The Sweet Little 35mm

Hawken, our ten month old Irish Wolfhound, puts his paws on the gate at the back of the garage. Shot with my AF-S Nikkor 35mm f/1.8 at f/1.8, it is sharp, and exhibits a pleasing selective focus.
Hawken, our ten month old Irish Wolfhound, puts his paws on the gate at the back of the garage. Shot with my AF-S Nikkor 35mm f/1.8 at f/1.8, it is sharp, and exhibits a pleasing selective focus.
I bought my first 35mm lens, the venerable Nikkor f/2.0, in 1987. I later sold it to modernize, but sometimes miss its build and feel.
I bought my first 35mm lens, the venerable Nikkor f/2.0, in 1987. I later sold it to modernize, but sometimes miss its build and feel.

For much of my career in the film era, one of my favorite lenses was the Nikkor 35mm f/2. The focal length was great in the 35mm film era, and remains great in the digital era for several sensor sizes. Like its brother the 50mm, the 35mm prime (fixed focal length) can be manufactured inexpensively, can be made with a large maximum aperture, and remains small, lightweight, and inconspicuous.

A talented young friend of mine, Mackenzee Crosby, asked me recently about the Sigma 35mm f/1.4 Art lens. She shoots with a camera sporting a 24mm x 15mm sensor, so the Sigma isn’t really the right choice.

Ken Rockwell has a review of the Sigma, and spells it out pretty clearly about it: “Do not use this lens on Nikon DX cameras simply because the Nikon 35mm f/1.8 DX is as good optically, better mechanically and compatibility wise, and is smaller, lighter and less expensive.”

My AF-S Nikkor 35mm f/1.8 makes a nice, compact package on my D7100.
My AF-S Nikkor 35mm f/1.8 makes a nice, compact package on my D7100.
Shooting into the partially shaded setting sun can be a challenge for a lesser lens, but in most situations, the 35mm f/1.8 makes it sing.
Shooting into the partially shaded setting sun can be a challenge for a lesser lens, but in most situations, the 35mm f/1.8 makes it sing.
Not the lens for me...
I read that the Sigma 35mm f/1.4 requires recalibration every few months using a USB dock and Sigma software, which to me is a bright red flag. When I spend $600, $800, $1200 for a lens, I expect it to serve me long, well, and reliably, not requiring a “patch” every few months to keep it running.
I saw this guy shooting at an event in June with a Canon 85mm f/1.2. Big lens or small, this guy was too far from the subject to take advantage of focal length or aperture.
I saw this guy shooting at an event in June with a Canon 85mm f/1.2. Big lens or small, this guy was too far from the subject to take advantage of focal length or aperture.
One minor flaw of the AF-S 35mm f/1.8 is its tendency to flare pink in the background. It's fixable in Photoshop, but it is a flaw.
One minor flaw of the AF-S 35mm f/1.8 is its tendency to flare pink in the background. It’s fixable in Photoshop, but it is a flaw.

I recommended a lens to her that I have learned to love over the years, the AF-S Nikkor 35mm f/1.8 DX. Not only is this lens three or four times less expensive than the Sigma, it is lighter, smaller, and can render backgrounds – the real kernel of this class of lenses – just as beautifully as the Sigma.

As far as rendering backgrounds far out of focus, called selective focus, is concerned, the most powerful tool in the toolbox is the telephoto, not the wider-ish f/1.4s and f/1.8s. I recently talked about my 85mm, but the big guns, longer telephotos like the 70-200mm f/2.8, the 300mm f/2.8, and longer are the real kings.

If you are really serious about creaming your backgrounds into washes of soft colors, nothing challenges longer telephotos, like in this image, made with my AS Nikkor 180mm f/2.8 at f/2.8.
If you are really serious about creaming your backgrounds into washes of soft colors, nothing challenges longer telephotos, like in this image, made with my AS Nikkor 180mm f/2.8 at f/2.8.
The 35mm f/1.8's most endearing feature has to be its compact size and light weight, making it a perfect inconspicuous street lens.
The 35mm f/1.8’s most endearing feature has to be its compact size and light weight, making it a perfect inconspicuous street lens.

Also for what it’s worth, I am incredulous that some photographers I know own very expensive large-aperture lenses that they use stopped down two or three stops. The only difference between a 135mm f/1.8 art lens shot at f/4.5 and a 70-300mm kit lens shot at f/4.5 is $1500.

Also, Richard, (you might be asking), why are my friends getting such amazing images with the Sigma 35mm? It’s simply that by shooting on a larger sensor, the 35mm focal length gives a wider field of view, requiring the photographer to get closer in order to fill the frame. Closer + large aperture = shallow depth of field.

I consider the 35mm f/1.8 an excellent, nearly viceless lens, and wouldn't hesitate to recommend it to anyone shooting a Nikon with a 24mm x 15mm sensor.
I consider the 35mm f/1.8 an excellent, nearly viceless lens, and wouldn’t hesitate to recommend it to anyone shooting a Nikon with a 24mm x 15mm sensor.
Abby smiles for me as I photograph her near the famous Bellagio Fountains on the Las Vegas Strip, shot with the 35mm f/1.8 wide open. Note how gracefully the lights and colors are rendered by this lens.
Abby smiles for me as I photograph her near the famous Bellagio Fountains on the Las Vegas Strip, shot with the 35mm f/1.8 wide open. Note how gracefully the lights and colors are rendered by this lens.
2+

1 Comment

  1. Love the top photo of Hawken and the bottom one of Abby. Yes, the 35mm is/was a game changer for me. It has been my “go-to glass” for years now. It is the most versatile lens I own, works wonderfully well in low light, is lightweight, sturdy … everything you said, and more. If I could have just one lens (boring, but let’s just imagine), it would be this one.

    0

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.