List Price: $364.95
Sale Price: $359.95
Today's Bonus: 1% Off
I really wanted to love this lens, but instead I just like it. Perhaps I can explain some of the reasons for that in a moment, but first the positives.
I think this is a beautifully-made little gem of a lens. I love the way it's put together and the way it feels in use. These AF-D lenses were strongly criticized for their build when they first came out, by photographers who were then used to the heavy, all-metal construction of the AI/AI-S Nikkors. A little time having now passed, the light, undamped, nearly frictionless feel of the focus ring seems just about perfect to me. The aperture diaphragm has a flawless, beautifully symmetrical action, and the overall heft and appearance of the lens is substantial and gives an impression of very good quality at this lens' modest price point. I very much like having it on my camera. It is small, unobtrusive, and gives the classic "normal" field of view on DX bodies such as my D90. It is, as others have said, a true "photographer's lens."
It is also sharp, in fact its single distinguishing characteristic in my opinion is its very good sharpness at wide-open aperture. All lenses lose acuity at wide apertures, but this lens loses less than most, being nearly as sharp at f/2.8 as it is at f/5.6, and still quite good wide open at f/2.0. I have no qualms at all about putting this lens on my camera in low-light conditions and using it at any aperture right up to the maximum, even if I might want to make fairly large prints of the resulting images. One could nitpick to a degree (always stop down when sharpness is paramount), but I find the results absolutely acceptable and then some. A very good performance.
Actual peak (stopped-down) sharpness is very good but not quite equal to the best I've seen. Taking a variety of test shots with this lens and with my excellent 16-85mm VR zoom set at 35mm (this has become my reference lens for such purposes), the 16-85mm VR has an appreciable edge over the 35mm at all apertures it is capable of (f/4.5+). It's really hard to see the relevance of small differences in sharpness like this unless you are going to be printing large reproductions and expecting critical perfection, but the difference is there, and it definitely favors the 16-85. The 16-85mm is as sharp at f/4.5 as the 35mm is at f/8, and the 35mm never reaches the slightly higher level of sharpness that the 16-85mm can attain by f/5.6. The difference is naturally larger at wider apertures, and the 16-85, shooting with VR "on," can make far sharper images of static subjects in low light than the 35mm is capable of producing. This advantage does not carry over to objects in motion, however, an advantage that goes to any "fast" prime lens like this 35mm.
The 35mm is not a high-contrast lens. It does not use Nikon's contrast-enhancing ED glass in any of its elements, and colorful scenes are subtly toned-down by this lens in comparison to Nikon's most contrasty lenses. Again my 16-85mm is my standard in this regard, and comparing the two against one another, colors that leap off the screen when photographed with the 16-85 are less brightly rendered by this 35mm, with the difference actually being fairly significant. Although this can be a good thing with some subjects, I prefer the more dramatic color rendition of the higher-contrast lenses for the types of general photography I am inclined to use a 35mm lens for.
Overall, this is a fine lens. It has similar characteristics to the also-very-good 85mm f/1.8 AF-D Nikkor, and yet I find myself much more attached to the 85mm, which I love, than to the 35mm. Why? It really has to do with the particular benefits of these lenses being more relevant in the longer focal length. Depth-of-field isolation, for example, is a very attractive creative possibility with an 85mm lens, yet almost a contradiction in a 35mm lens, which naturally has a very wide depth of field. Such isolation is particularly helpful in portraits, for which the 85mm is well suited, the 35mm less so. The less aggressive color renditions can likewise be beneficial in photos of people, as skin tones are nicely reproduced and distracting colorful elements within the frame are less noticeable: again, less relevant in the 35mm focal length.
The ability to stop action with short shutter speeds, another purview of fast lenses, also is of limited usefulness in a 35mm lens. Kids playing close by, perhaps, but animals and sports? Not really. Finally there is the realm of low-light photography, where for still subjects, a slower lens with VR remains the better choice, allowing the maintenance of smaller apertures for broader depth and improved sharpness.
The result: for me, at least, only a limited set of minor niches exist for which the 35mm becomes the best choice: low light photography of moving subjects, occasional uses where narrow depth of field might be desirable in its focal range, and scenes of a type which benefit from its subtler color rendition.
The reality is that prime lenses used to be a photographer's first choice because they simply gave better image quality than zooms but zooms have come a long, long way and that is simply no longer the case today, at least not with this particular lens. What that means for my own photography is that I have to invent reasons to use this lens in place of my standard zoom, and when I do I invariably wind up taking it off again fairly quickly, because so much flexibility is lost with little compensation and because the less contrasty images simply don't have quite the impact that the 16-85mm VR can reliably produce.
This lens does earn each of its four stars for its very solid performance in all areas, but unlike the 85mm f/1.8 I am not inclined to treat it any more generously than that. It is a fine lens, but, for me, does not quite have the "must have" status that some others give it.
Notes:
Nikon has recently announced a 35mm f/1.8 AF-S prime for DX that will probably prove to be a much better choice for almost anybody shooting that format. Its optics will likely be optimized for high linear resolutions within the smaller DX image circle, and it may well turn out to be good enough to knock our socks off. No mention of ED glass in the literature, so we'll have to see if it turns out to be a high-contrast lens like many of the better/newer Nikkors. It's very reasonably priced. I have one on order and will likely post a review once I've had a chance to use it a while.
Because this is not a "G" type lens (meaning it has an aperture ring), and because it fits the FX/film format as well as DX, those who use more than one of these formats or who have older film cameras could benefit from this lens' versatility and might find it to be an excellent choice.
Focus is very quick and perfectly accurate on my sample.
Early copies of this lens commonly suffered from a problem with oil on the diaphragm blades. I haven't heard any references to this being an issue on newer samples. Be particularly aware if you are buying this lens used, especially if the particular sample's age/history is uncertain.
This lens has both a distance scale and a very good depth-of-field scale, unfortunately a rare feature on newer designs. The new DX version looks to have neither, which could be of some importance for anybody needing to choose between the two. On the other hand, the AF-S lens will allow immediate manual-focus over-ride, whereas the older AF-D lens requires that its user flip a switch on the camera body to go from autoto manual-focus.
0 comments:
Post a Comment