Ryan McKern

I doubt I am telling any­one who knows any­thing at all about cam­eras, pho­tog­ra­phy, or lenses any­thing new, but the Nikkor 35mm f/2.0 AF-D lens is an excel­lent lens.

I played with a Sigma 30mm f/1.4 lens at the cam­era shop this week­end as well, and ulti­mately the slightly faster aut­o­fo­cus­ing and smaller body (lit­er­ally, half the size of the Sigma) won me over more than the tech­ni­cal mer­its of one lens vs. the other. I'm shoot­ing on a D50 body, so the lack of a motor in the lens was an asset, not a drawback.

I've only had a few chances to shoot with it, and so far I'm find­ing that it reminds me of the Canon 50mm f/1.8 I used to shoot when I had a 35mm body (and which I still swear by if you're shoot­ing film on a Canon body). I've found it to be sharp, clear, and over­all very, very well suited for the sorts of pho­tos I like to take. I may still pick up that Sigma lens (or the upcom­ing Nikkor 35mm f/1.8 AF-S DX lens, which while only an incre­men­tal improve­ment, is priced pretty com­pet­i­tively) down the line, but I don't think 3 frac­tions of an f-stop on the Sigma or the mid­dling focal length dis­par­ity between the Sigma and the Nikon are make-or-break items for me right now.

If you find your­self with a chance to pick the Nikkor 35mm f/2.0 AF-S lens up cheap (<~$250US or <~$200 grey mar­ket) I'd rec­om­mend it as a nice, com­pact walking-around lens.