My Sigma 18~50mm has a wobbly zoom, and now the zoom runs when it focuses.. So it's in the shop.
I bought a Nikon 35mm F2 today.. A few reasons: First, the lens is small, and I am sick and tired of hauling the garage around with me. Second, the lens is actually designed for film, so if later on, I do buy an FX, I will be able to use it.
I think Nikon should redesign some of their lenses; but this one isn't all that bad. They should put out their 28mm F2.8 with the 8 elements in 8 groups one in an AF format and I would have bought that over this one.
One of the things I take a lot of pics of is food; and this is the perfect food lens. It focuses very close, the "macroness" of it is quite good, and it's small and light. So next time I'm out at dinner and want to bring a lens just for food, this is it.
I also find this to be the best indoor lens to mate with a flash. Bounce flash this, and you get a "small group" (3 people) and/or a 3/4th shot of someone. All in all, excellent lens. But I highly recommend as with all camera lenses, that you buy it from a shop instead of ordering it online. The reason? I tested on out that was out for testing today, and it sucked badly. Not very sharp at all. I'm sure being the "beater" lens they put out to demo, I'm not surprised. The lens I ended up buying though was MUCH sharper, and as always, there will be sample variances and so you should definitely try before you buy the sample you are about to take home.
It's a front focus lens, and so the lens sticks out a bit when you focus in close, which scares me a little bit, and the focusing ring moves, which I don't like. But the advantage of front focus vs. internal focus is that you will not get lateral cyan/magenta splits on the CA. I've not noticed heavy CA on this lens, and I think resolution varies greatly with samples, so again, try before you buy.
I am a big fan of the 50mm perspective, the "way of no way" as Bruce Lee says, it's the perspective that isn't a perspective, and that lets me capture what looks natural. The way I shoot, while there are lies, damn lies, and then there's photography; with my pics, I like to be as neutral as possible, I'd like for you to be able to take one of my pics, look at it, and when you get to that place, have you say "This is EXACTLY like the pic". So a 50mm perspective gives me that. The Bokeh is nowhere near as good as my Olympus OM 50mm f1.8's, (that thing was a cream machine) but it's not as bad as everybody says, and it certainly isn't as bad as my Sigma 18~50mm was. The fact that there's no aspheric elements means that your bokeh circles don't look funky from aspheric element distortion.
On a DX, I think this is a superior lens over the 50mm F1.8, even though it's about $100 more. F2 vs f1.8 isn't really a difference. The 50mm is probably ever so slightly sharper, but honestly, most people have hands about as steady as a 92 year old drunk. So most talk about sharpness, but they basically need to learn to hold a camera steady first before they open their mouth. I've looked at hundreds of samples, I especially love to look at samples from people who complain about the lens sharpness, and when you zoom in, you see the smear that is handshake. So if you think a lens is not sharp, let me ask, have you tried it on a tripod, with mirror up and on a timer? And I don't mean that pigeon-toed 3 legged toothpick that people pass off as a tripod, I mean a heavy solid tripod. If so, then return the lens.
For me on a DX, this is the superior lens. The Sigma 30mm F1.4 is a stop faster, but also 2x as heavy and not as good in the corners. So make your decision accordingly. FX lens that's light and compact, or absolute center sharpness. I picked the former so I ended up with this lens.
