Lens review: Nikon 35mm F2 FX

Good (afternoon / morning / evening) dear reader !


Today a review of the nikon 35mm F2 FX, and my reasons why to choose this one over the Nikon 35mm F1.8 DX.

This is a $350 prime lens aiming at users who want a very versatile lens, for landscape, life /street scenes and portrait. This is the typical focal length for photojournalism with a prime, along with 50mm.

This is an FX lens, ideal for your D700 or D3 Nikon bodies.

1/ Why not 50mm instead?

50mm is a little less versatile : for streets and landscapes, it is a tad too long. If you are looking at portraits in low light with still some flexibility, the 50mm F1.4 will be a better match. For travel, this 35mm is better, especially on an FX body.

Also remember that on a DX camera (explanations here for DX/ FX formats) a 50mm is actually a 75mm. So not good a general purpose lens at all. Most DSLRs are DX, so once again the 35mm is a better call (it would be a 53mm on a DX).

2/ The lens itself

Long story short, this lens is great value for the money. Built quality is what you'd expect from Nikon. Plastic and metal, smooth focus ring, a tier 1 built quality regarding this reasonable price tag.

Unlike the F1.8 DX version, this one has no built in AF motor : so entry level DSLRs won't have AF with that lens (A D40 for example, or D60). However I would not recommend an entry level DSLR anyway: you're better off buying a used one, mid range. Therefore it should not be a problem.

It takes 52mm filters. It's a rather light and small lens for those willing to travel light.

3/ Performance

Resolution is excellent even wide open (with softer corners at F2 but that's pretty normal). Chromatic aberrations are very moderate. This is one of the only 2 lenses I use with my nikon gear: the second on is the 85mm F1.8, fantastic for portraits. 

It will outperform any zoom lens when it comes to resolution and sharpness (prime lenses are optimized for one focal length). It is perfectly usable at F2 when the cheaper 50mmF1.8 needs to be stopped at 2.8, under which it gets fairly soft. 

Photography is a hobby that costs a lot, but in the middle, you got some products that have an amazing value for the money : multi purpose, small & light, affordable and great image quality. This 35mm is a "can't go wrong" lens, and I'm about to say a must have since nothing else, for that type of photography, will get you any better results on a Nikon, and the few that are close to it cost $1200 and above.

4/ Why not the Nikon 35mm F1.8 DX ???

This is also a good lens, but only made to work on entry level DSLR (i.e it has an AF motor). The F1.8 instead of F2 is a trick, it is just not has good and needs to be stopped at 2.2 at least to stay in the high performance area. 

It is expectable if you consider the price difference : nearly 2 times cheaper with built in motor...optics good be as good but it's unlikely.

Finally, it would not work on an FX. Ok, I know, most of us can't afford an FX camera body, but keep this in mind : buy a good lens and you'll keep it forever. Camera bodies...you will change them, upgrade. The day you can afford an FX (or all cameras become FX), it would be too bad having to also change that 35mm lens.

However, if you're on a budget constraint, the F1.8 DX version it a great choice, and will beat any kit lens (that usually are crap anyway).

5/ Picture samples:

Click on it for full size version, most of them are scanned negatives !!! So you'd have much better resolution on a DSLR.

On a Nikon D80, cropped. Iso 100, F8, 1/160s. 

On a nikon F5 (film), neopan acros, F3.5.

On a nikon F5 (film), Portra VC400, F2.8

On a nikon F5 (film), Tri-X 400, F...damnit can't remember, F2 or F2.8.

On a nikon F5 (film), neopan acros. 

On a nikon F5.

My DSLR lens guide

Most of us make poor choices when it comes to picking our first lenses. We are new to photography and think the camera body does it all. We believe the bigger the zoom the better the lens, we have no idea what those "f" numbers mean after the focal lens (ie 50mmf1.8)...

We end up buying a kit lens, or a big cheap zoom and we think "what a deal!" Well if you did so, you probably got ripped off.

