- Compact, lightweight wide-angle lens for general photography
- 62-degree (44-degree with Nikon DX format) picture angle for candids, portraits, and travel photographs
- Nikon Super Integrated Coating for minimized flare and ghost, providing good color balance
- Fast f2 maximum aperture make this ideal for low-light, hand-held shooting
- 0.85-foot close focusing distance
Product Description
Compact and lightweight, this very fast f/2 wide-angle lens is perfect for scenic and landscape photography as well as environmental portraits
Bob Denhaan @ 5:35 pm
Light, fast, sharp, and as far as I’m concerned the perfect focal length.
I started out using 50mm primes, but quickly got tired of how tight they were indoors. All my shots were becoming head/shoulder shots, and forget about trying to get two or three people in the shot without them all being posed in an “everyone squeeze together now” shot. That gets real old, real fast.
Let me emphasize that:
This lens has a much better field of view at normal shooting distances (the distance that you normally stand from your subject).
That is often overlooked, but trust me, backing up 15 feet in a crowd or a house to get your shot is tedious at best, and often impossible. It is typically easier to move in towards your subject a little (or crop the photo later) than it is to keep backing up, especially while looking into the viewfinder. I realize it’s not totally fair to rate other equally sharp, good quality lenses differently, based solely on their focal length, but it is my opinion that this lens is by far the most useful in the greatest number of situations.
I also used to be fixated on huge apertures, but have since realized that most real world shooting is not done below f/2 anyway. This lens is sharp as anything out there and is great in low light. Yes, I acknowledge that f/2 isn’t quite as good in super low light as other lenses out there (I know because I have a 50mm f/1.2), but it is good enough for most shooting, and below f/2 the depth of field becomes tricky anyway; so again, not as useful.
Lastly, some people don’t like the plasticy feel of new lenses, but I love them. They are so much lighter and silky smooth. I’ve seen enough heavy, gummy, brassed-up, metal lenses in my time to know there’s nothing magical about all-metal builds either. So to me it’s just another modern improvement that works like a charm.
Most that I’ve seen tend to resell online for 90%+ of full retail value, so even if you somehow didn’t like it, your risk in buying and trying is very low.
…
M. Budimirovic @ 7:36 pm
The 35mm f/2 AF is something of a hidden gem among Nikon lenses. It’s a moderate wide angle for 35mm film cameras and a 53mm-equivalent normal lens for APS-C format digital SLRs. Either way it’s a great lens to have. If you’re a traditionalist you will love it. Mounted on a DSLR it is just like owning a 35mm film camera with a 50mm lens. You may even wish to substitute the kit lens with one of these if you’re buying a D80 or D200. If you are really set on a normal DSLR lens the only real alternative to the Nikon 35mm f/2 is the Sigma 30mm f/1.4, which is one stop faster, but is also larger, heavier, more expensive and optically less good at f/2 and beyond.
If you’re a technophile the Nikon 35mm is a little harder to justify. It is a plastic-barrelled fixed focal length lens with no SWM or VR. For a bit more money you can get the excellent Tamron SP 17-50mm f/2.8, which is just about as sharp and only one stop slower. For a lot more money you can get the vaunted Nikon 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 VR. But the Nikon 35mm f/2 has a certain elegance to it nonetheless: it’s fast, sharp, lightweight, focuses down to a very close 25cm and is relatively inexpensive. It’s ideal for environments where you can move back and forth a bit to frame your subject and you don’t feel like carrying around a lot of heavy gear.
Gary Gray @ 7:37 pm
I purchased this lens to use on my Nikon D300. On the D300 this lens gives a standard field of view close to 50mm. It is light weight and made of plastic and easy to keep in a vest pocket. Center sharpness is good, edge sharpness is not as good wide open. The construction is not professional grade; however, I’ve used it quite a bit and it seems to be okay in every situation I’ve tried. Autofocus speed is good and quiet. The manual focus mechanism is smooth and acceptable. Bokeh is acceptable but nothing dramatic. It has a manual aperture adjustment ring and ring lock. I’ve also tried this lens on my Canon bodies using an adapter. On a full frame body this lens is fairly sharp wide open and vignetting is well controlled, so if you own a Nikon D3, it should work fine. I did notice a bit of corner softness on the full frame bodies. It also has mild chromatic aberration on the edges, but not excessive. For the price, it’s a good prime lens and will give you as good a result as any zoom lens at 35mm. If you need better optics, you’ll have to spend quite a bit more, but shooting as a professional photographer, I’d have no qualms taking this lens to any job that required this focal length.
