I think of the Nikon 35mm f/2

Well look at it this way, I was a nice happy guy with a 12-24, a 35-70 and an 80-200. then I got the 35mm f/2

It is an absolutely fantastic lens, I often take it as my only lens when I want to travel light, but the prime addiction that it started has not been cheap

Edward,
I knew you would chip in on this one at some stage. Having tried the 50mm my eye has been turned to the 35mm. The jury is still out. For the moment.
:biggrin:
 
Joined
May 26, 2006
Messages
856
Location
Charlottesville, VA / Palo Alto, CA
Don't forget the 35/f1.4 AIS... stunningly sharp in the mid-apertures and very fast. Yields a dreamy kind of image at f/1.4, too.

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
 
Joined
Feb 24, 2006
Messages
490
Location
Belgium
I love the 35mmf2AIS, very sharp, light and compact. I also have a 35f1.4AIS, but that version is prone to terrible CA fully open. Interesting as a low light lens, but forget it if there are high contrast areas... I also tested a 35f2AF (non-D version) and it was also prone to CA @f2, but not as bad as the 1.4.

Here is a shot with the 35f2AIS:
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
 
Joined
Jun 4, 2007
Messages
6,530
Location
Rockville, MD
my 35/f2D can also get some pretty bad CA wide open at f/2 in high contrast scenes, like a city street with utility lamps at night. It's mostly gone by f/2.8
 
Joined
Apr 5, 2007
Messages
1,119
Location
Hamilton, Ontario
I have been looking for a 35 f/2 (D or AI-S) recently and they are fairly hard to find, especially used. After getting some feedback for what I want to shoot (indoor concerts) I think my bag for that will consist of the 50 f/1.8 and 35 if I can get it before June 22nd :)
 

Guest-002

Guest
Joined
Jan 14, 2006
Messages
263
Location
Worcester, MA
I just got a 28-70 f/2.8 that is incredibly sharp wide open. I like the idea of an extra stop but I'm wondering if the 35 f/2 is as sharp at f/2 or does it need to be stopped down, in which case I really don't get that one stop advantage. Of course, it'a a lot smaller and lighter. That 28-70 really deserves its "Beast" designation.
 
Links on this page may be to our affiliates. Sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.
Nikon Cafe is a fan site and not associated with Nikon Corporation.
Forum post reactions by Twemoji: https://github.com/twitter/twemoji
Copyright © 2005-2019 Amin Forums, LLC
Top Bottom