AF Nikkor 35/2.0D Review

This lens is an unknown gem. Unknown cause these days people prefer zooms that somehow cover this focal length (like 17/18-35, 28-70, 28-105, 35-70 etc). Another unknown feature of this lens is excellent close focusing ability (despite not having CRC), at medium to close distances this lens is better than Nikon AF 24mm/2.8, also flares less. Front element is small and does not need a hood.

Oil leakage problem is real, mine did it and I saw several other samples that also did. If you notice it early, storing the lens upside down (front element looks down) cures it.

This has been my most used lens for the past year on my FM2n. I have to agree that the manual focus is fantastic for an AF lens and I prefer it to the MF lens both in sharpness and handling. It is also much better in this regard when compared to the 50mm f/1.8.

The close focus has made it more useful on several occassions compared to the 50mm f/1.8. It is also more flare resistant than the 50mm f/1.8.

For my travel photography where the majority of shots are of people with beautiful backgrounds, this is the focal length I use most often because of the versatility of the angle of view, the minimal distortion, the increased depth of field with f/22 (faster than AF in many situations), the low light "flash free" performance, and the overall light weight package.

I haven't encountered any problems with the lens yet. I have read that the newer ones no longer have the oily blade problem and Nikon has a fix for the older ones.

I don't understand the comments about the 35/2 AF-Nikkor being sharper or more flare resistant than the 50/1.8 AF-Nikkor. I own both lenses (currently the D versions of both but I also owned the non-D 50/1.8).

Hands down the 50/1.8 is the better of the two in terms of image quality. It is sharper wide own, introduces less linear distortion, and is slightly more flare resistant of the two. That said, the 35/2 is certainly a fine lens in its own right-- it's just that the 50mm lens for 35mm format is so heavily optimized in design and that wider lenses are more difficult to design that it is unreasonable to expect a 35mm lens for 35mm format to be able to match the performance of a current model 50mm lens.

I also don't really understand why so many folks consider 35mm and 50mm lenses to be boring. The 50mm focal length is useful for full length portraits, and nature "vignettes" which feature a particular subject as the main feature of the image, such as an image of a waterfall. The 35mm focal length is probably the most useful single lens to take hiking if you had to choose one, yet people assume that a landscape means you have to have a lens in the 20-28mm range. Once you get a lens wider than 35mm for shooting landscapes in 35mm format, you have to have a strong foreground subject in the image. Lenses in the 35mm to 50mm range free you from this burden. I think effective landscape images exist that were made with just about every focal length from 20mm to 300mm.

I tried the 35/f2 once and returned it. I found it wasn't as sharp as my 17-35 AFS.

I'd like to see more objective reviews instead of these "feel good" reviews--certainly it would be useful to shoot the 17-35 AFS at 35mm and compare it to the 35/f2 at various f-stops. That would provide some objective data. Personally, I weight optical quality high, followed by other things like size, weight and filter size. This review speaks to some of these but lacks the objective assessment for readers to make a truly informed decision.

I´m very happy with this lens, it´s a fantastic team when works with my 24mm/2.8AF and Tamron SP-90/2.8AF. Mine has serial number 336997 and there is not problem with oil on the blades. I read that Nikon solves the problem in the number 304207.

I have to agree with Lloyd on this one. I used the lens once and promptly sold it. It lacks the contrast and color retention of other Nikkor primes I have used, and it is not very sharp until at least f5.6 or f8. Basically, all of my shots with this lens were soft and dull. In comparison, my 24 2.8 AF "D" is noticeably sharper with greater contrast. I agree that this opinion is VERY subjective, but this review is rather subjective as well. MTF data only gives you so much information.

Hmm, if you are not in the "feel good bandwagon" with this lens, you either have a bad sample or need a justification to dump $1500 to a zoom that weighs about 1 kg, is a full stop slower, has higher distortion and flare. Another review of this lens is here. I compared this lens with one sample of AF-D 24/2.8 with a 22x loupe and 35 was definitely better. May be I have a 24mm lemon. Btw 24 flares like HELL.