So how to choose a lens? Well you have to look at the following:

• focal length
• aperture
• extra feature : price of filters, warrantee etc.

Let's start with nomenclature. What does 16-55mm F4-5.6 means for example?

• First the focal length. 16-55mm mean than the lens is a zoom going from wide angle focal length (16mm) to a street life / portrait focal length (55mm).
• F4-5.6 is the aperture, i.e. how much light can the lens let go thru onto the sensor.

1 /First choose the focal lens

...based on what you'll be shooting. Remember: a lens that does everything great does not exists. It simply doesn't, pick your fights :)

- You shoot landscapes and architecture: take a lens between 14 to 35mm: it's a wide angle. You will have way to much distortion for portraits, but it'll allow capturing most of your view field.

- You shoot life scene, candid, mixing street photography and portraits. Typical documentary style. Choose from 35mm to 50mm lenses: those are general focal lengths. Most journalists in the 60ies had only a fix 35mm or 50mm since it is small, light, and can do all. I'd recommend a fix 35mm on a DX camera as a first lens for a beginner into more arty photography.

- You shoot portrait, choose from 50mm to 135mm lenses. They allow you to detach the subject by having him very sharp, and background very blurry.

- Everything beyond 135mm is a telelens, for wildlife, paparazzi and anything that takes zooming. If cheap, it's probably crap. Those are usually not very light sensitive, and if they are they cost a fortune. I don't see the use for it appart for wildlife.

- Last but not least, the greater the zoom range, the lower the quality; so avoid 18-300mm lenses.

One question comes along quite often:

"if I have the budget, should I get 2 prime lenses, 24mm for landscape and 85mm for portrait, or one 24-85mm lens?"

- Well it very much depends on what you value most: convenience, or image quality. If you travel and care about not having to change lenses all the time, go for the zoom. But in order to compare to prime lens quality, you'll need a top one, usually costing more that $ 1000.

If you value image quality, don't care much about transport or have 2 camera bodies, go for the prime lenses. Less flexibility, but better images, and the sum of the two might still beat the zoom lens.

Wide angles are ideal for landscape and architecture.

2/ Now choose the aperture

The "f" thing is the maximum aperture of the lens. See the iris thing in Stargate? Well lenses have such a thing inside that opens when you shoot to let the light in, and onto the film or sensor.

The wider it opens (low f numbers), the more light can get it, the more sensitive (we also call it fast) the lens is. Fast lenses cost more of course, but they allow great stuff such has very little depth of field (distance on which things are on focus) or low light photography.

An f1.8 lens is very sensitive. Less is very very sensitive and usually expensive.

Prime lenses (no zoom) can easily be f1.8 or F1.4, when the priciest zooms are f2.8 at best. Zooms are less light sensitive due to mechanical constraints.

Also take into account the camera body you have: if you have a top of the range leica or nikon, allowing shooting at 1600 or 3200 without quality drops, you might be ok with a f3.5 lens. Otherwise, I strongly advice you spend extra bucks on an F2.8 lens at least. You won't regret it and won't have to upgrade one year later.

An example of short depth of field with a fast lens, notice that the image is on focus on 15 cm, creating a 3D feeling.

3/ Extra features

Stabilization: useful for low aperture lenses. Since you can't shoot at high shutter speeds, you are likely to get some blur from shaking. This can then be a nice feature. On a high ISO performance camera, you can shoot fast, you don't need it

Lens diameter : the larger the lens, the more expensive the filters. If you're tight on budget, avoid 72 mm large (diameter of the lens) since the filters will cost $50 each instead of $15 for a smaller lens.

You now have the tools to decide. No lens can be perfect for every purpose. I will insist once again on this : the lens makes the quality, not the camera. Unlike the camera bodies that will keep improving a lot, lenses won't. Spend the money on the lens !

photozone.de is good advice when it comes to chosing lenses.