Heading to china, thinking of getting the 35mm F2 for walkabout..

lens. Do you think that this is a good choice? btw, i have a D80 but intending to go FF so wouldnt want to get the new DX version. Thanks

I use my 35mm f/1.8 all the time for nightime and interior walkabouts (this on my DX camera). But I wouldn't use it for daylight - the kit lens is better for this use.

If I could only take one lens, it would be the kit. But I'd take the 35mm also if I would bring two lenses.

Sounds exciting.

On a recent China trip, my most-used lens was the 16-85,
for street scenes, in cities and parks.

I took 4 lenses :
16-85
300 f/4
70-180
35 f/2
plus a TC 1.4

Second most used lens was my 70-180mm. I used the 35 f/2 for quite
a few shots, for lovely images, and a very inconspicious appearance, but
found that 35mm was not quite wide enough for many situations.

Have a great visit !
Keith

--
. . .

The 35mm f2 lhas lightning fast AF and is tack sharp from corner to corner on a DX mount. On my D300 it looks rather diminutive. I would use it more often but I've gotten quite used to the 24-70 being my walk around lens. When I want to be less noticed, or want a little faster lens, I turn to the 35mm. It will not disappoint you.

Enjoy,

--
JimKa

I just got back from my vacation in Beijing, Shanghai, and Hong Kong. I used my 35mm 1.8 and found that focal length to be very useful and stayed on my camera most of the time. I love to travel, but hate lugging around heavy gear. I used mostly the 35 and 50mm and found that traveling light also kept me motivated to take more pics rather then thinking about rest stops.
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/life_in_a_box/

Sounds like a good idea especially if you are going to FF in the future. I don't have this lens but it has consistently had great forum reviews for years.

Presumably you will take your kit lens as well because otherwise you will lose a lot of shots by not having a wide or a zoom

Whenever I travel the 35/f2 is on my D700. It is a perfect travel lens. Wide enough on FF to get those landscapes, focuses very close for portraits/close in detail shots and is very unobtrusive in crowds. Very sharp, filters are cheap and focus is very good. If I could only take two lenses with me it would be the 35 and the 70-200. -Jeff

This is why Nikon badly need a 24mm optimised for DX, its the perfect walk around focal length. How many of the worlds most famous images were shot on Leica's with a 35mm lens?

My 35 f/2 on either my D300 or my D700 is my choice most of the time, especially the D700. This is a great walk-around lens.

On my D300, I've decided the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 is now my walkaround because it's also quite light and small, but the 35 f/2 served me a long time. It is often glued to the D700 when a big zoom isn't needed or wanted.

It's a wonderful little lens.



--
Cheers, Craig

I am getting ready for a trip and am myself having trouble deciding between the 35/2 and the 50/1.4. The 50 1.4 seems to get considerably better reviews and is much brighter, but the 35 is the focal length I'd rather have. Why can Nikon not put out a new FF 35 1.8 or 1.4? Sigh...

Travelinbri_74 said:

I am getting ready for a trip and am myself having trouble deciding between the 35/2 and the 50/1.4. The 50 1.4 seems to get considerably better reviews and is much brighter, but the 35 is the focal length I'd rather have. Why can Nikon not put out a new FF 35 1.8 or 1.4? Sigh...

Click to expand...

What's the difference between f/2 and f/1.8? Nothing much. I wouldn't pay $5 extra to get the difference.

The difference between f/2 and f/1.4 is just one stop. Moreover, I don't think the 50 gets much better reviews is at all. The 35 f/2 is probably Nikon's best wide prime for FF as far as optical performance in a current AF design.

--
Cheers, Craig

Nice to hear, I hadn't heard that about the 35/2.

My only issue with the 35 f/2 is that I'd like one that is wider. IMO, the 35 f/2 is a superior lens to the 28, 24 and 20 Nikon primes. I want a wider prime, but don't want to lose the IQ I get with the 35 f/2. I also own the 35 f/1.8 and though it's slightly ranked over the f/2, I can't tell any difference.

I bought the f/1.8 for my gal and her D40, but have used it both on my D300 and D700. Stopped down is vignets very little on FF and does so gracefully.

I suppose the only way to get there is a 17-35 f/2.8, but then I get a much larger lens and certainly a much more expensive lens. I also have the 35-70 f/2.8 that is a wonderful lens and is probably equal or better than the 35 f/2, but again, I paid more and it's a lot bigger. I bought it because it's pretty close to the 24-70 f/2.8 it replaced and is cheaper used and smaller, but still much bigger than the little 35 f/2. A used 20-35 f/2.8 might be a solution, but they're still going for something approaching $1000 used and are fairly large as well.



--
Cheers, Craig