I use the AF 35/2D for architecture and landscapes and I think overall it is a very good lens. It doesn't flare much for a wide angle (having only a few elements) but I often use a hood with it just to be on the safe side. I think the sharpness, contrast and clarity of the images are excellent from f/5.6 to f/11. From f/2 to f/2.8 it is not that great. Yes, the 50 mm and 24 mm are better at wide apertures, but stopped down a bit the 35/2 gives great results. And the focal length is different; I use all three lenses quite frequently and cannot see how any of them could substitute for another.

I'm very surprised to hear that the 17-35 is sharper. I had the 20-35/2.8 and sold it because I couldn't get a really sharp image with it even when stopped down to f/8 or f/11. Also, it had a habit of fogging in winter. The 35/2 was in a different class in my use, although I can see applications for the 20-35 in pj-style work. My experience is that with primes, the images look cleaner and crisper.

I had the 35mm f2D lens. I used it for several months and sold it. The lens produced very nice sharp images. AF was quick. I quickly fell in love with this lens....

Then oil leaked on to the diaphram (apparently this happens a lot to this lens) during my Afghanistan trip!!! I over exposed several rolls before i noticed the diaphram not working. Considering this is the second time this occured, i got rid of it.

If you have this lens, ALWAYS check the diaphram

How lame is this? Photo.net has hit the bottom. A review of the ancient 35mm AF Nikkor. Why would this be of any value to anyone? If you shoot Nikons and you want a 35 prime you can get this Or, get a zoom, I mean this is aboslutely worthless. Is it me?

Where's that review of the AF 50/1.8 non-D lens, we really need to know!!!

Check the APERTURE blades for lubricants!!!! I bought one new for $270. Oil leaked onto aperture blade within 18 month. I sent it back to Nikon for $120 cleaning. It came back clean but prompted leaked more lubricates onto the diaghram within 3 month. Sold it for $70. I replaced it with the non-D version, which has still not developed this problem.

One thing in the review I would absolutely agree with (the rest I would simply agree with) is that this lens will provide a bright image in the viewfinder. I've been using the 24-120 zoom for some time as my "compromise lens" but have actually shelved it for this summer in preference for "oh my gosh" prime lenses. I already had the 60mm micro and the 20 mm f2.8 so this lens should have been a shoe in. Instead I bought the new 50mm f1.8D lens, basically because it is incredibly cheap and sharp! Years ago I owned the 35mm f3.5 AIS lens which was superb but for those who like lots of glass on the front of their F-whatever it was an incredibly wimpy lens!

I might still buy this lens as the experiment with primes-only has been a great success. The perspective of a 35mm lens is often overlooked beacuse so many 35mm point and shoots have this focal length. Pure snobbishness as the 35 mm focal length has very little wide angle distortion unlike its 28, 24 and 20 mm cousins.

A good review, by the way. Thanks!

This is one of my favorite Nikkors for its light weight and great sharpness. It pairs very nicely with the 85/1.8.

I too have a Nikon 35mm f/2 AF - and love it. The fact that it is so small, light, and sharp makes it one of my favorite lenses. It has never let me down. (By the way, there is one for sale at http://www.photo.net/gc/view-one?classified_ad_id=495645.) I don't have a D version, but judging from the mentioned problems of the oily blades, I don't think I'm missing much. You typically do not need to use a flash with this lens anyways, making the D version less appealing. My 2 cents.

In twenty years I've had three iterations of the 35mm f/2 Nikkor: the AI-S version, the AF version and the AF-D version. I've never had problems with "sharpness" (rsolution+contrast) or lubricant leaks. I'm pretty hard on my equipment. The lens is a fine performer on digital and film cameras. of curse the lens(like virtually every other lens) is better two to three stops from wide open but at f/2 it is a fine performer as well -- especially when you compare it to other similar lenses shot wide open. I too think it is seriously under-rated nd is good value for the money.