Glenn Carpenter @ 9:45 pm
I really wanted to love this lens, but instead I just like it. Perhaps I can explain some of the reasons for that in a moment, but first the positives.
I think this is a beautifully-made little gem of a lens. I love the way it’s put together and the way it feels in use. These AF-D lenses were strongly criticized for their build when they first came out, by photographers who were then used to the heavy, all-metal construction of the AI/AI-S Nikkors. A little time having now passed, the light, undamped, nearly frictionless feel of the focus ring seems just about perfect to me. The aperture diaphragm has a flawless, beautifully symmetrical action, and the overall heft and appearance of the lens is substantial and gives an impression of very good quality at this lens’ modest price point. I very much like having it on my camera. It is small, unobtrusive, and gives the classic “normal” field of view on DX bodies such as my D90. It is, as others have said, a true “photographer’s lens.”
It is also sharp, in fact its single distinguishing characteristic in my opinion is its very good sharpness at wide-open aperture. All lenses lose acuity at wide apertures, but this lens loses less than most, being nearly as sharp at f/2.8 as it is at f/5.6, and still quite good wide open at f/2.0. I have no qualms at all about putting this lens on my camera in low-light conditions and using it at any aperture right up to the maximum, even if I might want to make fairly large prints of the resulting images. One could nitpick to a degree (always stop down when sharpness is paramount), but I find the results absolutely acceptable and then some. A very good performance.
Actual peak (stopped-down) sharpness is very good but not quite equal to the best I’ve seen. Taking a variety of test shots with this lens and with my excellent 16-85mm VR zoom set at 35mm (this has become my reference lens for such purposes), the 16-85mm VR has an appreciable edge over the 35mm at all apertures it is capable of (f/4.5+). It’s really hard to see the relevance of small differences in sharpness like this unless you are going to be printing large reproductions and expecting critical perfection, but the difference is there, and it definitely favors the 16-85. The 16-85mm is as sharp at f/4.5 as the 35mm is at f/8, and the 35mm never reaches the slightly higher level of sharpness that the 16-85mm can attain by f/5.6. The difference is naturally larger at wider apertures, and the 16-85, shooting with VR “on,” can make far sharper images of static subjects in low light than the 35mm is capable of producing. This advantage does not carry over to objects in motion, however, an advantage that goes to any “fast” prime lens like this 35mm.
The 35mm is not a high-contrast lens. It does not use Nikon’s contrast-enhancing ED glass in any of its elements, and colorful scenes are subtly toned-down by this lens in comparison to Nikon’s most contrasty lenses. Again my 16-85mm is my standard in this regard, and comparing the two against one another, colors that leap off the screen when photographed with the 16-85 are less brightly rendered by this 35mm, with the difference actually being fairly significant. Although this can be a good thing with some subjects, I prefer the more dramatic color rendition of the higher-contrast lenses for the types of general photography I am inclined to use a 35mm lens for.
Overall, this is a fine lens. It has similar characteristics to the also-very-good 85mm f/1.8 AF-D Nikkor, and yet I find myself much more attached to the 85mm, which I love, than to the 35mm. Why? It really has to do with the particular benefits of these lenses being more relevant in the longer focal length. Depth-of-field isolation, for example, is a very attractive creative possibility with an 85mm lens, yet almost a contradiction in a 35mm lens, which naturally has a very wide depth of field. Such isolation is particularly helpful in portraits, for which the 85mm is well suited, the 35mm less so. The less aggressive color renditions can likewise be beneficial in photos of people, as skin tones are nicely reproduced and distracting colorful elements within the frame are less noticeable: again, less relevant in the 35mm focal length.
The ability to stop action with short shutter speeds, another purview of fast lenses, also is of limited usefulness in a 35mm lens. Kids playing close by, perhaps, but animals and sports? Not really. Finally there is the realm of low-light photography, where for still subjects, a slower lens with VR remains the better choice, allowing the maintenance of smaller apertures for broader depth and improved sharpness.
The result: for me, at least, only a limited set of minor niches exist for which the 35mm becomes the best choice: low light photography of moving subjects, occasional uses where narrow depth of field might be desirable in its focal range, and scenes of a type which benefit from its subtler color rendition.
