35/2 still seems a better choice

if its a really new design, may take up to like 5 years...

I bought mine a few months ago new from B&H. Guess they are still made in Japan. However, I have had parts on a Toyota I wish had been made in China or somewhere. Junk doesn't begin to describe. So I wonder if "Made in Japan" really matters.

If comparing the IQ of a prime fix focal lens with a zoom, it only makes sense to compare it at the same focal length. The 35/2 D is sharper than the Sigma 24-70/2.8 at 35mm, from f2.8 on through f8... now the prime goes down to f2 and is still relativally sharp in the center. The main advantage of going down to f2 however is that it is brighter for focussing. It is not a 'poor' lens. It's a small, bright and sharp prime.

whoosh1 said:

A D60 with the 2 VR kit lenses, 35 f/1.8 AF-S DX and optionally an
SB400 - that will be a perfect lightweight travel setup. I have a
D300 with big lenses for in-house & parties - just got the D60 2 lens
kit for travel (as a substitute for my 18-200 VR which was on the
D300).

Click to expand...

Such a D60 kit would be fantastic! My primary camera is the D200 with 17-55mm and 80-200mm f/2.8 zooms (among other lenses). I also have an older D70 that is somewhat lighter, but not nearly as light and compact as a D60. For lightweight travel and (almost) everyday use, I often carry a small bag (Domke F-5xb) with either the D70 or D200, 18-200mm VR mounted, and 35mm f/2 next to that. No room for my SB-800 in that particular bag. But if I got a D60 with VR kit lens, 35mm f/1.8 AF-S and SB-400 it would all fit. Sure I would lose the 60-200mm range, but I would also lose a significant percentage of the kit's weight.

And as for the D60 with 35mm f/1.8 by itself... I could fit that combo into the pocket of my parka!

gfrancois said:

If comparing the IQ of a prime fix focal lens with a zoom, it only
makes sense to compare it at the same focal length. The 35/2 D is
sharper than the Sigma 24-70/2.8 at 35mm, from f2.8 on through f8...
now the prime goes down to f2 and is still relativally sharp in the
center. The main advantage of going down to f2 however is that it is
brighter for focussing. It is not a 'poor' lens. It's a small, bright
and sharp prime.

Click to expand...

Unfortunately, your comment was not even close to true in the case of the 35 f2 that I immediately sold when compared to the 24-70 that I still have. The image quality at f2, especially in the corners, was not acceptable to me under any circumstances and the Sigma was still sharper at 35mm and f2.8. After about f4 the Nikon was sharper at 35mm, but I didn't spend the money to have a f2 lens that wasn't worth shooting until it reached f4. It's always possible that I had a lemon, but review after review state that it's soft at f2 and my Sigma is plenty sharp at 2.8, so it wasn't worth the money to keep it. If I absolutely need f2 now, I put the 50 f1.8 on the camera and take about 1 step backward to get about the same view at the 35 would give me.

From the article on the front page of the site. Guess we'll have to wait and see:

"Nikon already builds a full-frame 35mm F2 lens, but this doesn't quite fit the bill, he says: 'That's an older lens, a slower lens and, in terms of product placement, a more expensive lens. Updating that and making it an AF-S, 'G' version might have cost twice as much. The new lens is a step above the 35mm F2 in terms of image quality. It's specifically designed for DX and the aspherical element helps it give better results.'"
Quote from Ludovic Drean, Product Manager for lenses, Europe

--
Bryan

gerards said:

Leonard Migliore said:

What surprised me is that the 35/2 is a 6 element lens. This is
barely adequate for an f/2 normal, and shouldn't be any good in the
corners until f/4 or so. The new, cheaper 35/1.8 has 8 elements
including 1 asphere, implying that it's far better corrected. Plus,
it only has to cover a 35mm circle. So the thing has a chance to be
sensational.

So pending some reviews, I'm going to get one for my D300.

--
Leonard Migliore

Click to expand...

Buying a DX lens now that we Nikon is going FX....and FX IS better
(much better) is a dead end investment. I know it's just peanuts
compared to more expensive lenses but still........DX is a dead end.
You can get excellent 35mm full-frame capable glass and know that it
will last you for a long, long time.

For myself, I'm buying well maintained razor sharp ai MF lenses for
use with my D700. They are CHEAP and better than most current equiv
glass.

Click to expand...

Why is it a "dead end investment" if it's a good sharp lens on DX? I can go out and take pictures with it. Isn't that what it's for?

And, as it happens, I have several full-frame lenses from my film Nikons including wider ones than 35mm, so I won't be completely forlorn on that day that my D300 becomes a worthless millstone incapable of taking a picture anyone would look at.

--
Leonard Migliore