Jump to content




The above adverts really do help Fotozones. Please click on them if they are relevant to you. Not seeing them? Just exclude Fotozones from your ad blocker. Thanks!


Photo
* * * * - 1 votes

Nikon 35mm f/2 AF-D


  • Please log in to reply
12 replies to this topic

Poll: Rate this lens (64 member(s) have cast votes)

Rate this lens

  1. 1 Star (appalling) (0 votes [0.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 0.00%

  2. 2 Stars (below par) (2 votes [3.12%])

    Percentage of vote: 3.12%

  3. 3 Stars (average) (13 votes [20.31%])

    Percentage of vote: 20.31%

  4. 4 Stars (above average) (41 votes [64.06%])

    Percentage of vote: 64.06%

  5. 5 Stars (outstanding) (8 votes [12.50%])

    Percentage of vote: 12.50%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#1 Dallas

Dallas

    Fotozones Owner

  • Administrators
  • 18,173 posts
  • LocationDurban, South Africa
  • Edit my pics?:Yes

Posted 25 May 2008 - 06:31

What is your experience with this lens? This topic will be indexed on our LENSES page. Please keep your comments related to your experiences with this lens so that others may draw value from them. Off topic comments will be removed.

You may post sample images taken with the lens in this thread. If you have a question relating to the lens, please don't ask here, use the "Lenses For Nikons" board instead.

Lens info
Angle of view: 62 degrees
Closest focus: 30cm
Filter thread: 52mm
Mass: 285g
Aperture range: 2.0 - 22

Info reference:
The Nikon Handbook by Peter Braczko
ISBN 086343 383 9

Clicking on an ad just once a day will help me tremendously with financing this site. 

You can also support the site by buying your gear from the affiliate advertisers below (use these links):

Amazon.com | Amazon.co.uk | Amazon.de | Adorama | B&HThinkTankPhoto | Digital REV | OWC 

Alternatively you can DONATE via PayPal (donor list)

 

Follow Me On: social-facebook-box-blue-icon.png social-twitter-box-blue-icon.png YouTube-icon.png google-icon.png 


#2 Russ

Russ

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 97 posts
  • LocationIndiana

Posted 28 May 2008 - 13:43

I have an old Japanese version of this lens and like it.  It is a poor mans event lens as it gives nice bokeh due to wide aperture at a low price.  It is small and lightweight and is a nice angle of view for a prime carry around.  It is plenty sharp and has minimal distortion.  It only has one major fault...it isn't a zoom, which makes it a huge compromise lens.  A slight decrease in image quality is much better than not being able to make the shot at all.  It is great for group portraits, but lacking zoom reach it isn't good for candid shots.  I rarely use it but love it when I do, mostly for group portraits off a tripod.  It is a keeper for sure.

#3 renderit

renderit

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 43 posts

Posted 02 June 2008 - 23:34

My current favorite. The colors pop with this.

#4 OldUncleMe

OldUncleMe

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 144 posts
  • LocationAtlanta

Posted 13 June 2008 - 17:30

I like the AF-D version pretty well.  I consider it average to above average, with good sharpness and contrast.  It auto-focuses well for the type.

I also have an AI version of the 35/2.0  I was never that happy focusing it on the D200, so I've used it a lot mounted reversed on a bellows.  Results here variable, sometimes showing color fringing or CA's.  It's pretty easy to work with in this application, but I think the variable results may be attributed to this sample.

/..
"Facilis est Descensus Averni"      Virgil
"Sapere aude"      Quintus Horatius Flaccus
"What hump?"      Igor

#5 Ahmed ghazzawi

Ahmed ghazzawi

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 129 posts
  • Edit my pics?:Ask Me

Posted 26 January 2009 - 20:16

you have to understand this lense to apreciate its value , one thing that is so special about it is that you can aproach your subject almost touching him ...with minimal distortion ...i love it ...compact , saturated colors and sharp ...its tactical.

#6 HansW

HansW

    Advanced Member

  • Life Member
  • 87 posts
  • LocationNetherlands
  • Edit my pics?:Ask Me

Posted 06 February 2009 - 18:07

I totally agree with Ahmed. Great lens, focusses real close and fast! On FX it gets less used as it is replaced as walk around lens by the 50 1.4.

Posted Image

[img width=1000 height=666]http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2110/2118054565_7b32a7491a_b.jpg[/img]

#7 dpnsan

dpnsan

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 11 posts
  • LocationToronto
  • Edit my pics?:Ask Me

Posted 14 February 2009 - 06:35

Great focal length for DX. This lens was much better on my D70 than the D300. Subjectively, I still like the images I get from this lens, but it clearly shows low contrast and sharpness until f/4, and not excellent until f/5.6. Close focus and decent bokeh make this lens a fave.