The reality is that prime lenses used to be a photographer’s first choice because they simply gave better image quality than zooms – but zooms have come a long, long way and that is simply no longer the case today, at least not with this particular lens. What that means for my own photography is that I have to invent reasons to use this lens in place of my standard zoom, and when I do I invariably wind up taking it off again fairly quickly, because so much flexibility is lost with little compensation and because the less contrasty images simply don’t have quite the impact that the 16-85mm VR can reliably produce.
This lens does earn each of its four stars for its very solid performance in all areas, but unlike the 85mm f/1.8 I am not inclined to treat it any more generously than that. It is a fine lens, but, for me, does not quite have the “must have” status that some others give it.
Notes:
- Nikon has recently announced a 35mm f/1.8 AF-S prime for DX that will probably prove to be a much better choice for almost anybody shooting that format. Its optics will likely be optimized for high linear resolutions within the smaller DX image circle, and it may well turn out to be good enough to knock our socks off. No mention of ED glass in the literature, so we’ll have to see if it turns out to be a high-contrast lens like many of the better/newer Nikkors. It’s very reasonably priced. I have one on order and will likely post a review once I’ve had a chance to use it a while.
- Because this is not a “G” type lens (meaning it has an aperture ring), and because it fits the FX/film format as well as DX, those who use more than one of these formats or who have older film cameras could benefit from this lens’ versatility and might find it to be an excellent choice.
- Focus is very quick and perfectly accurate on my sample.
- Early copies of this lens commonly suffered from a problem with oil on the diaphragm blades. I haven’t heard any references to this being an issue on newer samples. Be particularly aware if you are buying this lens used, especially if the particular sample’s age/history is uncertain.
- This lens has both a distance scale and a very good depth-of-field scale, unfortunately a rare feature on newer designs. The new DX version looks to have neither, which could be of some importance for anybody needing to choose between the two. On the other hand, the AF-S lens will allow immediate manual-focus over-ride, whereas the older AF-D lens requires that its user flip a switch on the camera body to go from auto- to manual-focus.
Other Lenses:
I’ve had the opportunity to own and use many different Nikon lenses and have posted my impressions of some of them here on Amazon. For those interested, here are short summaries. I have used all these lenses on Nikon DX-sized DSLRs, most recently my current D90. Refer to the full reviews for further detail.
Nikon 28mm f/2.8 AF-D: *** Competent, sharp lens is a good fit as a bargain DX “normal” prime. Slow f/2.8 max aperture poor. Very inexpensive in used market.
Sigma 30mm f/1.4 HSM: *** Poor focusing consistency and below average large-aperture acuity combine for disappointing real-world performance. Fast max aperture, very capable if used with appropriate care.
Nikon 35mm f/1.8 AF-G: ****1/2 Terrific lens at a bargain price. Not without flaws, but excellent in all important respects. A pleasure to use.
Nikon 50mm f/1.8 AF-D: *** My sample was unacceptably poor at large apertures. Perhaps a below-average sample. Focal length not ideally suited to DX.
Nikon 85mm f/1.8 AF-D ****1/2 Very good short-to-moderate telephoto on DX. Acceptable at large apertures, very sharp stopped-down, moderate contrast. Potentially excellent for portrait use.
Nikon 16-85mm VR ***** Very sharp at all settings, excellent contrast, very useful zoom range including true wide-angle at 16mm. Excellent VR. Best-kept secret for DX users.
Nikon 28-200mm AF-G *** Of two samples, one was excellent and one poor, so watch for sample variations. Very good contrast. Not ideal hand-held due to lack of VR. Not ideal for tripod use due to design.
Nikon 55-200mm VR **** Very good lens, very good sharpness and contrast, no fatal flaws. Cheap feel and feature-challenged, but has effective VR. A bargain.
Nikon 70-300mm VR *** My sample had very poor performance above 200mm, good to very good elsewhere. Good contrast, generally very good focus performance. Good sports/action lens. Not good where critical sharpness is desired. Possibly a below-average sample.
. @ 12:25 am
Sharp as a tack wide open. The manual focus ring operates smooth as silk, unlike some other Nikon lenses. My copy backfocuses ever so slightly on test charts, but in the real world focuses flawlessly. Quality built in Japan. This is a must have for a DSLR.
I agree that Nikon should make a 35mm f/1.4D, or better yet a 28mm f/1.4D. The f/1.8 (the 50mm) and f/2.0 (the 35mm) just barely squeek by as usable for available light street photography at night, unless you go to an ISO over 400 (which on my D80 is at the limit of usable at night in terms of noise).