10 out of 10 points and recommendedImage quality, light weight, small, priceNone
I really love this lens. Period. It's my first prime lens since my film days years ago. I use D80's for my work, and am relatively new to professional work. I would love to have a 17-55/2.8 & 70-200/2.8VR set, but...well that is a big chunk of change, and my business is not that established. I was really lucky to have a friend that gave (yes gave) me an 80-200/2.8, that he wasn't using because he switched to Canon, and I was immediately blown away by the quality difference compared to my 18-135, which I think is a pretty good lens. So I pined over the 17-55/2.8, and finally chose to try this 35/2.0 prime for my shorter work. This little prime is a real gem, I do outdoor portraits, weddings and events and this little wonder is becoming the lens that gets the most sold photos. It's a normal lens on my DX format, and yes I do a little leg work with it, but in the end this is the lens that gets the most killer shots. I absolutely love my 80-200/2.8, but the image quality is a bit nicer with the 35mm and it is super easy to pack and carry. I love heavy lenses and scoff at people that complain about them. But, when I'm carrying a backpack, riding a bike in the middle of nowhere doing mountain bike shots, I have to say this 35mm is a welcome companion. It is just a very handy, high quality lens, and it ends up getting used a lot.reviewed October 17th, 2007 (purchased for $310)
10 out of 10 points and recommendedQuality build, super sharp, rich bokah, great manual focus ringNone.
If you are shooting DX Nikon, this is the best normal range zoom, you can get, period. It is superb in every way. It's worth every penny you spend on it. I've had this on my D80 and D300 for about 6 months. I find the picture quality to be on par or slightly better than my primes (I am a big prime lens fan, but the truth must be told) the only time I take this off my cam is when I need telephoto, or I need the addition stop(s) from a prime. I know you have VR on the tip of your tongue, but really, I don't need VR for things that are moving, and things that don't move I use a tripod. VR is really great technology, but I find it more useful on telephoto lenses. One thing to consider though, it is a big chunk of glass. It's impossible to be discrete in a crowd, you always look like a photographer or a guys with too much money. Sometimes I put on my 35mm F2 to walk around with, just to have something less noticeable. Whatever though, if you are thinking about buying this you are probably used to carrying around big cams.reviewed January 2nd, 2009 (purchased for $1,200)
10 out of 10 points and recommendedBuild quality, sharpness, bokehNone.
Super great lens. This lens was given to me from a friend who switched to Canon. I've had this for about 2 years, and have used it often, mostly for sports and outdoor portrait. I was surprised at how well it works for portrait. It is really nice for portrait from 80mm to about 105mm. It does get soft as you approach 200mm. The 70-200VR gets soft at 200mm also though. If you want tack sharp at 200mm, you'll have to cough up the dough for a 200mm F2. I don't have that kind of income. This lens has been good enough to make me put off buying the 70-200VR.reviewed January 2nd, 2009
0 out of 10 points and recommended
Just wanted to say thanks guys for doing this test! I have this lens sitting on my desk right now. I carried it with my OM1 on my shoulder for about 20 years. The camera body was destroyed, but the lens survived. Anyway, I'm buying the new Pen as soon as it's available with the 17mm lens. I'll get the adapter to use my old 50mm too. Will post on my experience with it later. :) Thanks again for doing the testing on this, can't wait to do my own.reviewed July 6th, 2009