I'm keeping a close eye on the new 35/1.8. If it's sharper wide open and has decent bokeh, I just might give up this old gem.
There's treasure everywhere!

#8 cabo

cabo

    Advanced Member

  • Life Member
  • 208 posts
  • LocationBonn, Germany

Posted 25 December 2009 - 08:35

Sold mine after getting the Zeiss ZF 35/2. At apertures wider than f/5.6 I found the Nikkor's bokeh quite distracting, and wide open it lacked contrast. All in all a very mediocre performer, easily beaten by the modern zooms (which are of course a lot bigger and heavier).

Carsten Bockermann

#9 Jason Ross

Jason Ross

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 19 posts

Posted 05 April 2010 - 18:09

This lens became my standard lens on my Nikon D200 and it works great on my Nikon D3s, it's not prefect but it sure knocks the spots of current cheap fixed Nikon lens from 24mm through to 50mm although it's not quite as good as my Nikon 85 f1.8.

#10 whoelius

whoelius

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 61 posts

Posted 29 May 2010 - 17:22

The close focus for this lens is actually 0.25 (maybe .248 or so) metres and not the 0.3 specified in the top post.

I like it.  On my D3S I need only stop down to f/2.8 for perfect sharpness in the centre and, strangely, it seems to be one of those lenses that doesn't suffer from diffraction so much at tiny apertures.  I just had a play at f/16 and f/22 and it is miles better than, say, the 50mm f/1.8.  At f/14 I cannot see any softening at all.

There's a healthy barrel distortion, but that's simple to correct later.

Contrast is good after f/2.8 and very good after f/4.  Perhaps it's a little lacking for those shooting film.

Bokeh is a little on the harsh side, for my taste, but that shouldn't be much of an issue for most people at the 35mm focal range.

It's a cheap lens and small enough to carry in one's pocket.

I can't see a reason not to own this lens (aside from, say, being an elephant or just a chef or a mortgage adviser, or just a Canon-shooter).  Like the 50 f/1.8 it's a very good performer and super cheap.


I think everyone is planning to "upgrade to FX soon" :P.  FX will become cheap enough for most people to be on it in the next couple of years.  I haven't bought a DX lens for years.

#11 Tom

Tom

    Advanced Member

  • Life Member
  • 1,855 posts
  • LocationGermany

Posted 03 January 2011 - 10:27

I rated this lens "average"
A nice performance on a DX-body, very sharp e.g. for landscape-shots at f/5.6. On a FX-body performance near the corners is disappointing below f/5.6. So shooting wide open is only recommended when corner-performance is irrelevant. Don't ever put it on a D3x or shoot flat targets below f/8.0!
But many of my favorite shots were made with this lens (on a D300). You can find more detailed information and sample images via my signature.

Thomas (moderator and lens-tester at Camera Labs)
All my lens reviews, My Photography Blog, My photos


#12 ozone

ozone

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 28 posts
  • LocationNorway
  • Edit my pics?:Ask Me

Posted 25 April 2013 - 08:39

Average lens that gives me no incentive to get by without the convenience of a zoom. Why buy a lens with f/2, if it is largely unusable before f/4? Why buy a prime, if consumer-zooms are as good or better at that focal-length? (Retorical questions)



#13 Dave Rosser

Dave Rosser

    Advanced Member

  • Life Member
  • 664 posts
  • LocationThornbury, near Bristol

Posted 26 April 2013 - 12:43

I have not got that many lenses, even so I had to double check that this is the 35mm lens I own :prankster: .  I see looking at the metadata in Lightroom that I only used this lens to take 2.5% of the 32000+ pictures in the library.  I seem these days to prefer the convenience of my 16-35 or 24-120 f/4 zooms to swapping lenses.  The advantage this lens has over the zooms is it is much much more compact, focuses as fast even though a screwdriver lens and of course is 2 stops faster.  Distortion is low (barrel which Lightroom can correct using its internal data base) but then 35mm is the low distortion point for the 25-120mm so not as big an advantage over that lens as you might expect.  The big advantage over the zooms is, of course, 2 extra stops of speed.  Picture quality is good on the D700 :-

 

_DSC0455-Edit-XL.jpg






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users



Receive a FREE CAMERA BAG from Think Tank Photo


An appeal to all Fotozones visitors: please help me to keep this site going by starting your gear purchases using any one of the affiliate links shown below:

Amazon.com | Amazon.co.uk | Amazon.de | Adorama.com | thinkTank Photo | DigitalRev.com | OWC | B&H or Donate via PayPal

Starting your shopping here doesn't cost you anything more, but by using the links above (or any others found on the site) you are advising the affiliate that you support this website. This results in a small commission that helps with the running costs. If your preferred outlet isn't among those listed above you can also support the site by making a donation of any amount via PayPal (no PayPal account required). Any donation will be most appreciated.