Fine review. I use the 35mm f/2D AF on an F5 body indoors, mostly for shots of people, outdoors, it is great as a general purpose lens. This lens is not really comparable to the 17-35mm f/2.8D for a couple reasons. First, the small size and light weight lend themselves to relatively unobtrusive use, even on a large body like the F5. The F100 would be even more discreet. The extra stop of light is critical. In my experience, the effects of camera movement are much more pronounced than the differences in optical performance of various lenses. If I must shoot hand-held, I use the fastest shutter speed possible. You are already at a disadvantage with regard to image quality with (for example) Provia 400 vs Provia 100. I try not to exacerbate the problem with a slower shutter speed!

I share the sentiments of Umit and Ellis. This lens is a gem.

I am however very surprised that some zoom lenses are better than this lens!

I can't understand why anybody would buy this lens. I had one and it had the ubiquitous problem with oil on the diaphragm which returned after cleaning despite my storing it face down.

Nikon have behaved shamefully in continuing to produce it long after the problem has become widely known and should have recalled all of them and changed the design as any responsible manufacturer would have done. I have never seen a note from Nikon even acknowledging the problem.

If you want a 35mm lens with a useful life of 18 months, buy this turkey. I think most people expect their lenses to last a little longer than that.

One more data point from personal experience: a lovely lens absolutely ruined by the aperture blade oil problem. My recommendation would be to buy something else... anything else.

I read Nikon solved the problem, but..which serial number started the update?

Neil, what would be the alternative? It's the best 35 mm lens for Nikon AF and a very good one at that.

The reason it may develop an oily diaphragm is that it has two holes which hold a spring in place. The holes go from the inside of the barrel to the outside, where the focusing thread (and lubricant) is. These holes can be filled with, e.g., glue, to close the way for the oil and fix the problem. The non-D has the same design according to a repairman that I spoke to.

Pakai Nikor 35 mm AF memang mantab....Detail warnya coy...bener-bener wuihhhhhhhhhhh....

... I read Nikon solved the problem, but..which serial number started the update?

To this day, Nikon has denied that there is any defect to this lens despite hundreds of reports I ersoanblyl have read about the oil build up on the lens. Personally, due to the shear number of reports of this occurring I would digress in buying it myself. I almost bought one till I was a t a local camera store, and picked up the demo only to find the oil had caused the blades to stick open. This was on the demo unit no less!

The 35/2 AF Nikkor (non-D) is my standard lens. Its performance never ceases to amaze me given its modest price. I bought three of these puppies used for about $150 each. None of my samples have the oil problem. In fact I have never had a single problem with any of them, and I use them hard. I'm a bit of a 35 fanatic, and have used the best of them, including Canon 35/1.4L and Leica 35/1.4-M ASPH, /2-M ASPH, and /2-R. The Nikkor 35/2 AF holds its own against these top optics, and it's the only one on the list that fits my favorite body, the (near)-indestructible FM2N.

"I tried the 35/f2 once and returned it. I found it wasn't as sharp as my 17-35 AFS. "

Sure, have you also compared prices? Nikkor AF 35/2.0 D €394.00 Nikkor AF-S 17-35/2.8 IF ED €2045.00

Bit of difference. I agree that if you have the AF-S already you might have a better lens right there (albeit a slower one which might be important during low-light shooting), but for most of us that amount of money is really too much. Add the Nikkor AF 20/2.8 D for €779.00 and you have about the same focal range in 2 lightweight primes for under €1200 which have very much comparable quality (and AF-S on short lenses isn't really needed is it? It's just a marketting gimmick). So €800+ buys you a lenshood and slightly better optics at the cost of 1 stop at the high end.

When I mounted one of these little lenses on my D70, I was astounded by the low light capability. The wide f/2 lens aperture, and the camera's automatic selection of sensor ISO (up to 1600), makes a delightful combination.

35/2 AF (non-D) Nikkor, have it, like it, use it!

I love walking around NYC with the 35mm f/2 on my D80. Also terrific for parties, family gatherings, indoor shooting. My 50mm f/1.8 is great too, but in tight spaces with the crop factor it is just too close for a lot of indoor shooting.