Nikon 35mm f1.8 DX

[Phil Maddocks]

I've been considering this lens for a while as something light to walk around with but I am not sure whether to pull the trigger on it. I currently own the Sigma 17-50 f2.8 and a lot of the reviews have said that while the 35 f1.8 is a good lens, if you have the Sigma their isn't much point in owning both.

Most of what I do is landscapes, but I do like to walk around London, particularly later in the evening where I feel the f1.8 would allow me to do more handheld stuff without having to pump the ISO up to 1600/3200.

Any thoughts or experiences with this lens would be much appreciated!

 

[DG Phototraining]

I used one as a Wedding Pro for about 3 years, and at that time I'd swapped from the Nikon 17-55 f2.8 - there was an immediate jump in quality but I also found it so much more usable as being very light I'd be happy to carry it around with me more. The quality wide open was perfectly good enough too, and the reduction in DoF I found very inspiring

When I moved to FX I was actually sad to see this wee lens go

Dave

 

[Daniel_Paul]

Yep I had this lens, great little lens, very sharp, very light too and could fit in my pocket!

 

[gad-westy]

When I moved to FX I was actually sad to see this wee lens go
Dave

It does actually work okay(ish) in FX. Maybe not well enough for pro work but surprisingly usable once LR has done it’s autocorrect

Agree with others. Lovely little lens and almost a no brainer at the price they can be bought at. In a perfect world my preference would be for something a little wider but they don’t exist at this price so it’s a bit moot!

 

[sep9001]

I had it with my D90, but sold it as soon as I got the Tamron 17-50 F2.8. if you like primes that it is a good lens and works well, I prefer zooms.