Does anyone know how the AF 35mm f/2 compares to the 24-70 @ 35mm 2.8 or the 17-35 @ 35mm 2.8? I find I'm mainly shooting in the 35 range and I was hoping to get a prime, but if the image quality of the 35 f2 isn't that great I'll just stick with the heavy zoom for now.

i use the 35/2 on fx and DX. on FX its very soft on the corners and edges at 2.8 and below - on DX it is not so bad. both the 17/35 and the 24/70 beat it hands down. Also there is very slightly more barrel distortion in the prime than there is on the 17/35

Bummer! Well thank you for saving me $300!

I'm really hoping Nikon will get off their butts and release a new 35mm. Can't be that hard!

It's a shame that Nikon wont give us a decent normal for DX. Consider Voigtländer 40/2 if you're ok with manual focus.

Jonas, I'm assuming you meant to say FX?

I heard the Sigma 30 1.4 is terrific on DX.

Dave

Well, I guess the lack of a 35 mm FX-lens is pretty much the same as lacking a good normal (50 mm eqv) for DX Heck, the 35 mm won't even autofocus with Nikons most selling DSLR's.

I don't know about the 35/2 AF on FX, but it is not as good as the 35/2 MF (AI/AIS) or Sigma 30/1.4 on DX. On FX, the 24-70 is totally awesome around 35 mm. Better than the 35/1.4 AIS @ f/2.8 in my opinion.

I too shoot mainly in the 35 mm range, and the 24-70 gives me everything I want (on FX). It is very large and heavy though, so I use the 35/1.4 when I want a smaller kit. I'd guess the 35/2 MF is really good too on FX, and maybe the 35/2 AF as well. But on DX, the MF lenses were better.

If you can live with a shorter lens, the 28/2.8 AIS is one of the best wide angles for Nikon FX. I've got one, and it is in many ways better than both 24-70 @ 28/2.8 and 35/1.4 @ f/2.8.

well the 35/f2 is still lots of fun to use - at 5.6 - 11 it is really a vary good lens

I have the 35/2 and the 24-70G. I've used them both on the D700 and D300. It's no contest. The 24-70 is superior even wide open, compared to the 35 stopped down to 2.8. The 35 is a great little lens, but comparing it to a $1600 lens that bests almost anything on the current market isn't really that fair. I like and use the 35/2 often, especially when I want to carry very light. Center sharpness is great. Contrast and colors are very nice. And I like the FL on FX and DX. But corners get a bit soft until about f4, it suffers a fair amount of CA at times, it is prone to flare(maybe worse because I have no hood for it). I haven't noticed the barrel distortion being an issue, but I haven't really looked for it in images either.

The 24-70 is just a spectacular lens if you don't mind the size, weight and price. I'm sure the 17-35 is similar but I doubt better.

Yeah I have the 24-70 already and was looking at either a 35 f2 or a 17-35 to compliment it.

The 35/2D is a great lens and you cannot compare it in the same league as those monster zooms. It is a stop faster and can fit in my pocket. Here are a few shots with it:
D700 with 35/2D @ f/5.6:

D700 with 35/2D @ f/2:


I really think it is one of the best lenses out there for both DX and FX in terms of convenience, size, price and quality.

TWoK wrote:
The 35/2D is a great lens and you cannot compare it in the same league as those monster zooms. It is a stop faster and can fit in my pocket..
Yep...

I've only used mine on DX, but it's brilliant there. Sharp and contrasty from wide-open. Also you can close focus to a little over 20cm, which can yield some terrific semi-macro shots.

If you don't need AF the ZF 35 f/2 is supposed to be stellar. Pricey though.

Jammy Straub wrote:
If you don't need AF the ZF 35 f/2 is supposed to be stellar. Pricey though.
Man I hate that lens.

I'm happy with my 35mm f/1.4 (ais) Nikkor on all of my cameras, including my D700. But if I had a fast mid-range zoom, like the 17-35mm or 24-70mm, I suppose I'd use the 35mm less.

~Ted

turnert wrote:
I'm happy with my 35mm f/1.4 (ais) Nikkor on all of my cameras, including my D700. But if I had a fast mid-range zoom, like the 17-35mm or 24-70mm, I suppose I'd use the 35mm less.

~Ted


I was gonna say..... if you're not married to the idea of auto focus... I'd probably choose the 35mm f1.4 Ai-s

TWoK wrote:
Jammy Straub wrote:
If you don't need AF the ZF 35 f/2 is supposed to be stellar. Pricey though.
Man I hate that lens.

- I hate this lens too, because I can't take it off my D700! Probably one of the best quality lenses I've ever used and not that pricey if you look at the images wide open at f/2. I've used much more expensive lenses that wouldn't touch this one in IQ.

V.

I've gotten fantastic results from a 35mm o.c f/2 non Ai. Had to Ai it for it to fit my D200 but it only cost me $60. My copy (at least) is very sharp wide open. It flares easy but has beautiful bokeh.

The AF 35 f/2D focuses very close (although it's not a macro it comes very close). Makes for some very interesting images.

As mentioned by a few above, the 35mm f/1.4 Ai-S is really not bad but it is MF. With its close range correction feature and the extra 1-stop speed, it makes up more for the lack of AF but it is not that inexpensive....

I used the Sigma 30mm 1.4 when I had DX and loved it. I repleced it with the 50mm 1.4 for FX and that is great as well.

I do have a walkaround Sigma 24-60mm 2.8 for the FX, but woild like a prime in the 17-20mm range for interiors. I tried a Vivitar 19mm 3.5 and the vignetting was almost DX like. I wouldn't mind finding an affordable prime until I can afford the 14-24. The search is harder than I thought it would be.

Max Power wrote:
I used the Sigma 30mm 1.4 when I had DX and loved it. I repleced it with the 50mm 1.4 for FX and that is great as well.

I do have a walkaround Sigma 24-60mm 2.8 for the FX, but woild like a prime in the 17-20mm range for interiors. I tried a Vivitar 19mm 3.5 and the vignetting was almost DX like. I wouldn't mind finding an affordable prime until I can afford the 14-24. The search is harder than I thought it would be.


I've got the 24-60 Sigma and like it as well for FX. I had a 20mm Af-D for my wide stuff but recently shot an indoor band/garage gig that the 20mm wasn't wide enough. I sold it and added a Tamron 17-35. looks very promising. It might work for you and it is less than $300.

You could also check out the Tokina 35 2.8 macro.

i dumped my 35/2 AF-D after a few months because it had far more CA and corner softness that i was willing to live with, even at f8, on FX. as far as sharpness, it was distinctly average especially on DX and more so considering its price.

Herb...

TWoK wrote:
I really think it is one of the best lenses out there for both DX and FX in terms of convenience, size, price and quality.

And what about the 20-35/2.8 AFD?
I used to work with it on my F100 and it was a fantastic lens. I also have the 35/2 AFD and I was wondering whether I buy a good used 20-35 or keep the prime 35?
Any opinions?